[prog2djent]

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
This political philosophy sounds more and more utopian as people educate me about it. 'Abolishing taxes' is an absurd suggestion, how on Earth will essential emergency services/contracts/defence be enforced without public funding? Taxes essentially transfer the money necessitated for health care/general maintenance directly, if you took away taxes, the individual would still have to put this money into the same systems.

Admittedly, i'm not an economist and the 'natural monopoly' is an assumption. I don't believe the state is in any way a moral authority but is a necessary evil. A form of minor regulation is necessary, libertarianism might have worked in a different time context, but it seems to be lacking something for me.

Since you have made you're mind up about public services I won't try to convince you otherwise, I used to be on that side of the argument too but its taken me a few years and a few books to get me to where I am.

I, as a TSR user, won't convince you in one post haha.

So I've just enboldened some bits I'll respond to

If you took away taxes, yes, people would still have to spend their money on services, but the point is they are more voluntary with more choice then when the state points a gun at you're head for taxes, and says you have to give them you're money. To put it in perspective, imagine if three blokes turned up at you're house, and said they will beat you up and thrown you in a cage if you don't give them you're money to pay for you're future healthcare (even if you didn't want it or need it) AND to pay for old lady doris down the road. You would be outraged, and call the police. Well, that example is essentially what the state and the police do, the state demands money through taxes, to pay for healthcare on you're behalf (depite the fact you may not use it), and to pay for other people, and the actual police force, are the tool they threaten you with if you don't cough up the cash. The only difference is, we have grown up with this model as a societal norm, and the government has the law, which it invented for itself, on its side.

I could go into where you're tax money goes aswell (not what you think), will on request.

In a libt society, you don't have to be forced to cover for people, you have choice of care, and you spend you're money when you need it. Additionally, what it forces you do to is act more responsibly, so that you won't need to spend you're cash at all. And you are spending it on you're behalf, and no-one is forcing you.

And for the second enboldened part, I actually, agree, libertarianism would work better, in my opinion, if we were starting off a society from scratch (or as you say in a different time or context). Which is where the argument arises between (right wing) libertarians such as agorists (market anarchsits), anarcho capitalists and minarchists (minimal state, who favour democracy), the first two are revolutionary, the 3rd is democratic.

In my personal opinion, if a libertarian government was democratically elected right now, it would be a disaster in the short term.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
I miss being Libertarian. Everything seemed so much simpler back then. Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, the market will resolve the rest. Great times.

What are you know? I used to be a bit of an extremist, yes, a market anarchist (always tried to avoid the term anarcho capitalist) but I've shifted towards mutualism and georgism of late.

Which basically covers up the GAPING hole of private property and land, essentially, the crux of free market failure, where a most right wing libertarian societies would see failure, even though other areas are largely a big success. Sorta like the society we have now only slightly better hahahahahaha

[Captain Haddock]

(Original post by prog2djent)
What are you know? I used to be a bit of an extremist, yes, a market anarchist (always tried to avoid the term anarcho capitalist) but I've shifted towards mutualism and georgism of late.

Which basically covers up the GAPING hole of private property and land, essentially, the crux of free market failure, where a most right wing libertarian societies would see failure, even though other areas are largely a big success. Sorta like the society we have now only slightly better hahahahahaha

For everyday purposes my views tend to be social democratic but idealistically I'd say maybe libertarian socialist, so I guess I never totally abandoned the idea, I just shifted economically from what most people think of when they hear 'libertarian'.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
For everyday purposes my views tend to be social democratic but idealistically I'd say maybe libertarian socialist, so I guess I never totally abandoned the idea, I just shifted economically from what most people think of when they hear 'libertarian'.

Yes, even though the original version(s) of libertarianism were anarchist/socialist in nature, we (the right) have stolen libertarian off you to differentiate ourselves from authoritarian social conservatives, who are usually crony capitalists. In the same way that liberal was stolen off us, liberal used to mean people Like Mises, Hayek, Friedman.

