UserWiki:Duck-Citizen

Left or Right My preferable social structure is Panarchy.png Panarchism, people form voluntary association or choose existing ones to live in it. It is what some ancoms,  mutualists, [[File:Ancapf.png ancaps and [[File:Ego.png]] egoists propose, but I favour ancap's distribution of land system, because I never saw explanation in other ideologies. I'm [[File:Rightunity-yellow.png]] right because of it, but inside of association people can form any economic model: [[File:Statecap.png]] local state owns everything, [[File:GE.png Gift Economy, [[File:Cap.png Capitalism, [[File:Soc-h.png worker's self management, it doesn't matter for me.

Auth or Libert Every association is voluntary, so owner can't hold people and can't include them against their will, unless they made irreversable damage, everyone should be able to leave. I'm Libunity-yellow.png]] libertarian because of it, even tho, there are systems that offers the same and considered authoritarian Cball-CSA.png]], but aside from this, all other rules, laws and fines can be very strict or very loose, it doesn't matter for me.

React or Prog It doesn't affect anything sugnificant, both can live separate from each other.

Enviroment or Industry As you can guess idea of Anthropogenic Climate Change doesn't fit there... well, it doesn't exist then. However all other problems, proven or not can be fought locally by associations however they see possible.

Deontological Ethics Property Any action dictated by values, if ask yourself many many times why you did something, you find it. And for me this value is liberty or freedom, being free. What is required to be free? Obviously, first thing required is selfownership, if someone else owns you, you are slave, opposite of being free. What is next? Can person own something else except himself? Let's assume everything else have no owner, and nobody can own it. In this case, you cannot interact with anything, can't even touch. What if everything is owned by everyone? In this case, you must ask everyone whether or not you can use anything, that's absurd because every action would take insane amount of time to performe. We can conclude, that ownership outside of your body must have a condition. There are two of them: claiming by word and claiming by action. Claim by word wouldn't be enough because it would require one to transmit this information about ownership constantly to all nearby people, meanwhile action is visible to everyone who stamble upon such property.

Thus, I can conclude that Lockean way of receiving property initially is required for freedom. That covers not only private property but also "personal" property, temporal characteristic of property in Mutualism, property in Gift Economy, even Communalism. Difference with them goes not in a fact that person can own and use resources, but how. By itself concept of property between different ideologies have enough in common to form voluntary associations between different views on it (with exception of Communalism, which is a strawman anyway).

Now I would like to explain how exactly I see property working in defferent systems:

Communalism - people claim ownership by action, but they cannot refuse a trade, on the other hand the person who took something from you cannot refuse trade either. I didn't expect much from a concept done for fun. Gift Economy - people claim ownership by action, trade is voluntary, you can gift something back in the same time or later. Renting is impossible since you can't agree on returning ownership back. Market Socialism - You cannot rent property therefore cannot hire workers, you need share property with them for it. It seems to me as even harsher system than capitalism, and capitalism is going in this direction. [[File:Mutalist.pngPrudon proposed duration of ownership, that you need to physically touch it from time to time, to continue for it to be yours. This condition doesn't affect freedom from my perspective. [[File:Cap.png]] Capitalism - Hire, Rent, Gift, everything you can do there. But ownership is permanent. [[File:Soc-h.png]] Socialism - TBA [[File:Cameralism.png]] [[File:Statesoc.png]] [[File:Statecap.png]] [[File:Corptism.png]] [[File:Socauth.png]] State Economy - I don't see difference between them. If voluntary association decided that it is the best for them, it's fine. All resources belongs to one entity. Trade, Rent, Gift forbidden or regulated. [[File:Illeg.png]] Theft - Involuntary trade as well as Communalism. Both sides are not equal in actions to choose, I don't see difference with what state does usually. Alignments Neutral:

All ideologies can coexist with Anarcho-Capitalism Illegalism - depends on context Negative: Avaritionism Imperialists Globalists Ultranationalists Jails: Hoxhaism Juche Stalinism Cuba Iran Salazarism Myanmar Dengism Honeckerism Users Friendly Heinrich Cheung - His endgoal is horrible, but he also believes his system can be build only after anacho-capitalism. TheGhostOfInky - His endgoal is fine, but he also a strong supporter of austrian economics school, so we have no ground for debate. Ideologically close JoeyFloppa PoliticalFactMachine Coindorni Councilguy Omega Flugel - He agrees with Tucker about source of rights. Bsaheedism Inky ForestCryptid Baconsalad LordCompost86 Niveous Laccolith BeryAb-ism Affiliatedism Territorial statists Bman IvarsBalodis Skyrum536 rNazor - you tell it is right to kill communists and claim yourself to be panarchist, make up your mind. Avelicius Tony Pirate Tails Typicalfan4 Nuoh Individual imperialism ChronicFemcel Imperialists KaiserKlausMouse Ukraiana Aaron Matteel Comments section