[Torus34]

Let's start with an assumption. [I've purposely chosen to start with a statement as broad as possible. Time enough later to consider how Libertarianism shreds out in individual instances.]

It is this:

Libertarianism, as presently understood in these United States, places heavy emphasis on individual freedom and, perhaps, raises it to a position of primary importance.

Given that as a starting point, it can be seen as occupying a position near one end [Anarchy is the final limit,] of a range of belief systems arrayed in order of how they balance the importance of the individual versus the society in which he/she exists.

Given this frame, we can look at various societal systems and determine whether they are better or worse for the individuals within them.

Ah, you ask, but how can we distinguish? What will be our Baedeker?

Let's add another assumption:

That society which better permits the individual to live a good life is in itself better than those which do not.

Now we have something to work with. We can define a 'good' life. We can state some measurable criteria. We can determine, say, murder rates, rates of alcoholism, of drug abuse and, in extremis, suicide. These are actions brought about, in part, by the stresses which the society and its norms place on its individual members. They interfere with a 'good' life, given most definitions of it.

We've a laboratory - a whole range of societies on this planet which can be positioned somewhere on the individual/society relationship continuum - which we can test for the effects of stress on the individual.

Perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, we can judge Libertarianism against other belief systems.

I wonder how it fares?

[Voluntarism]

There's the OECD Better Life Index.

Discussed HERE with the raw data HERE

There is an obvious problem about how to weight each of the various factors, but using a simple weighted average of the 11 different measures produced this list:


List:
1. Australia
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Norway
5. Switzerland
6 . United States
7. Iceland
8. United Kingdom
9. New Zealand
10. Finland
11. Austria
12. Luxembourg
13. Ireland
14. Belgium
15. Germany
16. France
17. Slovenia
18. Spain
19. Japan
20. Czech Republic
21. Italy
22. Israel
23. Poland
24. Slovak Republic
25. Korea
26. Portugal
27. Hungary
28. Greece
29. Estonia
30. Russian Federation
31. Brazil
32. Chile
33. Mexico
34. Turkey

[Torus34]

@Voluntarism:

Thank you for taking the time to respond. There's lots to discuss here, as you noted.

I listed several criteria for defining a 'good' life. These centered on negative indices -- factors which worked against it. Other approaches are indeed possible using positive indices such as longevity, access to health care, housing, etc..

Perhaps, just perhaps, a good frontal view of just what constitutes a 'good' life is in order. From that we can come up with something of a short list of criteria for ranking.

[Nunt]

Its difficult to evaluate the effects of political beliefs. The main reason is that current societies are the result of a mixed history. In the same country you have instutions and policies that are socialist, libertarian, nationalist, etc. all working at the same time. Which policy contributes to which result?

[Torus34]

@Nunt:

Thanks for the comment. It leads to the following line of reasoning.

If it is very difficult to determine the effect of a single political 'stance' [Libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, etc.,] because societies make use of bits and pieces of each of them in a complex web, we can either make the effort and come to some conclusion as to which is 'better' or -- we should as a personal 'stance' ignore the claims of all of them to superiority as unproven.

[Nunt]

@Nunt:

Thanks for the comment. It leads to the following line of reasoning.

If it is very difficult to determine the effect of a single political 'stance' [Libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, etc.,] because societies make use of bits and pieces of each of them in a complex web, we can either make the effort and come to some conclusion as to which is 'better' or -- we should as a personal 'stance' ignore the claims of all of them to superiority as unproven.

It at least shows why those debates have gone on for decades without any one side being the clear winner.

[SolarCross]

It at least shows why those debates have gone on for decades without any one side being the clear winner.

Decades? More like hundreds, even thousands, of years.

[Torus34]

Nunt, taxizen:

Looks like you've pretty much done all but write 'finis' for this particular thread.

That being said, let me make it so.

Finis.

[Eran]

I have missed the beginning of this discussion, but I would like to challenge your assumption, namely that the difference between libertarianism and more mainstream belief-systems has to do with the tradeoff between the importance of the individual and that of society. Not so.