I haven't made the (jump?) to libsoc, and never will me thinks. I'm not wanting to start a debate (can if you want) about the whole idea, but as I've said, I've gone from market anarhcist which is as far right as you can get towards georgism (market anarchism + Land value tax and a central state safety net) and Mutualism, which is a variant of market socialism. I'm sure you know the works of Proudhon and Carson

[chefdave]

(Original post by Captain Haddock)
I miss being Libertarian. Everything seemed so much simpler back then. Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone, the market will resolve the rest. Great times.

The main drawback with libertarianism that libs will go so far and then back off when it comes to tackling the bigger issues such as the housing market. But i don't see anything wrong with the idea of leaving people alone, it's much better than pointing a gun at them and forcing them to do x,y and z which forms the first principles of ideologies like socialism.

[Cheese_Monster]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Since you have made you're mind up about public services I won't try to convince you otherwise, I used to be on that side of the argument too but its taken me a few years and a few books to get me to where I am.

I, as a TSR user, won't convince you in one post haha.

So I've just enboldened some bits I'll respond to

If you took away taxes, yes, people would still have to spend their money on services, but the point is they are more voluntary with more choice then when the state points a gun at you're head for taxes, and says you have to give them you're money. To put it in perspective, imagine if three blokes turned up at you're house, and said they will beat you up and thrown you in a cage if you don't give them you're money to pay for you're future healthcare (even if you didn't want it or need it) AND to pay for old lady doris down the road. You would be outraged, and call the police. Well, that example is essentially what the state and the police do, the state demands money through taxes, to pay for healthcare on you're behalf (depite the fact you may not use it), and to pay for other people, and the actual police force, are the tool they threaten you with if you don't cough up the cash. The only difference is, we have grown up with this model as a societal norm, and the government has the law, which it invented for itself, on its side.

I could go into where you're tax money goes aswell (not what you think), will on request.

In a libt society, you don't have to be forced to cover for people, you have choice of care, and you spend you're money when you need it. Additionally, what it forces you do to is act more responsibly, so that you won't need to spend you're cash at all. And you are spending it on you're behalf, and no-one is forcing you.

And for the second enboldened part, I actually, agree, libertarianism would work better, in my opinion, if we were starting off a society from scratch (or as you say in a different time or context). Which is where the argument arises between (right wing) libertarians such as agorists (market anarchsits), anarcho capitalists and minarchists (minimal state, who favour democracy), the first two are revolutionary, the 3rd is democratic.

In my personal opinion, if a libertarian government was democratically elected right now, it would be a disaster in the short term.

Don't worry, you're quite convincing in a single post and obviously I only came on this thread to develop my knowledge of what we call 'libertarianism' but of course I have reservations. ;P I'd like to think I haven't developed a whole world-view yet and I am extremely reluctant to follow the parental line towards Labour.

I completely empathise with the apparent 'illegitimacy' of the state taking away money but I think the analogy is quite different. Taxation, from a certain viewpoint, is at least legalised theft and I'm definitely not saying that all taxation is good or that its not excessive or wasted, but at its barebones it can be a force for good that people will not necessarily accept. The 'voluntary' aspect of it seems fair, but people won't naturally volunteer to spend their money on essential provisions like road maintenance, refuse collectors, enivornmental planning, community centres, subsidised care for the elderly, the mentall and physically disabled who may not be able to work, libraries etc.

The point is, some of these services are essential for the community and not just the individual, the voluntary aspect of one's own money is important but not if it leads to problems for the wider community. (I think i'm forming an inner argument over the rights of the individual vs the majority right here haha )

I'm glad you agree with that part, I think that's the one sensible suggestion I've made, just as I think Communism will only ever work back in primitive tribal communities or perhaps a futuristic nuclear wartorn world.

I do admire Libertarianism for attempting to provide an alternative to what can only be described as a shambolic method of governing in its current form in Parliament. (Or even Ron Paul in the US, not sure what you think about him?)

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
As in equality of opportunity. Socio-economic divisions being less of an issue in moving up the ladder. Does libertarianism advocated anti-monopoly practices or offer any form of limited welfare?

I would assume not because Nozick said that the state taking money from an individual was "theft"?

I recommend reading into what would be best called 'left-wing market anarchism', the idea that capitalism as we know it, i.e the economic system we see around us which is rife with inequality and the dominance of capitalists, is the result of the state, not of markets, and that a truly freed market would look more egalitarian than the economy right now which is riddled with privilege for the rich.

