Anarcho-capitalism
Is it not right for one person to rule over another person; it hurts society. Use rights (private property) are created through a unique connection between someone’s labor and nature (homesteading). Mutually beneficial trades and gifts can transfer use rights for one person to another. There are no exceptions to this.
Minarchism
A forceful monopoly of arbitration and national defense is justified to institute property rights, for which a government can tax. Beyond this, a government has no right to interfere in the market it has created.
Mixed economy
A forceful monopoly of arbitration and national defense is justified to institute property rights. Beyond this, a government has the right to intervene in the market for the public good in case of market failure, for better efficiency, as a safety net, or for equality.
State communism
A forceful monopoly of every good and service - the appropriation of all means of production and the assigning of jobs for it - is justified to create a better society.
Anarcho-communism
Is it not right for one person to rule over another person; it hurts society. Use rights of goods are justified by needs. Use rights of means of production are justified by participation, which has open entry.
Here the problem is how do you classify a commune in an anarcho-capitalist society? I personally just prefer a liberty scale of ascending and descending liberty, the most libertarian being anarchists and the least being socialists.
“[T]he crucial question is not, as so many believe, whether property rights should be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily ‘private’ owners are legitimate owners or criminals. For ultimately, there is no entity called ‘government’; there are only people forming themselves into groups called ‘governments’ and acting in a ‘governmental’ manner. All property is therefore always ‘private’; the only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals or of the proper and legitimate owners.”
It depends on whether they respect property rights of others. A family is a commune to a certain degree, and can be perfectly consistent with private property, because private property can be shared.
If they start violating property rights of others (people not voluntarily in the commune), then there is a conflict.
The goal is to make a chart where people of different ideologies feel comfortable with. Socialists profess belief in liberty too, just their understanding of liberty is different.
All of these scales and graphs of ideological positions conceal the fact that in principle, all of ideologies are the same except for the ancap free society.
So here’s a correct and simplified version. Go ahead and graph it: 2 points in space not connected:
The fact that this actually over-simplistic makes it impossible for it to be “correct”. There obviously are significant differences between many political ideologies, differences which aren’t made entirely irrelevant to their identity relative to other positions simply because all of them support a state in some manner. Just using one criteria to classify ideas is reductive to the extreme.
You actually have to prove that this is over simplistic to make that claim. You don’t just assert it.
It depends on how you define your terms. If “significant” simply refers to any discrepancy between two positions beyond some arbitrary subjective value, then the entire concept is scientifically meaningless. But if we are talking about difference in principle, then an argument for only National Defense but not for National Healthcare cannot possibly constitute a “significant difference”. In principle, both the minarchist and the communist embrace violence and reject the free society. In principle, they are the same. Only the ancap can be logically shown to stand on its own.
People with different ideologies have different ways of justifying them. If you know what people’s justifications are, then you can better deal with them.
I’m not talking about mere policy differences, but that various political philosophies have different central concepts, different heirarchies or networks of relations between concepts, different definitions of terms, and so on. The question of physical aggression and the general legitimacy of the state is only one criteria out of many that constitutes the content of political philosophies. In order to sensibly discuss political philosophies, one has to deal with them on their own terms, which means understanding what norms they emphasize over others and the specific theories that they have.
Setting up a map of political philosophies in terms of a consistency test through the lens of the central concepts and definitions of your own political philosophy can’t possibly be accurate.
It sounds like Anarcho-Capitalism with more specific behavioral intentions. Does it essentially boil down to people willingly pooling their private resources for mutual gain? Even if they did, it would still fall under Anarcho-Capitalism. Instead of trading items/currency/services for items/currency/services, you pool your resources and abilities together for a mutual course of action? That just sounds like a private business.
If your business happens to build a bridge, does that mean you cannot charge others not involved in its production for using it? Does it mean you do not own control of the bridge? I understand the concept of a commune, but only as a mythical ideal. Unless one both surrenders the concept of self and lives in a world without scarcity, I cannot rationalize communism existing without a central authority which essentially owns everything–refuting the idea of communism itself.