In fact, there is never any tension between individuals and society, as society is composed of individuals. Further, the importance of society (i.e. of other individuals) is always perceived, evaluated and considered in the minds of individuals. Society has no mind.

Therefore disputes between libertarians and communitarians aren't about individual vs. society, but rather about which individuals get to decide how to balance your good and that of other people.

Libertarians believe that it is up to each individual to balance his own good with that of others, using his own property (or, equivalently, acting without initiating force against others). Communitarians and statists generally believe that a small select group of individuals ("government decision-makers") should be allowed to substitute their judgement for that of members in society, and initiate force against other members of society to impose their will.

[anticlimacus]

Therefore disputes between libertarians and communitarians aren't about individual vs. society, but rather about which individuals get to decide how to balance your good and that of other people.

Indeed, Individual VS Society is not the right way to frame the difference. However, the framework you pose is equally inaccurate. Unless, we are talking about authoritarians or some form of aristocracy--which in most cases we are not--then the issue is not necessarily about which individuals get to decide "how to balance your good and that of other people."

Here is the difference: Communitarians work from a participatory model; libertarians (right wing) work from an individual liberty model.

Communitarians seek to maximize social participation; Libertarians seek to maximize individual liberty. In the former, concern for the wellbeing of each individual and their participation within society takes precedence. In the latter, concern for individual liberty takes precedence over participation, which could come or go depending on wealth and power distribution among property owners. For communitarians some sort of equality in participation in wealth and power is intrinsic to a just and functional society, and individual liberty is contingent upon social participation; for libertarians, the liberty of individuals trumps all, and participation becomes contingent upon the wealth and power individuals are able to obtain and control.

Libertarians believe that it is up to each individual to balance his own good with that of others, using his own property (or, equivalently, acting without initiating force against others). Communitarians and statists generally believe that a small select group of individuals ("government decision-makers") should be allowed to substitute their judgement for that of members in society, and initiate force against other members of society to impose their will.

See, I don't think it is accurate to lump communitarians and "statists" together. One could be communitarian and yet still reject the state. Communitarians want participation, and they seek to maximize participation in both wealth and politics. It is not a matter of having Big Brother, with no accountability, decide for individuals as it "imposes its will" arbitrarily.

[Eran]

In the former, concern for the wellbeing of each individual and their participation within society takes precedence. In the latter, concern for individual liberty takes precedence over participation, which could come or go depending on wealth and power distribution among property owners.

I don't see how that follows. Why would a "participatory model" result in "concern for the wellbeing of each individual"? If particular individuals are unpopular, or have unpopular preferences, or are simply shy and don't enjoy public speaking, why would we expect a communitarian model to be concerned with their wellbeing?

And if you are concerned with the "wellbeing of each individual", what better system is there than (1) allowing that individual as much freedom as possible to pursue his wellbeing, while (2) still allowing all other members of the community to assist that individual in any way they can and want to?

In other words, if members of the community are indeed concerned with others' wellbeing, nothing in the libertarian model prevents or even discourages them from working together and helping others. So under those conditions in which the communitarian model would work, so would the libertarian model.

However, under conditions in which the communitarian model fails (a majority is indifferent or even hostile to the wellbeing of a minority), the communitarian model can fail spectacularly, while the libertarian model still works by allowing the minority who do care to help themselves and each other.

See, I don't think it is accurate to lump communitarians and "statists" together. One could be communitarian and yet still reject the state. Communitarians want participation, and they seek to maximize participation in both wealth and politics. It is not a matter of having Big Brother, with no accountability, decide for individuals as it "imposes its will" arbitrarily.

It is always very hard (for me) to understand what model you have in mind. How large is your "community"? If it is small, with voluntary participation (e.g. an Israeli Kibbutz), I have absolutely no problem with it. a Kibbutz (or similar communities, even urban) can exist, even flourish in the midst of a libertarian society. In fact, the entire third ("Utopia") part of Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia is dedicated to a vision of society within which different groups can form their own little utopias, communities and societies operating by their preferences.

