me:
> > 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.)
chuck:
> 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.
I'm not an expert on anarchism, but as I understand it, anarchists compare the real world with a state and the ideal world without a state and choose the latter. Liberals are pragmatic, agreeing that the state is a bad thing in many ways but saying "we're stuck with the state but we have to make it better." As you say, they then use the state to run economy and society (in conjunction with markets).
(The relative role of the state and markets distinguish the "social liberalism" of FDR, etc. from the "free-market liberalism" of Milton Friedman.)
This seems a matter of degree: liberals see the benefits of having a state as higher than not having one (which for them leads to a Hobbesian-style chaos, or a situtation like the current Iraq, where "stuff happens"). (Liberalism sees the state as a "necessary evil.") Anarchism, on the other hand, see the benefits of having a state as less than not having one (which, I guess, would unleash human creativity so that peace and harmony would prevail).
The (non-Stalinist, etc.) Marxian tradition sees the state as a result of society's class antagonisms (which imply the need for state coercion to preserve class privilege). Living with the state (liberalism) means preserving class rule. Simply abolishing the state (the seeming anarchist approach) doesn't abolish class rule, so the state will likely come back.
> > 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.
The Commune was defending working-class and petty-bourgeois democracy against the French and German ruling classes. How does one "work things out" in that situation? -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.