> and since I didn't know your self-definition exactly, I didn't know
> how to interpret this. (If you had written "fetish of," it would have
> clearer, at least to me.) I had guessed you were some sort of
> anarchist (since you say stuff like "fuck god"), but the line between
> anarchism and free-market "libertarianism" is sometimes permeable.
No, it's not permeable. Anarchists are anti-capitalists. We oppose free market nonsense.
> I wasn't seeing things in terms of a "liberal" vs. "conservative"
> duality. There's a third option, socialism, and there may be more.
> (BTW, I tend to see anarchism as a radical form of liberalism.
> Anarchists often have a better sense of humor than liberals, too.)
Anarchism is not a form of liberalism or leftism. Anarchism is another political tradition which doesn't fall along the right-left spectrum. Anarchists oppose states, which is fundamentally different than liberalism, which sees the state as an important instrument in running the economy and society.
> what if eminent domain is employed by a democratically-controlled
> state? for example, I'm sure that the Paris Commune used its power to
> take some private property.
I would be uncomfortable if some anarchist group decided it could demolish somebody's home in the community. I think our goal should be to *work things out* so that an equitable arrangement is found between parties.
Chuck