But as soon as your image of a community is no longer voluntary, as soon as your society allows some people to force non-interested others to obey their rules , participation becomes an empty promise.

And as soon as the size of your community extends beyond a few dozen people, equality of participation is logistically impossible. Nobody can listen to hundreds (not to mention millions) of others expressing themselves. The logistics of speech requires that some people's voices are heard much more than that of others.

In fact, with all the current hysteria around economic inequality, people lose sight of quite how deep and pervasive political inequality is in our society. A small number of people - top politicians, journalists and intellectuals - dominate the public discourse. Ordinary people have virtually no say in the discussion.

[anticlimacus]

I don't see how that follows. Why would a "participatory model" result in "concern for the wellbeing of each individual"? If particular individuals are unpopular, or have unpopular preferences, or are simply shy and don't enjoy public speaking, why would we expect a communitarian model to be concerned with their wellbeing?

I don't think it necessarily matters that some individuals might have unpopular preferences or be shy, etc. Participation does not necessarily mean public speaking either. It means, for instance, access to essential social goods, to opportunities and to the means of self-determination. This, of course, would also mean access to political participation and a deliberative model of democratic practice. It might be better to put that all individuals have a certain right to particular social means or something along those lines, as opposed to "concern for the wellbeing of each individual".

And if you are concerned with the "wellbeing of each individual", what better system is there than (1) allowing that individual as much freedom as possible to pursue his wellbeing, while (2) still allowing all other members of the community to assist that individual in any way they can and want to?

To be clear, I was not making a value judgment on either system--although, as you know, I obviously am communitarian as a socialist. But to your point, communitarians would argue that the fundamental problem with your system is that it merely guarantees individual liberty (understood negatively), not wellbeing or participation for that matter, which communitarians would also argue is essential to the wellbeing of the members of society.

In other words, if members of the community are indeed concerned with others' wellbeing, nothing in the libertarian model prevents or even discourages them from working together and helping others. So under those conditions in which the communitarian model would work, so would the libertarian model.

This is rather speculative. But I think, and perhaps this is the fault of my own description, you seem to be confused on what I mean by "concern for the wellbeing of each individual". I don't mean that everybody needs to have a good giving heart, or have some particular moral stance towards others. What I meant to convey is that society is organized in such a way that all individuals share a certain amount of social means, e.g. healthcare, education, shelter, food, and even some form of communal ownership of the means of production, in order to actualize their own self-determination. I think the right-wing libertarian model is, in principle, contrary to any form of the latter.

However, under conditions in which the communitarian model fails (a majority is indifferent or even hostile to the wellbeing of a minority), the communitarian model can fail spectacularly, while the libertarian model still works by allowing the minority who do care to help themselves and each other.

In all honesty, it is not that difficult to envision the libertarian model failing spectacularly. We could very well imagine a libertarian society where only a small fraction of its members are able to make meaningful decisions about their lives, while others are subject to the whims and wishes of the rich and powerful--and their "generosity". Although failing is a matter of perspective. I suppose even in the dystopia of this scenario a right-wing libertarian could call this a glorious success given that, at least in form, everybody still has their "liberty".

It is always very hard (for me) to understand what model you have in mind.

I was generalizing here about two different paradigms, not specifically talking about my own personal views. But I can discuss my own views. My commitment is to self-determination, which I feel, in good communitarian fashion, is realized by ensuring social participation in both decision making and social wealth. This has also led me to a commitment to the socialization of the means of production. I am quite pragmatic about this, and am not really dogmatic about how this should function. But here, I believe, is a good summary, which I posted in the anarchism forum a few months back, of where I am:

I am more inclined to anarcho-syndicalism within an economy based on a form of market socialism (as a point of reference, the economic structure I would broadly envision stems mainly from Rudolf Rocker and William Schweikart). So there is profit, although not off of labor. There is also pricing. There is also communally owned capital dispersed in community banks which advises and provides capital for investments both in syndicates and for communal needs. There are worker managed syndicates. The latter two are federated with other syndicates and communal banks and communal boards. Finally, there is an insistence on full-employment. No centralized state--everything operates under a federated system of autonomous communities or regions or what we might even call social subsystems.

