Showing posts with label Radical Political Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radical Political Theory. Show all posts

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Summary of My Political Views

Written on October 7th, 2012
Edited in April 2014

[Note: this does not necessarily represent the
full breadth of my views as of the present day.]



  1. Constitutional-republican (rule of written law)
  2. Voluntary confederalist (lack of compulsory inter-governmental association)
  3. National Personal Autonomist / National Personal Sovereigntist (citizenry without denizenry / no unnatural territorial sovereignty)
  4. Dual-federalist (geographical diffusion of power)
  5. Multi-federalist / subsidiarist (structural diffusion of power)
  6. Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictionist (diffusion of political power across subject matter and policy topics)
  7. Market-anarchist and Agorist (competition in governance and the provision of public commodities)
  8. Synthesis-anarchist (syncretism and reconciliation of systemic economic theories)
  9. Quasi-panarchist (rule according to the will of nearly all)
  10. Longian post-Lockean polyarchist (rule according to the will of free choice from among a set of competing alternative agents and agencies offering to rule)
  11. Proviso-Lockean (rejection of property agreements based on historical exploitation and which impair the utility of others)
  12. Mutualist (mutual support, reciprocity, reciprocal altruism, and voluntary association, cooperation, collaboration, and organization)
  13. New Institutional Economics anarchist (elimination of transaction costs to bring about alternative property rights assignments to internalize conflicts and externalities)
  14. Pan-secessionist anarchist (counter-economicism, counter-culturalism, and counter-politics)
  15. Anti-tripartist / anti-neo-corporatist / anti-integral-nationalist anarchist (opposition to undue government influence on – and intrusion into, and intervention in – the negotiation between agencies of labor and capital)



For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

What is Political Radicalism?

Political radicalism is not strictly a province of either socialism or capitalism, nor even of anarchism or authoritarianism; it is not inextricably linked to any specific systematic political, social, or economic ideology.

Written on June 21st, 2011



   It is not even necessarily that political radicalism is primarily driven by any kind of positivist philosophy, i.e., by any kind of tendency towards supporting the freedom of dissidence or contention.

   Rather, political radicalism is primarily driven by an aversion towards compromise, accommodation, and reconciliation.

   Unlike political reactionaries, political radicals do not wish to return political society to some previous state of being, but rather to bring political society into some yet unrealized theoretical state which has never before existed in the geographic locality in which their society operates. It is in this way that political radicalism is a reaction to reactionism itself.

   This is because - while reactionaries see the current state of society and seek to remedy its problems by gradually returning to a previous state - radicals denounce and question the validity of the premises on which both current and previous societies existed.


   Radicals view the solution to most sociopolitical problems as overcoming the limitations of the present reality through the affecting of instantaneous change, whether that change be concrete, physical, and violent (as in revolution); or immaterial, intangible, abstract, and peaceful (as in a philosophical awakening in which the people begin to find the freedom which they seek to be latent in the current reality around them, existing in pockets and waiting to be seized and taken advantage of).





For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Political Theory Flow Chart

Created in November 2013






This is my first and thus far only attempt at creating such a flow chart;

as such, it does not contain nearly enough historical information to be considered complete.





For more entries on philosophy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/max-stirner-images.html

For more entries on the political spectrum, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/political-spectrum-for-2016-us.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Statism to Anarchy: A Staircase Model




The above image is informed by the notion that geolibertarian reforms
would bring about the kind of voluntary, private communal organization
which alone would make possible communal-level anarchist experimentation.

The use of the term "staircase model" was inspired by Molly Meadows.



For more entries on coalition building and ideological caucuses, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-piscean-ethic-in-government-ecology.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Proletarian Radical Agorist Economics (P.R.A.E.)

              Proletarian Radical Agorist Economics (P.R.A.E., pronounced “pray”) is an effort to promote the preservation of the roots of family in political, economic, and social life; and the examination of the etymological roots of political vocabulary words.

The proletariat is the reproductively fertile class that proliferates and prolongs life. To be radical is to strike and grasp at the root. The agora are the open marketplaces for free and equal association and exchange. Economics denotes the art and study of household financial management.
P.R.A.E. promotes catallaxy, the spontaneous order which results from the mutual adjustment of many individual economies (households) to one another. P.R.A.E. additionally supports counter-economics and increased consumer influence on the regulation of marketplaces (towards conditions of perfection and completeness of competition).