As for 'anti-monopoly practices', the state is the greatest engine for monopolisation and cartelisation ever devised. Regulation is typically lobbied for by the major players in the industry affected, and then used to constrict production and raise profits. Anti-monopoly laws do the same thing.

I really can't recommend the book Markets Not Capitalism enough. It covers everything from corporations and neo-liberalism (opposed to both) to equality and environmentalism. All from a radically free(d!) market perspective.

Here's an interview with one of the editors:

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
Don't worry, you're quite convincing in a single post and obviously I only came on this thread to develop my knowledge of what we call 'libertarianism' but of course I have reservations. ;P I'd like to think I haven't developed a whole world-view yet and I am extremely reluctant to follow the parental line towards Labour.

I completely empathise with the apparent 'illegitimacy' of the state taking away money but I think the analogy is quite different. Taxation, from a certain viewpoint, is at least legalised theft and I'm definitely not saying that all taxation is good or that its not excessive or wasted, but at its barebones it can be a force for good that people will not necessarily accept. The 'voluntary' aspect of it seems fair, but people won't naturally volunteer to spend their money on essential provisions like road maintenance, refuse collectors, enivornmental planning, community centres, subsidised care for the elderly, the mentall and physically disabled who may not be able to work, libraries etc.

The point is, some of these services are essential for the community and not just the individual, the voluntary aspect of one's own money is important but not if it leads to problems for the wider community. (I think i'm forming an inner argument over the rights of the individual vs the majority right here haha )

I'm glad you agree with that part, I think that's the one sensible suggestion I've made, just as I think Communism will only ever work back in primitive tribal communities or perhaps a futuristic nuclear wartorn world.

I do admire Libertarianism for attempting to provide an alternative to what can only be described as a shambolic method of governing in its current form in Parliament. (Or even Ron Paul in the US, not sure what you think about him?)

Thanks for the reply, I won't be responding to some of the non-enboldened parts either because I agree with you or simply cannot answer

I agree that taxaction can be a force for, which Is why I am warming to the idea of the Land Value tax ... the only tax. Taxes on production, spending, saving and achievement are all immoral because people are taking away what you have earned for yourself. However, with a land tax, you haven't created the land, and are essentially claiming it is yours, barring everyone else use from it, when land is equal to all. So with that tax, I think it could be used to cover public services that disadvantaged people really cannot afford, so it is a social safety net, aswell as the freeing up and use of charities that would occur in that style of libertarian society, to cover for immoral state welfare (theft) that serves as a fishing net, not a safety net in which people bounce back from

I used to be favourable towards Paul, he is better than all the other republican candidates and the democrats, that is until I found out about Gary Johnson, and decided to dig deep into paul's policies and congress record, instead of basing my opinions on him on his soundbites and "general" policies, in which he only speaks of those when debating with the other nutters in the republican party, and dumbs policies down for the audience, and to attract independent voters, disillusioned obama voters, and more liberal leaning republicans.

I fully agree with him on his foreign policy, free speach, the 2nd ammendment, and agree with his principles on the economy. Other than that, its pretty murky. All I'll say for now is that on issues such as gay marriage, the drug war/legalisation, abortion, property rights, race comments, theories on federal powers, states rights ... etc, are not entirely what you would think.

I had a bit of a rant in another post about him yesterday, I'll find it in my edit

[prog2djent]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I recommend reading into what would be best called 'left-wing market anarchism', the idea that capitalism as we know it, i.e the economic system we see around us which is rife with inequality and the dominance of capitalists, is the result of the state, not of markets, and that a truly freed market would look more egalitarian than the economy right now which is riddled with privilege for the rich.

As for 'anti-monopoly practices', the state is the greatest engine for monopolisation and cartelisation ever devised. Regulation is typically lobbied for by the major players in the industry affected, and then used to constrict production and raise profits. Anti-monopoly laws do the same thing.

I really can't recommend the book Markets Not Capitalism enough. It covers everything from corporations and neo-liberalism (opposed to both) to equality and environmentalism. All from a radically free(d!) market perspective.

Here's an interview with one of the editors:

I think you're possibly going in a bit deep haha, it took me a while to get my head around free-market anti-capitalism.

