Nice strawman @ekklesiagora. There is a big difference between involuntary servitude to the majority, and voluntary agreements between individuals. As such anarcho-capitalism is not a government. it is a system of governance with no rulers, just a lot of people voluntarily agreeing to trade under contracts. BIG DIFFERENCE from a democracy, where someone, or a group, calls the shots.
So you're basically saying original, classical anarchists weren't anarchists then? Because that is what it sounds like.
I figured you would ignore my objections to conflating capitalism with "wage slavery", and no I don't think sticking to commonly agreed definitions is "authoritarian". I have a problem when people claim capitalism is inherently a form of harm, or that its "wage slavery" which is based on a false dichotomy.
Capitalism is where the means of economic production are controlled privately, instead of publicly. It is purely an economic system in actuality, despite the OED and others claiming it is political in its means. It only becomes a political system when a state involves itself in markets, while inherently it is purely an economic system.
You said:
If people have access to land in order to grow crops, or to a basic income with which to purchase some means of production (tools and material to manufacture widgets at home, for instance), then they are freed from wage-slavery. Some people would still choose to work for wages, and that's fine, but no one would be forced to out of necessity.
No one under capitalism is forced to work for wages. They choose to. They can choose to try to start their own business, be self employed, or be self sufficient in society as well. The fact you think everyone must work for a wage is your inherent lack of understanding about Capitalism. Also, if people can own their own land to live off of, how can the land be owned communally? Your argument appears very inconsistent now, and as such it is inherently illogical.
On earth, there is an insane amount of land that is currently "owned by the state" and is not privately owned. As such, everyone could potentially be able to own their own plot of land, were it not for property taxes or other forms of taxation, or the state claiming it is theirs, without any chain of title as proof.
No, the term "free" in the way you are using it is a semantic distortion. If you mean free at the point of service, call it "publicly funded" and be done with it, otherwise you are massively misrepresenting reality by implying somehow these services cost nothing.
The fact you think markets are usually created by government policy clearly indicates you have no clue how economics works, or markets form. Markets form based on individual needs not being met by existing markets and industries. They form based on new ideas from individuals being implemented into goods and services, and said markets evolve based on consumer demands.
The only times governments create markets is when they £$^% up policy so badly that individuals have to create a new industry to manage those failures, or when their own management requirements over existing markets also require another market to do the work. Those are arbitrary markets, that only exist so long as specific government laws exist. Other markets, like food, insurance, healthcare, etc, are more permanent, and never needed the state in order to exist. So now that I have refuted your arguments, you probably better reiterate how free market capitalism is not a direct democracy.
I did google Democratic confederalism. I still don't see how it can function any different from the existing US county/state/federal system. In fact, it seems almost identical to the original setup of the 13 colonies after the war of independence but before the Whiskey Rebellion.
How can a form of democracy be both consensus based and direct? Which takes priority? When do you choose which to use? You are not being consistent, yet again.
Your description of a democratic federalism sounds like voting on all aspects of society. Why not just let people choose & pay for their solutions individually, or pool resources cooperatively & voluntarily if necessary? Why must those solutions be provided by a state monopoly, and why is that solution more efficient than a capitalist one?
What happens if only one of those local areas does not mutually agree to all the other areas? In a democracy, it is overruled by definition, but in anarchy it would be able to do as it saw fit.
I have to say the constant redirecting me to other 3 part sets of your content, 5 pages long, is not going to be beneficial for this or future discussions. So far, every time I have viewed another piece of content you provided, all i find are more logical inconsistencies, strawmen, false dichotomies, and other logical fallacies.
I have no desire, nor do i consider it good value, to spend all my steem power commenting solely on each of your threads in this way. If you desire to actually present a logical argument, do so in comments, accurately and succinctly, instead of directing me to 5 or 6 different 3 part series that I keep finding fault in, using individuals who made illogical arguments that you are basing yours on or parroting.
RE: On Anarchist Social Democracy: Taxation, Welfare, and Anarchy