How large is your "community"?

I'm an anarchist, and like all anarchists I am aware of the vision is for anarchism to be global. Communities vary in size, but anarchism can function globally. The model I proposed above I envision to function globally.

And as soon as the size of your community extends beyond a few dozen people, equality of participation is logistically impossible. Nobody can listen to hundreds (not to mention millions) of others expressing themselves. The logistics of speech requires that some people's voices are heard much more than that of others.

This is fundamentally a problem with centralization of power, not decentralized power. The more wealth and power are decentralized the more opportunity all individuals within society have to make meaningful contributions both to their own lives and to the shape of society.

[Phred]

I don't think it necessarily matters that some individuals might have unpopular preferences or be shy, etc. Participation does not necessarily mean public speaking either. It means, for instance, access to essential social goods…

What is the difference between "goods" and "social goods"?

It might be better to put that all individuals have a certain right to particular social means…

What is the difference between "means" and "social means"?

In all honesty, it is not that difficult to envision the libertarian model failing spectacularly.

Failing to do what?

We could very well imagine a libertarian society where only a small fraction of its members are able to make meaningful decisions about their lives…

Who would be preventing the large fraction from making meaningful decisions about their lives?

...while others are subject to the whims and wishes of the rich and powerful…

In what manner? Give us three specifics of scenarios in which some people are "subject" (whatever that means) to a whim or a wish of people who have more money than them.

...and their "generosity".

What does this even mean? That people who would benefit from the generosity of others should reject it if offered?

My commitment is to self-determination, which I feel, in good communitarian fashion, is realized by ensuring social participation…

What is the difference between "participation" and "social participation"?

Finally, there is an insistence on full-employment.

"Insistence"? Who is doing the insisting? What is done to those who resist being fully employed?


Phred

[Atlantis]

Given this frame, we can look at various societal systems and determine whether they are better or worse for the individuals within them.

This shows that you judge different types of society (individualistic and collective) from the point of view of individualist society, which introduces your own cultural bias into the debate and therefore falsifies the outcome.

Anyways, it goes without saying that individual contentment is highly subjective and transitory, shifting like a leaf in the wind. Thus, it is a singularly useless as criteria.

Moreover, there is little merit to considering the issue as an abstract continuum between anarchy and society. It would be better to consider real life examples of different societies in their respective historical settings.

Western-style individualistic society originates with the wheat farmer who can cultivate his fields independently of his neighbor, while Eastern-style collective society originates with the rice farmer who can only maintain the system of paddy fields together with his village community.

Western individualist society proved superior at the time of expansion starting with the colonial conquest; however, as we have reached the limits of geographical expansion and as society/technology becomes increasingly complex, collective-type societies will be more successful, which can best be seen in the economic development of Japan, Korea and China, which are collective-type societies based on Confucian ethics.

In conclusion, rather than individual contentment, I would use "social harmony", "political stability", "ability to deal with future problems" etc. as criteria for judging the merit or demerit of a society. But even "individual contentment" is largely due to material well being; in other words, it is determined by economic success of society as a whole.

[Eran]

It might be better to put that all individuals have a certain right to particular social means or something along those lines, as opposed to "concern for the wellbeing of each individual".

That is a great improvement. As the Declaration of Independence wisely guarantees "pursuit of happiness" rather than "happiness" as a human right, so the achievement of wellbeing is, ultimately and necessarily, in the hands of the individual, not the community or society more broadly.

communitarians would argue that the fundamental problem with your system is that it merely guarantees individual liberty (understood negatively), not wellbeing or participation for that matter, which communitarians would also argue is essential to the wellbeing of the members of society.

I honestly don't understand the communitarian perspective. Perhaps you can help me with that. If the wellbeing or members of society is important to other members, while the "constitution" (legal framework) indeed only guarantees them negative liberty, the (positive) attitude of their fellow community members is bound to translate to cooperation, assistance and care.

