RE: On Anarchist Social Democracy: Taxation, Welfare, and Anarchy
I do agree on a lot you say. But I think there are some problems in your agruments
First, in anarchy you are free to gather with like-minded people to organise as a community following social democratic principles.
I am for anarchy, but I also have my personal views that contradict the personal views of many other anarchists. Still I would never try to force my ideas on others. Instead we can all voluntarily associate with organisations that respect our choices.
Second, pollution is a big challenge. But we see that governments are not helping. We might wish they would, but we do not control the government.
Centralised power can and will be corrupted. Since you advocate for comunal property, this may be a better idea to solve pollution.
Third, anarchy has not been successful over longer periods in the past. I think this is a consequence of the technologies. Anarchy requires global communication and the establishment of facts without trust. Both of these are now solved by the internet and blockchain. The logical government for the decentralised future is anarchy. If you decentralise money you get bitcoin. If you decentralise government you get anarchy.
Finally, In your ideal society, are people free to leave? If yes, you are still an anarchist. If not you need a police that controls the people. That is power that can be corrupted.
You said "Second, pollution is a big challenge. But we see that governments are not helping. We might wish they would, but we do not control the government."
Cap and trade has been implemented by many governments, and helped to reduce various emissions. America especially is in a regressive stage, but I think it's a temporary setback. The U. S. implemented cap and trade for SO2 and NOX emissions, and reduced SO2 emissions by 40% in just 5 years, greatly reducing levels of acid rain. Environmental protection legislation does work. Under anarchism, I doubt any meaningful consensus on such things would ever be reached. You'd likely still have to resort to coercing people who wouldn't get on board with cutting emissions. Occupational safety regulations, OSHA in the U.S. and minimum wage laws greatly improved working conditions. You should check out Chris Sciabarra's "dialectical libertarianism" which makes the case that government actions can be libertarian if they lead to results that make people more free (if the results of government policy are analogous to the libertarian ideal).
You said "Third, anarchy has not been successful over longer periods in the past. I think this is a consequence of the technologies."
I think there are greater obstacles to consensus building. A lot of people are just dumb and will always reject truth in order to preserve traditions. Some people, also, are just dogmatic about solutions, so will always refuse to consent because they have a "better" vision of utopia. I don't think that Marxist-Leninists and anarcho-capitalists will ever peaceably co-exist in an anarchist social order.
You said "Finally, In your ideal society, are people free to leave? If yes, you are still an anarchist."
Ideally, yes, under anarchist social democracy. And Fred Foldvary has some decent arguments on how that could work, so that such a geo-mutualist society could allow people to opt out but still incentivize the majority to pay their ground-rent. However, personally, I don't think such pure autonomy and free association will work. I kind of agree with Kevin Carson's analysis, which states that wealthy folks who benefit from rent will just opt out and form anarcho-capitalist security forces or private militias to enforce their claims.
Thanks for the reply. Sadly I dont have time right now to answer in great detail.
On government environmental protection, it is true that governments have taken positive action in some areas. But at the same time their approach is very hypocrite. Yes you can reduce emissions if you relocate production into other states. Also we are exporting our trash in countries where disposal is cheaper. In addition most regulations that have been passed were passed with consensus of the polluting industries, which see these laws as a protection from national competition.
In the end I think the change comes from the population. Governments will not provide consistent and helpful policies. If instead of trusting government to fix problems, people would take personal responsibility for their consumption, things would look much better. This is why we need to create awareness for the existing problems. But it is just more convenient to keep consuming and polluting and then point to the government to fix it, which of course will fail in doing so.