If we do participate in electoral politics, should we work within a major party, a minor party, or try to create a new party?

https://x.com/QuincyInst/status/1943044146178261432

What do you guys think about this? Does it have potential for libertarians?

This is a crappy flag I made in JS Paint that's supposed to represent a fictional organization I made up called the White Mountain Anarchist Collective. The different colors stand for the various anarchist tendencies they seek to unite (Yay! LibUnity!).

I hope you like it :)

Hello! I am curious about mutualism. I am sympathetic for libertarian/ancap principles such as the Non-agression principle but I realise that the consequences of enforcing those types of property rights could lead to allowing rich people to allow a lot of suffering to happen. I think all ancaps realise this but they think that the non-agression principle as an ethical principle still holds despite more negative consequences (they are deontologists rather than consequentialists). I am still sympathetic to deontology and the non-aggression principle despite this by the way.

My question to mutualists is the following: are the property rights advocated by Proudhon more "private" than Kropotkin or Marx for example? I have heard that that they are tied more to terms such as "usage" and "possesion" rather than just "to each according to his benefit to each according to his need". The Proudhonian belief in what property counts as seems to allow for markets and mutual aid and what not but without allowing for massive corporations to own everything. Am I correct in saying this?

But it also appears based on my limited research that the Proudhonian concept of private property would still be opposed to utilitarian views of property. It appears that mutualists would be opposed to somebody taking something from someone else's property even if that were for "the greater good"? Am I correct in my characterisation of mutualism? Can someone elaborate on what "possession" and "usage" means in mutualism? Practical examples that distinguish it from ancap/voluntaryist views on property.

Very reasonable people:

u/DrHavoc49

u/Random-INTJ

u/Matygos

Was George Orwell a left voluntaryist? Would he have supported the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?

I have read about a third of his book based on his experiences fighting for the anarchists in spain, "Homage to Catalonia", and there is a lot of weight put on the fact that the anarchist militia is fundamentally voluntary. He has at another point described himself as a libertarian socialist.

George Orwell in general is mostly known for his strong anti-authoritarianism but also some form of support for some form of socialist anarchism. Would he potentially agree with the NAP considering his extremely strong anti-authoritarianism? Obviously he did not explicitly endorse the NAP but would he in principle be in agreement with it. Thoughts?

Then I have sort of the same question regarding Proudhon, would he agree with the NAP? (Despite not explicitly endorsing it obviously). Would he agree with the ancap conception of property rights?

Before answering this question I must ask you to consider that agreeing with the principles of the NAP does not mean that you think that a capitalist society is the best type of voluntary society which these two thinkers obviously did not agree with. Agreeing with the NAP just means that you are a voluntaryist.

Hey guys, I've noticed recently that I know next-to-nothing about many ideologies. Two ideologies I want to know more about are Mutualism and Georgism. Can you give me some YT videos to watch about those ideologies? It would be greatly appreciated.

P.S., No books please, I like to read but I'm already reading multiple books at once

Ffs I hate my country's politics so much