The U.S. federal Government has planned approximately $200 trillion in future spending (major fiscal exposure). If the workforce could double in efficiency and also productive capacity (productive for the State) for the next 40 years (until people now in their late twenties retire around 65), then in the 2050s, by the time our children are just a decade or two older than we are now, we could see ourselves with balanced government budgets, a sustainable post-scarcity economy with efficient distribution.
The yuppies won, transcended, and abandoned the American Dream, making more and working less than their parents but also than their children, sometimes even joining professional associations and guilds so as to lower job mobility and the ability of children to enter the same trades as their parents; this has increased animosity between the generations.
However, with hard work, we might see a situation in which our generation (or our children's generation) could be the last generation to ever work under conditions of inadequate provision of the tools necessary to perform the relevant tasks, and to pay part of the product of labor to for-profit government as tribute.


P.R.A.E. is dedicated to:

- Promoting personal responsibility, self-restraint, personal liberty, and the freedom to take risks.

- Discussing how to best teach the next generation that private property (freedom to exclude) is conditional upon periodic sharing; i.e., refraining from always excluding others from equal freedom to access, use, possess, and occupy.

- Protecting the right to refuse help, and freedom from coercion and bribery into dependence.

- Ensuring the right of parents to refuse to sign their children up for the selective military service (i.e., the draft).

- Protecting the right of parents to retain custody of their children, free from unwarranted and arbitrary takings into government custody, for reasons such as parental use of marijuana.

- Protecting the right to refuse to work, and the freedom to work without being obligated to do so.

- Ensuring the ease of access to goods and services, job markets (including sufficient means to perform the tasks of the job), and volunteer organizations.

- Promoting productive, educational, and personalized alternatives to over-structuring and over-scheduling children's lives.

- Promoting parental responsibility to ensure that next generation understands personal finance, insurance, economics, and civics.

- Opposing efforts to criminalize homeschooling and unschooling, and opposing the ideas that compulsory education is a right and that it is desirable.

- Promoting parents' rights to pull their children out of public school due to abusive teachers given tenure, bullying rules designed to protect schools from legal liability, invasive security practices, school tracking of students, school shootings and bombings, and lack of freedom to independently pray.

- Promoting children's increased freedom to study autonomously, although with adult supervision, and pursue their own well-informed and realistic educational and skills training path.

- Parental responsibility to be attentive to what their children read, watch, listen to, etc..

- Sharing news stories about child prodigies, inventors, and academics.

- Raising awareness of Socratic maieutics; that the truth is latent in the human mind, and that helpful discourse is necessary to assist in the birth of the thought, to push it out and to express it.

- Promoting the raising of children on or near farms, near observable life processes like birth and death.

- Promoting the idea that a child's well-being depends more on whether they have loving relatives than whether their living environment passes some arbitrary modern standard of quality of life.

- Promoting the idea that forcing children to accept hugs from others when they are uncomfortable doing so, resembles child abuse, more than does sending them to bed without dinner if they refuse to eat and/or do their chores.

- Ensuring parents' freedom to give birth at home, employ unlicensed doulas and midwives, and breast feed anywhere without fear of ostracism.

- Ensuring parents' freedom to name their children as they please, or to refrain from naming them.

- Ensuring parents' freedom to refuse to report, register, and certify their child's birth with government.

- Ensuring that the next generation is free from being expected and required to carry identification documents.

- Ensuring that the next generation is free from being tracked for the purposes of collecting medical and other information.

- Ensuring that the next generation is free to object to compulsory association with the state, and other organizations, on grounds of conscientious objections, or as James Madison put it, “religious scrupulousness”.


If we work hard for long enough, our children might never have to work at all if they choose not to. Regardless, the children are still begging us to let them help.
We must ensure that young people, from those in elementary school to those just entering the work force, have equal access to the education, skills, and opportunities that will allow them (should they choose to work) to become independent and self-sufficient, and productive through trade / exchange.
We demand equal access to the factors of production, not primarily as a dichotomy of workers against managers; and not just as workers, managers, distributors, consumers, and taxpayers coming together to negotiate on policy; but as families and single-person households coming together to exempt the next generation from the chattel, wage, political, and debt slavery of the communionistic, capitalist American corporate state and its attempts to establish global domination and track all human beings as if they were cattle.
P.R.A.E. also prays for a world free from mass bird and bee deaths, in which, when we sit down to tell the next generation about “the birds and the bees”, we won't have to explain that these were creatures that have gone extinct.

Comedian Emo Phillips once remarked, “Children are our most precious natural resource... I pray it never comes to that.”





For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Aristotle and Rousseau on the Natural Political Association of Men

Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

While Rousseau and Aristotle both understand that labor creates a need for self-sufficiency, the two authors’ views on what is natural, what relationships are natural, how to view natural skills, and the division of labor differ greatly. Rousseau’s arguments are supported better than Aristotle’s.

