Really, “anarchism without adjectives” is all there is logically.. Anarchism doesnt extend itself into the variance of “economics” in the way socialists and “anarcho” communists think it MUST.. Logically anarchism is simply a philosophy of no rulers over other humans. Naturally, if people wanted to voluntarily collectivize, that would be consistent.. the same as if a person wanted to have their own farm and have hired h elp. As long as things are voluntary, no one has initiated force or fraud, it is consistent.

And really, “capitalism” is all there is. A group collectively owning means of production, goods for future “investment” in whatever regard, etc.. does not “abolish ownership” or “capitalism” – .. communists are free to go live on what will inevitably be a failed commune, but it will be hard them to do it if they “arent allowed to have their own means of production.” The “anarchist” faq they cite as holy doctrine on that reddit thread is vehemently anti-capitalist, creates some false distinction between “private property and possessions,” and says an anarchists goal is to ‘abolish work,” and starve to death i guess. it’s complete nonsense.. they often say that individual cannot have their own private property. in that case, they are statists.

the easiest way, imo, to debunk that silly “anarcho communist” nonsense is to say “so you dont want to work for a ‘capitalist’” ? i suggest you try to get your own property and means of production then.” sometimes they get it… sometimes they say ‘the capitalists have them all’ …. D’oh!

True dat!!! So long anarcho-capitalism…

http://embraceunity.com/economics/we-can-have-it-all-the-beauty-of-value-capture/

I think this is an awesome idea and find your enthusiasm inspiring. If you do get to a point where you think you could use volunteer article writers, I might be interested in helping out with that if I have time. I really liked what you said about people wanting to connect and keep each other safe.

Thanks Marisa! I will be sure to contact you first when I get this site ready for content.

In a world where government “allows” access to certain groups with a press pass or license, what does free market journalism depend on?

It will depend on support from the audience and/or people around the citizen journalist.

What channels exist between journalist and audience? Who controls them/censors them?

The only censoring will be up to the services provided and possibly/eventually the government if acts like SOPA or Net Neutrality pass.

How is free market journalism sustained/guaranteed throughout the entire chain of broadcast and consumption? For example consider what makes a video stream possible — Journalist: video capable broadcast device, web stream software, internet service provider, domain registrar, data storage provider, web site provider (host); Audience: device cabable of consuming video, software capable of consuming video, ISP, domain registrar, client.

I do not think there is a guarantee. Citizen journalists have a modicum of protection from the powers that be through broadcasting to a huge audience of witnesses, but what happens when the power is cut? I think citizen journalists will experience a higher level of risk than traditional journalists, which is why I respect them so much.

But more to the point of your question, I think they will unfortunately be heavily reliant on these different technologies that may be controlled by corporate interests or the government. If any link in that chain is regulated, it will become increasingly difficult to be a citizen journalist, or at least one that can live broadcast. When that time comes I imagine independent services will step in to fill the void.

I think there are many philosophical, and practical questions surrounding this chain and acknowledging them might procure ways to subvert them. How does one simplify and protect the connection between audience and journalist?

I think that opportunity will protect the chain for the most part. Just like the torrents continue to subvert the anti-file sharing movement, someone will find a way to get around the regulations that will arise as more people get their voices out there. At least I hope so.

I think there are many philosophical, and practical questions surrounding this chain and acknowledging them might procure ways to subvert them. How does one simplify and protect the connection between audience and journalist?