Though, I don't really look at agorism as anti-capitalism, really, is it? I've always thought it is essentially anarcho-capitalism, also with a revolution, except placing an emphasis of destroying the state by flooding all capital, therefore avoiding tax, into the black market and gret economy. Surely, what you speak of, is Mutualism.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I've shifted towards mutualism and georgism of late.

Which basically covers up the GAPING hole of private property and land.

I agree that there has been a lack of analysis by Cato/Reason/Paulite minarchists when it comes to 'the land question', but I don't think that applies to neo-Lockean market anarchists. Rothbard, for example, wrote extensively on the issue, and so have modern left-Rothbardians like Roderick Long.

[l.j.s18ftw]

(Original post by nickster146)
iv noticed recently that a lot of people in my sixth form have started saying they are Libertarians, and a number of people on facebook are reading articles about Ron Paul and writing positive comments. however, whenever i ask them about it they show very little understanding of what Libertarianism actually is, and a lot of them focus on Ron Pauls foreign policy (which is great in my opinion) but show hardly any understanding of his social policies (not so great in my opinion). im not trying to criticism Libertarianism here, i just feel like its become the latest trendy political thing, and a lot of people are hopping on he bandwagon without actually learning what it is. it kind of reminds me of the 2010 election when loads of young people started saying they supported the Lib Dems and then didnt actually know anything about their policies.
was wondering if anyone else has noticed this? or maybe if people have been doing this themselves haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpJQEcXP7A

[prog2djent]

(Original post by l.j.s18ftw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpJQEcXP7A

The original verision of libertarianism, what chomsky advocates, would be even worse than what the majority of American Libertarians advocate.

If chomsky could admit that Liberal has been stolen from the right, and the right stole libertarian from the left, I'd be happy.

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I think you're possibly going in a bit deep haha, it took me a while to get my head around free-market anti-capitalism.

Though, I don't really look at agorism as anti-capitalism, really, is it? I've always thought it is essentially anarcho-capitalism, also with a revolution, except placing an emphasis of destroying the state by flooding all capital, therefore avoiding tax, into the black market and gret economy. Surely, what you speak of, is Mutualism.

http://www.agorism.info/capitalism

It entirely depends upon how one defines capitalism. If one were to define capitalism as a free market than both agorism, which you are right in pointing out is a revolutionary form of anarcho-capitalism (worst. word. ever.), and mutualism are pure capitalism, since neither feels the need for arbitrary deviations from its set of property rights. If, on the other hand, you define capitalism as 'whatever we have now and have had since the 19th century' then agorism is most certaintly anti-capitalistic, but not to the same extent as mutualism since mutualism is prescriptively opposed to landlords, while agorism is descriptively opposed to landlords.

[Cheese_Monster]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Thanks for the reply, I won't be responding to some of the non-enboldened parts either because I agree with you or simply cannot answer

I agree that taxaction can be a force for, which Is why I am warming to the idea of the Land Value tax ... the only tax. Taxes on production, spending, saving and achievement are all immoral because people are taking away what you have earned for yourself. However, with a land tax, you haven't created the land, and are essentially claiming it is yours, barring everyone else use from it, when land is equal to all. So with that tax, I think it could be used to cover public services that disadvantaged people really cannot afford, so it is a social safety net, aswell as the freeing up and use of charities that would occur in that style of libertarian society, to cover for immoral state welfare (theft) that serves as a fishing net, not a safety net in which people bounce back from

I used to be favourable towards Paul, he is better than all the other republican candidates and the democrats, that is until I found out about Gary Johnson, and decided to dig deep into paul's policies and congress record, instead of basing my opinions on him on his soundbites and "general" policies, in which he only speaks of those when debating with the other nutters in the republican party, and dumbs policies down for the audience, and to attract independent voters, disillusioned obama voters, and more liberal leaning republicans.

I fully agree with him on his foreign policy, free speach, the 2nd ammendment, and agree with his principles on the economy. Other than that, its pretty murky. All I'll say for now is that on issues such as gay marriage, the drug war/legalisation, abortion, property rights, race comments, theories on federal powers, states rights ... etc, are not entirely what you would think.