If, on the other hand, wellbeing of other members is not important to members of the community, providing those members with the power to restrict, hinder, obstruct and otherwise negatively impact fellow members (as would inevitably be the case within a strong community) is not going to be conducive to that wellbeing.

In other words, it appears to me that the libertarian framework protects unpopular members, while not in any way hindering the ability of a supporting and cohesive community from working together along communitarian ideals.

It seems like communitarians confuse the right to be left alone, with the desire to be left alone. The right not to be forced to help others, with the desire not to help others.

What I meant to convey is that society is organized in such a way that all individuals share a certain amount of social means, e.g. healthcare, education, shelter, food, and even some form of communal ownership of the means of production, in order to actualize their own self-determination. I think the right-wing libertarian model is, in principle, contrary to any form of the latter.

Ok, I'll drop reference to wellbeing. But with that in mind, you are merely describing a social-democratic state, albeit potentially at a small scale. Is that fair?

In all honesty, it is not that difficult to envision the libertarian model failing spectacularly. We could very well imagine a libertarian society where only a small fraction of its members are able to make meaningful decisions about their lives, while others are subject to the whims and wishes of the rich and powerful--and their "generosity". Although failing is a matter of perspective. I suppose even in the dystopia of this scenario a right-wing libertarian could call this a glorious success given that, at least in form, everybody still has their "liberty".

I take your point. But even if that were the case, provided a libertarian framework is well in place, nothing will stop (and everything will prompt) disenfranchised workers from grouping together, starting co-ops or even whole communities aimed at addressing those concerns.

We do not live on a small island. The world is mostly empty and available for the taking.

And anybody who is concerned about concentration of power should be terrified at the idea of political mechanisms (at any level) which tend to greatly concentrate power. Even at the level of a Kibbutz (the kind of socialist community with which I am most familiar), some people are much more powerful with others, thanks to popularity, experience, position, tenure or charisma. Once your community grows beyond the size at which everybody knows everybody else, the democratic process depends even more on "representatives" who quickly acquire more power than any "boss" can ever have.

I am more inclined to anarcho-syndicalism within an economy based on a form of market socialism (as a point of reference, the economic structure I would broadly envision stems mainly from Rudolf Rocker and William Schweikart). So there is profit, although not off of labor. There is also pricing. There is also communally owned capital dispersed in community banks which advises and provides capital for investments both in syndicates and for communal needs. There are worker managed syndicates. The latter two are federated with other syndicates and communal banks and communal boards. Finally, there is an insistence on full-employment. No centralized state--everything operates under a federated system of autonomous communities or regions or what we might even call social subsystems.

At the risk of repeating a discussion we already held, it is still completely unclear how the society you envision would treat individual entrepreneurs. I am very comfortable with a vision which combines individual liberty with the hope and even expectation that individuals will use their liberty to cooperate along the lines you describe above.

Your society, in other words, can be a welcome instantiation within the libertarian framework.

To return to the Kibbutz example, one can easily imagine a country in which most people do live in one Kibbutz or another. While in Israel, most Kibbutzim have started as agricultural communities, all have, over time, developed industrial production lines. I am also familiar with several urban Kibbutzim situated within towns and cities.

Further, Kibbutzim weren't isolated islands. They formed national movements, cooperated (e.g. in forming regional high schools) and traded with each other. It is easy to imagine a complex web of interaction between like-minded communities of this sort.

Within each Kibbutz, employment was guaranteed, as were basic needs such as housing, food, education, health-care and even modest luxuries. Needless to say, means of production were communally owned.



But here comes the critical question. Would your society allow individual production alongside the communal one? Would the property rights of individuals be respected? If not, who and by what right would it not? For example, if I wanted to start my own farm/factory/software development firm, and managed to persuade former community members to forgo the comfort and safety of their local communities and come and work with me, will I be taxed, regulated or otherwise interfered with? If so, by whom?

