I worded that weirdly; all that matters at the end of the day is your and everyone else's self interests; as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else's self interest / ego, you should be able to do it. Again, i think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what egoism is; since I'm bad at explaining things, their are prolly much better explanations of what egoism and egoist communism are on https://theanarchistlibrary.org/.
Firstly, appealing to a potentially bad outcome does not justify taxation, a form of coercion. If all women suddenly decided to stop reproducing, it is still unjust for the government to force them to reproduce.
> They will be less likely to fund it as they may not see the benefits
What makes you think the government is a priori more likely to see the benefits of construction projects than private individuals.
> or they may not think that it would be possible to reach the required funding levels.
I don't see how that factor would influence people's decisions, because they would presumably get a refund if the project failed to reach the required funding levels.
> Also, what about during times of economic crisis?
If you mean economic crises caused by boom-and-bust cycles, free banking would prevent them from happening.
> Schools and hospitals need a constant stream of money and people will cut it when they cant afford their own things.
At worst, they would start charging money, which would incentivize other entrepreneurs to enter the market. Insurance could exist as well. Voluntary contribution out of conscience is just one of many ways to fund public goods without force.
> If you look at one of the major schools in the city that I live in, voluntary contributions went down from 700,000 per annum to 430,000.
Which city during which years?
It is worth noting that, as David Beito writes, "[d]espite the severity of the Great Depression, few [mutual aid] societies suffered bankruptcy or reduced their benefits to members. Per-person benefits for social welfare services were in fact higher in 1935 than in 1929." In fact, Beito looked at 65 mutual aid societies in his book, and only 5 of them ceased operation during the Great Depression.
Have you heard about the rederendums that happened in Cuba a few weeks ago? Or about the many constitutional referendums they had? I mean, Cuba is a shining example of communist democracy, and it's in many ways more democratic than the two party dictatorship in the US. Here's a short video and here's a book.
Let us not forget that the word capitalism was created by socialists in the middle 1800s to describe the big government, leftist, economic framework known as Mercantilism which was practiced by nations in the West at that time to include Russia
Today, no nation practices Mercantilism, capitalism, today as defined by socialists. The vast majority practice Democratic Socialism with a few outliers still practicing communism. Democratic Socialism has much in common with Mercantilism especially in terms of the GOVERNMENT SACTIONED institutions known as corporations and the State getting a cut of the profits and controlling said institution though regulations instead of charters back in the day of Mercantilism
The problems we have today are problems created by the ideology of Democratic Socialism and not free markets, an economy, which is composed of the currency, labor, trade, and industry, which is free from government meddling
https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-Capitalism-15Th-18th/dp/0520081153
/u/frxggiez's attempt to MISLABEL Democratic Socialism as Mercantilism ( capitalism ) is noted
I'm actually Anglican but for all practical political purposes I align closely with Catholic traditionalists.
Diem has gotten a really unfair bad rap. You should read The Lost Mandate of Heaven by Geoffrey Shaw.
You can voluntarily be apart of a Christian Socialist State. No body is forcing you to stay in my Christian Socialist dream. Read this book. It describes voluntary Communism that the early church practiced.
All Things in Common: The Economic Practices of the Early Christians https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0725G8NDZ/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_QC56E7QRFZ8MM9297ADY
I got all of these by looking up ‘sapply’ on this subreddit, and then putting all of the points in that I had exact numbers for. So if you see your username, that’s why.
Plot:
The World Federation is at a critical point. The leader Eero Birch has just died and the Vice-president Nym has taken over the presidency. In the west the Confederation of the League, one of many regions in the Federation have declared independence and an all out war has started between the two. In the East, three republics have declared independence from the World Federation and the region is in anarchy.
Nym Dryad and his prime Minister John Xu must find a way to reunite the world, but if they don't men, women, and children will bleed as people kill in the names of their home regions. The world will never be the same.
​
Brief description of each characters:
Eero: United the world under a democratic nation. His death starts the plot of the book
Nym: His long time friend and vice-president who takes over
John: The prime minsters of the country who basically serves in keeping the governing coalition together when the president has almost all power.
Otto: World Federation soldier
Tim: A Banana farmer who serves as the perspective for the peasants of Aland
Gustov: Leader of the new breakaway nation as former state of the World Federation. The C.o.L.
Atlas: Leader of the Populist Party
Here is the book if you are interested in reading it. It is my first book so please let me know what you think.
Are you going to partake in the suggested reading?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1483686493/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_2CJ7PMNK1PFGAY218HEQ
"Fascism is not racism" says Morgan, "Fascism is realism" It is a doctrine of realistic social and economic policies for todays world. It is neither 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'; it is the extreme radical center. It is "thinking outside of the box" as they say.
Nilssonian Anarcho-Fascism - This type of Anarcho-Fascism was created by Jonas Nilsson. It wants to combine individual freedom and voluntarism with cultural homogeneity and generally reactionary social values. It is not necessarily opposed to the State itself, but rather it's monopoly on violence.
It believes it is natural and necessary for men (and only men) to develop a capacity for violence in order to protect their individual freedom and property rights, which should be exercised to maintain order in their societies and protect them from external threats (such as an over-reaching government and people they don't like).
It also believes that multiculturalism and feminism occur when centralized governments have no external threats, and instead begin to view their own male subjects and their fighting capacity as a threat to their own interests.
It wants political power to be decentralized into the smallest units capable of defending themselves and maintaining their independence. It believes that a perpetual threat of violence (or mutually assured destruction) between competing political units is necessary (and desirable) to maintain the ideal system in the long-term.
As I said before, it's no longer on the play store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sipols.politics
But here's an apk version of it from the internet: https://m.apkpure.com/vote-1-political-spectrum/com.sipols.politics
An app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sipols.politics
That said, I don't consider myself a democratic socialist, more a Social Democrat. I don't support a fully socialist economic model, I am more a fan of keynesian/nordic