I know my addition to this debate is a bit late, but I just stumbled across your website.

From the ground up, let’s define what a community should be. I’ll use finances as an illustration, but this basic idea applies in other areas as well.

Let’s start by saying the smallest community is an individual household. It is ideal that the household spends no more money than it makes. One individual within that household could have more in their own personal life by spending nearly all of the household’s income on themselves, but that hurts everyone else. If everyone did that, then the household would go into debt. One individual may balance his or her own finances, but unless the entire household has balanced finances, then that person will suffer the consequences as well.

Now, even if the household balances its finances, what if the city or state they live in does not? If the city or state spends more than it makes, eventually it will have to raise taxes. Increased taxes could drive businesses away, perhaps leaving the innocent household which did balance its finances without a source of income.

Now, even if the city or state they live in balances its finances, what if the country to which it belongs does not balance its finances? If a country imports more than it exports and produces, then it will accrue debt. As interest on debt fuels inflation, the dollar in that country is worth less.

At the final stage, what happens when the world consumes more resources than is sustainable? Sure, it is more beneficial to us now, but what about our future?

It benefits us most to have a stable community at each and every level outlined here. Thus, community should be defined as all levels. And, keep in mind that the community is nothing more than the summation of all its parts. So, people should also be involved at all levels. For, if any one level falters or becomes too powerful, most, if not all, will suffer.

Commmunitarianism is not Authoritarianism. Communitarians don’t support an all-powerful state. On the contrary, we support all levels of community. We support the individual households, the small businesses, the labor unions, the government, and a myriad of other institutions. Each simply operates at a different level, and as we are a part of something beyond just ourselves, it is our responsibility to see to it that each level operates as it should.

Within Communitarianism, there are many different ways to go about things, too. For example, no community should hoard money, either; if a community is making more than it is spending, then it could produce less, or spend more, or use its surplus to help another community.

2) The Hayek/Oakeshott reference was in response to a comment about planning to produce greater utility, so you're right that I was speaking only about their critiques of planning. As to other thinkers, my position is informed by much of the classical liberal/libertarian tradition. I came to my libertarianism by way of studying economics first, which lead to Hayek and similar critiques of socialism and, more broadly, centralized knowledge. I also draw on public choice, rights theory, Nozick, Smith, Hume, etc. The argument in this blog post isn't based on any of them in particular but, rather, a general view that communitarianism, as I understand it, often boils down to some elite or some majority forcing everyone else to be a member of or support whatever that elite or majority thinks is “community.” And I see that move as ignoring problems of knowledge, violations of rights, economic constraints, and human dignity. In short, each of us has the right to live the kind of life we want, provided we don't aggress against others in their person or property. That life will (almost always) involve participation in a multitude of communities, but that participation must be voluntary if it is to be meaningful and just. Communitarians, so far as their political philosophy goes, seem to want to use the coercive power of the state to restrict freedom — to force others to be subject to the arbitrary will of whoever is deciding what the “community” is and wants.

2) The Hayek/Oakeshott reference was in response to a comment about planning to produce greater utility, so you’re right that I was speaking only about their critiques of planning. As to other thinkers, my position is informed by much of the classical liberal/libertarian tradition. I came to my libertarianism by way of studying economics first, which lead to Hayek and similar critiques of socialism and, more broadly, centralized knowledge. I also draw on public choice, rights theory, Nozick, Smith, Hume, etc. The argument in this blog post isn’t based on any of them in particular but, rather, a general view that communitarianism, as I understand it, often boils down to some elite or some majority forcing everyone else to be a member of or support whatever that elite or majority thinks is “community.” And I see that move as ignoring problems of knowledge, violations of rights, economic constraints, and human dignity. In short, each of us has the right to live the kind of life we want, provided we don’t aggress against others in their person or property. That life will (almost always) involve participation in a multitude of communities, but that participation must be voluntary if it is to be meaningful and just. Communitarians, so far as their political philosophy goes, seem to want to use the coercive power of the state to restrict freedom — to force others to be subject to the arbitrary will of whoever is deciding what the “community” is and wants.