[Torus34]

@ Atlantis:

It's possible that you missed the thrust of my OP. The bias on my part was the assumption that we could 'rate' existing [rather than theoretical,] societies for their suitability to the individuals within them.* One of the rating factors proposed attempted to deal with the stress that a society places upon its members. I suggested that this could be measured by rates of suicide, homicide and substance abuse, etc. Another would be rating the ability of individuals to live out full, healthy life-spans. Here actuarial and medical data would serve in part.

Out of this rather prosaic statistical exercise comes the question of which facets of society should be singled out to form a basis for rating.

And this, dear Sir, leads us directly to the distinction between sociology and philosophy. The former attempts to describe how we live, whilst the latter treats of how we should live. But then, in my country [USA] philosophers are looked upon as the vestigial appendages of an earlier epoch. To paraphrase one of my favorite authors [John Garner], a society which pays attention neither to its philosophers nor to its plumbers will soon find that neither its pipes nor its ideas hold water.

* Consider the result of rejecting this assumption. In its extreme form it's called, I think, 'social relativism' and leads to accepting the society of, say, North Korea as the equivalent of, say, Sweden. That particular proposition would, I suggest, be rejected by almost all of those outside the ruling elite of North Korea.

[anticlimacus]

Ok, I'll drop reference to wellbeing. But with that in mind, you are merely describing a social-democratic state, albeit potentially at a small scale. Is that fair?

Not a social-democratic state. A market based socialism within an anarcho-syndicalist model. Local communities and regions control publicly owned banks that support investment. Industry and the workplace are controlled by the workers themselves who are voting members of a particular syndicate. The capital of each syndicate is publicly owned, via the referenced community banks, while the actual workplaces are operated and controlled by the workers themselves.

I take your point. But even if that were the case, provided a libertarian framework is well in place, nothing will stop (and everything will prompt) disenfranchised workers from grouping together, starting co-ops or even whole communities aimed at addressing those concerns.

Perhaps--but this just leads right into the essential conflict so often referenced in relation to capitalism: as labor is alienated from capital, there develops the conflict between labor and the capitalist class. Who will stop (or try to stop) disenfranchised workers? Those who benefit from them being disenfranchised: the capitalist class.

And anybody who is concerned about concentration of power should be terrified at the idea of political mechanisms (at any level) which tend to greatly concentrate power. Even at the level of a Kibbutz (the kind of socialist community with which I am most familiar), some people are much more powerful with others, thanks to popularity, experience, position, tenure or charisma. Once your community grows beyond the size at which everybody knows everybody else, the democratic process depends even more on "representatives" who quickly acquire more power than any "boss" can ever have.

To be clear, I'm not talking, necessarily, about a small operation. Ideally this could be global, but it could begin locally or large scale.

But yes, there is always a concern for concentration of power. However, I still think that bureaucratic centralization is the fundamental cause to the kind of gross overreaches of authoritarian power you reference. If deliberative democratic practice--i.e. democratic practice that employs public and open deliberation with delegates of workplaces and communities, fully subject to recall and the will of those who elect them--is decentralized this greatly decreases the potential for people to become alienated from political processes. In my model there is no centralized state making decisions for society and/or coordinating local regions.

At the risk of repeating a discussion we already held, it is still completely unclear how the society you envision would treat individual entrepreneurs. I am very comfortable with a vision which combines individual liberty with the hope and even expectation that individuals will use their liberty to cooperate along the lines you describe above.

There can be individual entrepreneurs in the sense that somebody or some group has an idea for investment and wants to form a particular syndicate. This would mean this group or person would need to acquire investment funds for publicly controlled capital, which would also be replenished via a tax on capital assets, which is part of the agreement on starting the new industry. Workers who come in, come in as voting members, the structure and pay organized by the workers themselves.

To return to the Kibbutz example, one can easily imagine a country in which most people do live in one Kibbutz or another. While in Israel, most Kibbutzim have started as agricultural communities, all have, over time, developed industrial production lines. I am also familiar with several urban Kibbutzim situated within towns and cities.