Aristotle claims that “man is by nature a political animal” “in a higher degree than… other… animals,” and that the political association “completes and fulfills the nature of man… and he is himself ‘naturally a polis-animal.”

Aristotle sees language as a method of signifying perceptions of pleasure and pain, good and evil, and the just and the unjust to one another, and to declare what is advantageous. He believes that associations between people communicating what things they think are advantageous is what “makes a family and a city.” He says that a “final and perfect association, formed from a number of villages” “may be said to have reached the height of full self-sufficiency,” coming into existence for the sake of life and “for the sake of a good life.”

Aristotle’s asserts that “master and slave have accordingly a common interest,” which he supports by saying that an intelligent person whom can exercise forethought “is naturally a ruling and master element” while a person whom can use his bodily power to do physical work “is a ruled element.”

Aristotle agrees with Rousseau that the master / slave relationship is, or at least should be, one that exists for the mutual benefit of both, although Rousseau would not consider such a relationship “natural.” Rousseau believes that our reciprocal dependence on each other is what makes it necessary for each of us to do some work for the benefit of all of society, and that to enslave someone is to create in him dependence on others.

Rousseau thinks that political inequality is established or authorized by the consent of men, whom afford each other different privileges. He believes that slavery did not exist in the state of nature. He says, “since the bonds of servitude are formed only from the mutual dependence of men and the reciprocal needs that unite them, it is impossible to enslave a man without first putting him in the position of being unable to do without another; a situation which, as it did not exist in the state of nature, leaves each man there free of the yoke, and renders vain the law of the stronger.”

We must take into consideration the way our authors think of nature. Aristotle says, “Nature… makes nothing in vain,” and “Nature… makes each separate thing for a separate end; and she does so because the instrument is most perfectly made when it serves a single purpose and not a variety of purposes.” He believes that "every city exists by nature; the ‘nature’ of things consists in their end or consummation.”

Rousseau believes that in the state of nature, “all things move in… a uniform manner… the face of the earth is not subject to those brusque and continual changes caused by the passions and inconstancy of united peoples.” He considers the moment  at which  humans  left the state of nature “the moment when, right taking the place of violence, nature was subjected to law; to explain by what sequence of marvels the strong could resolve to serve the weak, and the people to buy imaginary repose at the price of real felicity.”

People attempt to get out of the state of nature by seeing nature and subjecting it to law, according to Rousseau. He claims that the “first source of inequality among men” is the perfection and deterioration of some individuals whom acquire diverse qualities “which were not inherent in their nature.”

When Aristotle writes that an intelligent master whom can exercise forethought in order to enslave a person suited to physical work, he calls the master a “naturally… ruling… element.” Aristotle thinks the master/slave relationship is a natural one, while Rousseau disagrees. Since, according to Rousseau, we leave nature by subjecting it to law, he would be likely to say that we could end what Aristotle considers “natural” slavery (although Rousseau himself would not share in that designation) by incorporating a system of justice, law, and equality into slavery, and ensuring that neither slave nor master takes advantage of the other without willingly giving something of himself.

If Aristotle thinks that “the ‘nature of things consists in their end or consummation”, then it would be reasonable to expect him to think that the nature of human political society is one that is complete; a polis which is all the villages of the world united. On the contrary, Aristotle thinks that some people are naturally suited to rule, and some are naturally suited to work and be subject to rule. His view that “Nature…  makes each separate thing for… a single purpose and not a variety of purposes” seems problematic because this is to suggest that a person who is born a slave shall never become free or even a master. Aristotle’s view that a master will always be a master and a slave will always be a slave will certainly not bring about a polis of all united villages because there will always be those who claim they have authority over other people, and the master / slave relationship will often be subject to abuses.

Rousseau’s view that men leave the state of nature by observing it and imposing upon it a system of law is better supported than Aristotle’s argument. Rousseau believes that reciprocal dependence makes work necessary, but he does not use this to justify the taking of slaves. He understands that mutual dependence causes people to work together, performing different tasks at different times, so that all tasks may be accomplished simultaneously and the benefits accorded equally to all members of society.

Aristotle’s view of nature suggests that he would not want people to have diverse job training, as “Nature… makes each separate thing for… a single purpose and not a variety of purposes.” Believing in such a statement would seem likely to contribute to disorder and undermine the cause of societal self-sufficiency, because it would make a farmer idle in the winter, as he would have no crops to tend to.




Written in April or May 2008



For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...