Well what if they can’t? And even if they could, what if they’re so weak from being starved and subjugated that once they are un-subjugated they still can’t provide themselves with food?

Besides, taxation isn’t as nasty as dying in the street from lack of food, so clearly it’s better to tax people who make money to provide welfare for people who don’t.

In the essay from which it is quoted, “What is property?” it seems to me that a. he is talking about a particular kind of proprietorship, ie in the unreproduceable good, specifically land, in which proprietorship enables the unproductive proprietor to exploit those in need of that unreproduceable good for their production, and b. that sound, defensible rules about “possession” are necessary to prevent predation on productive users of those goods.

There may be a particular strand of anarcho-communism that rejects all forms of ownership rights, but it is by no means all. Also the terms are interchangeable. Kevin Carson, for example, styles himself a Mutualist, and that tradition draws much of its thought from the “individualist anarchists”, yet he himself, as I do, regard our position as within the panoply of “libertarianism”.

Its all well and good having the highest standards and the best policies but if you are identified with anarchy and chaos you will never get the votes. There will never be a better time to put forward a Libertarian cause than now. It has to be one acceptable to the general public though not just us. Yet at this current time I hear nothing about the LPUK and many people I have talked to about it are acceptable to the theory but are unclear on what actually will be put in place. Better the devil you know seems to be the response the LPUK are too radical.