I believe Kibbutz is a bit different from what I am describing, as what I am describing is more of a market based socialism--however, as I said before, I am not dogmatic about this. My commitment is to ensuring the capacity for the self-determination of all, which, in my view, commits me to some form of socialism. I only think what I have been describing is the most realistic in many parts of the world, but it need not be absolute.

But here comes the critical question. Would your society allow individual production alongside the communal one? Would the property rights of individuals be respected? If not, who and by what right would it not? For example, if I wanted to start my own farm/factory/software development firm, and managed to persuade former community members to forgo the comfort and safety of their local communities and come and work with me, will I be taxed, regulated or otherwise interfered with? If so, by whom?

My own view is that there can be differences in wealth between individuals in society. There are, of course, private goods for consumption. But everybody is entitled to certain basic goods such as housing, education, healthcare, food, and transportation. As mentioned before, every member of society should be able to be employed as well so that they can contribute and view themselves as meaningful participants in society. So I can buy my own goods on the market, I can add to my home within the limits of the community that I live, etc. Capital, as I mentioned before, is publicly controlled and the workplace is controlled by the workers themselves. There is no money market that invites private investors and private savors to come together on their own and invest.

[SolarCross]

Anti-climacus - What you describe above doesn't seem to existentially require the coerced membership of everyone on the planet nor does it seem to require mass looting (expropriation) so is it safe to say that an-cap and an-syn could co-exist peacefully even if trade interactions between the two were not feasible?

[Eran]

Perhaps--but this just leads right into the essential conflict so often referenced in relation to capitalism: as labor is alienated from capital, there develops the conflict between labor and the capitalist class. Who will stop (or try to stop) disenfranchised workers? Those who benefit from them being disenfranchised: the capitalist class.

I must say this sounds like a completely out-of-touch, 19th century Marxist mantra.

Look at the world around you. What "capitalist class"? Small businesses are often owned by their managers, who work in the business, harder than any worker, while employing a small number of people they know well. Large businesses are often publicly traded, with pension funds and mutual finds being primary stock owners, themselves representing millions of working people. Decisions are made by professional managers, nominated by the board, elected by those institutional shareholders. Wealthy people tend to be very hard-working entrepreneurs, not absentee land-lords or de-touched capitalists.

Finally, numerous sources of funding are available to any person or group with a good idea on how to start a business. Regardless of background, if you have a plausible story, you can go to a bank, credit union or various crowd-sourcing web sites and get the funding you need to start a business.

But yes, there is always a concern for concentration of power. However, I still think that bureaucratic centralization is the fundamental cause to the kind of gross overreaches of authoritarian power you reference. If deliberative democratic practice--i.e. democratic practice that employs public and open deliberation with delegates of workplaces and communities, fully subject to recall and the will of those who elect them--is decentralized this greatly decreases the potential for people to become alienated from political processes. In my model there is no centralized state making decisions for society and/or coordinating local regions.

Once again, I have to admit to not understanding how your model work, once we go beyond the individual syndicate. Do syndicates interact with each other in a free market, selling and buying each other's goods and services? Who pay for social goods such as education and health care? Is it the workers? The Syndicates? Who decides how much resources would go towards each of those? Who determines which drugs are available in the community clinic, which books are taught in the community school? Which products to offer in the community grocery store? How much of the community's income goes towards social purposes, and how much is left to the discretionary spending of individual workers?

There can be individual entrepreneurs in the sense that somebody or some group has an idea for investment and wants to form a particular syndicate. This would mean this group or person would need to acquire investment funds for publicly controlled capital, which would also be replenished via a capital tax, which is part of the agreement on starting the new industry. Workers who come in, come in as voting members, the structure and pay organized by the workers themselves.

Without central government, who collects that capital tax? Who decides which groups to fund, and which not to fund? Are there any negative or positive consequences to those starting a new syndicate based on the degree of success of their syndicate?

If an entrepreneur reaches an agreement with workers along the lines of employee/employer relations, rather than shared voting, would that arrangement be illegal? Or just unlikely? If illegal, would the people be arrested? Boycotted?