2) The Hayek/Oakeshott reference was in response to a comment about planning to produce greater utility, so you're right that I was speaking only about their critiques of planning. As to other thinkers, my position is informed by much of the classical liberal/libertarian tradition. I came to my libertarianism by way of studying economics first, which lead to Hayek and similar critiques of socialism and, more broadly, centralized knowledge. I also draw on public choice, rights theory, Nozick, Smith, Hume, etc. The argument in this blog post isn't based on any of them in particular but, rather, a general view that communitarianism, as I understand it, often boils down to some elite or some majority forcing everyone else to be a member of or support whatever that elite or majority thinks is “community.” And I see that move as ignoring problems of knowledge, violations of rights, economic constraints, and human dignity. In short, each of us has the right to live the kind of life we want, provided we don't aggress against others in their person or property. That life will (almost always) involve participation in a multitude of communities, but that participation must be voluntary if it is to be meaningful and just. Communitarians, so far as their political philosophy goes, seem to want to use the coercive power of the state to restrict freedom — to force others to be subject to the arbitrary will of whoever is deciding what the “community” is and wants.

I do have a couple of points/questions regarding your position:

1. You mentioned the notion of “organic growth” (as opposed to “state coercion”). Could you clarify your position on this further? I fear that in accepting a notion of “organic growth”, you are either being nihilistic or overly optimistic in terms of the development of social institutions. It seems to me that, in the care of the former, you are unconcerned with how the community develops, only that it develops in a natural manner. In the case of the latter, it seems the notion of “organic growth” becomes teleological. You would then be committed to the thesis that things are unequivocally getting “better and better”. Clarification of this notion may help me to interpret your position in a more sympathetic manner.

2. You mentioned Hayek and Oakeshott as influences of yours I believe. This seems an odd pairing to me in many ways (unless you simply draw on their critiques of planning). What are some of the other thinkers you are drawing in the development of your position?

I do have a couple of points/questions regarding your position:

1. You mentioned the notion of “organic growth” (as opposed to “state coercion”). Could you clarify your position on this further? I fear that in accepting a notion of “organic growth”, you are either being nihilistic or overly optimistic in terms of the development of social institutions. It seems to me that, in the care of the former, you are unconcerned with how the community develops, only that it develops in a natural manner. In the case of the latter, it seems the notion of “organic growth” becomes teleological. You would then be committed to the thesis that things are unequivocally getting “better and better”. Clarification of this notion may help me to interpret your position in a more sympathetic manner.

2. You mentioned Hayek and Oakeshott as influences of yours I believe. This seems an odd pairing to me in many ways (unless you simply draw on their critiques of planning). What are some of the other thinkers you are drawing in the development of your position?

My statement that people have fundamental human rights was in no way superficially considered. I support a court system to protect these rights. To be selected by lot from a group of qualified individuals is probably the best way to appoint them, much like a jury is selected from the general populace. But ultimately, the people making all the decisions in society has to be the majority.

Private property is violent because it allows people to use violence to prevent other people from using things that they’re not using and that others desperately need. Ownership is dominion over things and over people. There’s nothing organic about a market. It’s forced onto people and maintained through violence. It’s just individual acts of violence, and not community-authorized acts of violence.

There has to be co-operation and true communication between the majority and the minority, but ultimately the right to choose is with the majority. If your system depends on hierarchy, your system depends on subjugation, and that’s unjustifiable.

Go to about 4:04 on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JlxHAOPIdI

What he’s saying of secularism is similar to what we’re saying of communitarianism. Special (i.e. minority) interests have every right to exist and every right to have their say (business owner interests, for example), but no greater right than other special interests and certainly no more a right to public policy than the majority interest. Majority rule is organic, to me. Anything less is minority rule, and that is inorganic, to me. The role of minority interests is existence, but not rule, and, quite frankly, private property rights are nothing more than a set of biases and even discriminations. They are not natural law. To assert such is a logical fallacy.

It’s asking too much of me to ask me what peoples’ fundamental human rights are. People have a right to a good quality of life and to be free from harm. I’m not going to list all the things I think they have a right to. Situations change. Nothing is absolute except that human and non-human life has immense worth and should be treated as such. I think you’re asking what gives people the right to have the consequences of their votes apply to you. To that, I would say contracts. But in the absence of an agreement/contract, what we’re dealing with is anomie, and community rule is based on a monopoly on violence in a certain region.