I had a bit of a rant in another post about him yesterday, I'll find it in my edit

I've never had such an agreeable discussion on TSR without being hit with a straw man or someone negging me into next week because something I may have said may be different to someone else, so thank you for not being in that category :P

A land value tax sounds appropriate and practical but i'm not sure if that value would be able to cope with the financial cost of certain essential services/welfare etc.

Ah its good to go beyond the portrayal within the media, I can't say i've researched much on Paul myself but have had a little gander at some of his domestic and foreign policies. I would agree that his foreign policy is a breath of fresh air, but I can't help but feel that even those who have never been in office would inevitably follow the conventional roots set by the Republican/Democrats in the US, i.e. much of the same foreign interventionist policy.

What is his position on abortion and race? I would presume as a libertarian he would legalise all drugs, i'm not totally against this, I just think that if you have a load of high people driving its a recipe for disaster!

[Cheese_Monster]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
I recommend reading into what would be best called 'left-wing market anarchism', the idea that capitalism as we know it, i.e the economic system we see around us which is rife with inequality and the dominance of capitalists, is the result of the state, not of markets, and that a truly freed market would look more egalitarian than the economy right now which is riddled with privilege for the rich.

As for 'anti-monopoly practices', the state is the greatest engine for monopolisation and cartelisation ever devised. Regulation is typically lobbied for by the major players in the industry affected, and then used to constrict production and raise profits. Anti-monopoly laws do the same thing.

I really can't recommend the book Markets Not Capitalism enough. It covers everything from corporations and neo-liberalism (opposed to both) to equality and environmentalism. All from a radically free(d!) market perspective.

Here's an interview with one of the editors:

I did think when I suggested anti-monopoly practices that the current system is monopolised quite a lot due to the state, so what you're saying is largely true.

Thanks, I'll put that book on the list of political texts i'll go through after my last exam!

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Cheese_Monster)
I've never had such an agreeable discussion on TSR without being hit with a straw man or someone negging me into next week because something I may have said may be different to someone else, so thank you for not being in that category :P

A land value tax sounds appropriate and practical but i'm not sure if that value would be able to cope with the financial cost of certain essential services/welfare etc.

Ah its good to go beyond the portrayal within the media, I can't say i've researched much on Paul myself but have had a little gander at some of his domestic and foreign policies. I would agree that his foreign policy is a breath of fresh air, but I can't help but feel that even those who have never been in office would inevitably follow the conventional roots set by the Republican/Democrats in the US, i.e. much of the same foreign interventionist policy.

What is his position on abortion and race? I would presume as a libertarian he would legalise all drugs, i'm not totally against this, I just think that if you have a load of high people driving its a recipe for disaster!

The land value tax is a 100% tax, everyone pays it. So I'm pretty sure it would have most of the government income (that would be lost with other taxes demolished) covered, and the point it with those services, according to libertarians, is that with most taxes abolished, people will have so much more money to spend on the services, and they won't be paying for them permenantly (like today), only when needed, whilst not paying for others either. Addionally, since we would be freeing up those areas to the free market, prices would be driven down significantly due to competition, and the fact the state isn't taxing businesses, and businesses always deal with taxes by passing on the cost to the customer, driving prices up.

I'd used the word "murky" to describe his social policy, and that its not what you think, because his policies aren't libertarian, whereas most fans think they are. Social conservatives would be suspicious of his social policy, because he tries to portray himself as a social liberal in that respect, I.e drug legalisation, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, which of course, conservatives are opposed to. But I am opposing him because he ISN'T for those things, for gay marriage, he says he doesn't want the federal government to band it, but leave the decision to individual states, so if a state wants to continue the drug war, Paul would allow it, and if a state wishes to abolish it, he would allow it. The same goes for the war on drugs. About the only thing he is for in that area, is medical cannabis, which he would legalise at a federal level, which is kind of hypocritical, seen as he is a constitutionalist, and they are anti-federalism.