[anticlimacus]

Look at the world around you. What "capitalist class"? Small businesses are often owned by their managers, who work in the business, harder than any worker, while employing a small number of people they know well. Large businesses are often publicly traded, with pension funds and mutual finds being primary stock owners, themselves representing millions of working people. Decisions are made by professional managers, nominated by the board, elected by those institutional shareholders. Wealthy people tend to be very hard-working entrepreneurs, not absentee land-lords or de-touched capitalists.

Finally, numerous sources of funding are available to any person or group with a good idea on how to start a business. Regardless of background, if you have a plausible story, you can go to a bank, credit union or various crowd-sourcing web sites and get the funding you need to start a business.

It does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to understand that in contemporary capitalism most of the world's wealth is owned by a small few, while the the income of workers declines and indebtedness rises. It also does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to understand that the financialization of the economy is dominated by huge transnational firms, and finance has an even bigger disparity of inequality between the rich and everybody else than income. Even in advanced capitalist economies, the average working citizen is not a player in the capitalist economy, but mostly just trying to create savings for retirement. Is this the 19th century world of Marx? No, its a different paradigm of capitalism. But it is certainly not immune to Marxist analysis and critique--in fact, Marx predicted the financialization of the capitalist economy and much of what we see today in modern capitalism. What Marx fundamentally underestimated was the durability of capitalism. He envisioned it ending in crash and revolution much sooner and closer to his lifetime.

Do syndicates interact with each other in a free market, selling and buying each other's goods and services?

Yes.

Who pay for social goods such as education and health care?

These are operative as public investments through the mentioned community owned banks in conversation with community boards and syndicates, based on need and availability. Funds derive from taxes on capital assets of industry.

Who decides how much resources would go towards each of those? Who determines which drugs are available in the community clinic, which books are taught in the community school? Which products to offer in the community grocery store?

Again, community boards, public banks, and syndicates enter into dialogue about how this functions, what goes where, who gets what, etc. Local stores would decide what drugs they buy and sell. Communities would decide on what they would teach--ideally, this would be coordinated with some sort of interregional standard. Grocery stores would decide what products they buy and sell.

Without central government, who collects that capital tax?

These would be collected by the local bank or banks which provided the investment capital and/or collected by the particular communities within which an industry operates which then provides capital to local banks based on need.

Who decides which groups to fund, and which not to fund?

Communal boards, banks, in connection with particular entrepreneurs or syndicates seeking an investment.

Are there any negative or positive consequences to those starting a new syndicate based on the degree of success of their syndicate?

Capital funds are owned by the community. Positive consequences are always the wellbeing of a particular industry and its workers--although growth is not quite the same as in the capitalist counterpart. In this model, firms do not profit off of labor, so expanding means paying more workers that partake in additional profits. Growth occurs, but is not an end in itself and is nothing like in contemporary capitalism. There is also no market for private investment eliminating excessive finincialization.

If an entrepreneur reaches an agreement with workers along the lines of employee/employer relations, rather than shared voting, would that arrangement be illegal? Or just unlikely? If illegal, would the people be arrested? Boycotted?

This would be highly unlikely. It would be like suggesting that everybody in Mondragon all the sudden decides to abandon their rights as partial owners without any say in their working conditions. Moreover, investment capital is publicly owned in the first place--workers come in with a sense of ownership. However, how the structure of a particular organization plays out depends on those who work the industry. It could be a more or less top-down model of production. Capital is, regardless, communally owned.

Anti-climacus - What you describe above doesn't seem to existentially require the coerced membership of everyone on the planet nor does it seem to require mass looting (expropriation) so is it safe to say that an-cap and an-syn could co-exist peacefully even if trade interactions between the two were not feasible?

What I describe is also in stark contrast to anarcho-capitalism. Certainly the two could not coexist in the same society. I am also sympathetic to the Marxist view that socialism makes the most sense as a global phenomenon, the primary reason being for the fundamental need for expansion and growth under capitalism, posing a threat to any other socio-economic organization.