I don't trust a man who is hypocrital and is dishonest, using the name libertarian when he clearly isn't. I think he uses the label to differentiate himself from the mainstream republican party, and to appeal to young voters, who are disillusioned with liberal (progressive really) politicians. Paul is a constitutionalist, which means that the government should be limited to whatever the constitution says, but on some issues he is a constitutional revisionst, meaning he supports amending some of the points. Which puts him in the catagory of "old-right", I/e, republican of the past. Since WW2, the party has moved into two areas, neo-conservatism, and the "religious" right, two examples would be George bush and mitt romeny for the neo cons, and Rick Santorum as a religious rightist. The religious right and the old right cross over in areas such as religion, they are both creationist anti-science. The neo-cons share some things with the old rights for things like slightly liberal attitudes to free speech and personal freedom, but neo-conservativism is strong on military agression, whereas old rightists are non-interventionist, or in this case, anti-imperialist.

I am pro-drug legalisation
Pro - abortion (forgot to mention, he wants a federal ban on abortion)
and Pro-gay marriage, areas where paul is murky on.

On the race issue, in the early 90's some newsletters from the Paul campaign group were published basically perpetuating stereo-types about African Americans, and talking about a whole host of consipacy theories. Initially, people thought Paul had written them, as he had signed them for approval, or atleast, paul had read them, agreed, and signed them. However, it was speculated by Paul's fans that someone called Lew Rockwell wrote them, another "old right" christian type, but It's been found out someone called "Robert Powell" wrote them. The question is in whether Paul read the letters, and still published them, which means he agreed, or he didn't even read them, like the Paul campaign and paul say, and it was a slip up due to his time being spent in Congressional campaigns, which suggests his isn't too great at personal responsibility, a libertarian pillar, and the fact this man could be president.

[D.R.E]

I don't understand why people are so interested in what US Presidential candidates think about these random issues; presidents have virtually no power over a lot of domestic issues, so whether Ron Paul is pro-gay, pro/anti-life or whatever else is completely irrelevant. Even most of his economic ideas don't matter because Congress would block any bill he proposed unless the vast majority agreed - which is highly unlikely.

The only part of Ron Paul's (and any other presidential candidate for that matter) that really matters is their foreign policy views. This is the only policy area where the president has near absolute discretion, and doesn't need to hurdle over Congress to effect serious change.

[Lukfisto]

oh come on. USA in 20s had so called libertarianism and we all know what happened.

Libertarianism the biggest flaw is that is driven by profit motive, competition and individualism. Since, people are greedy until they suffer lack of commodities. This, will definitely lead to second depression and possibly - to wars.

Meanwhile, socialism (libertarian socialism) is driven by collectivism, equality, which is still an utopian theory, but way more realistic than libertarian capitalism and so on.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by D.R.E)
I don't understand why people are so interested in what US Presidential candidates think about these random issues; presidents have virtually no power over a lot of domestic issues, so whether Ron Paul is pro-gay, pro/anti-life or whatever else is completely irrelevant. Even most of his economic ideas don't matter because Congress would block any bill he proposed unless the vast majority agreed - which is highly unlikely.

The only part of Ron Paul's (and any other presidential candidate for that matter) that really matters is their foreign policy views. This is the only policy area where the president has near absolute discretion, and doesn't need to hurdle over Congress to effect serious change.

The problem I have with him is that his aim is to influence the republican party, and leave his mark. Though his ideas are a step above the current "status quo" (a word severely overused by Paul haha), his ideas of states rights will make some states even more illiberal than they currently are, since the federal courts are over-riding their backwardness, such as the fact most southern states were forced by the supreme court to recognise Homosexual status, and the equal right that come along with it, and overriding sodomy laws aswell :P.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Lukfisto)
oh come on. USA in 20s had so called libertarianism and we all know what happened.

Libertarianism the biggest flaw is that is driven by profit motive, competition and individualism. Since, people are greedy until they suffer lack of commodities. This, will definitely lead to second depression and possibly - to wars.

Meanwhile, socialism (libertarian socialism) is driven by collectivism, equality, which is still an utopian theory, but way more realistic than libertarian capitalism and so on.

Hardly.

And collectivist libertarian socialism, would, in my opinion, be a disaster. We only have to look at history (spain) to find tha out.

Would you not be geared towards a free market anti-capitalist type of libertarianism? One which is non-coercive, like anarcho-communism and social anarchism(s) and is competely pacifist and panarchist.