i should probably have left this blog at the point i reached before my last two posts. i had found the answer that i had been looking for my whole life (most which time i was unaware i even was pursuing a question let alone what it was) and that realisation made any further comment completely redundant. certainly there was little point in my adding to the superior offerings of the anarchist blogosphere. i should have made that my final post and appended it with a complete list of online anarchist sources. no point me regurgitating what you can find first hand. mr. molyneux is hard to beat
after the realisation i catagorised my rss feeds into sub folders within google reader. i separated out from explicit anarchists, the economists and statist libertarians. i stopped reading anything from the last two groups, none of whom could see the undesirability of any amount of statism let alone its complete illegitimacy.
after last week, in a moment of boredom, falling off the wagon and engaging in the fruitless and petty pugilism of commenting on statist blogs i resolved once more to abstain from such self defeat. i deleted the rss feeds of all the economists and statist libertarians i used to follow. the temptation to click through would always have been there.
the instance that drew me in most recently seemed too cut and dried to resist; the question - can taxes be voluntary? a self identified 'libertarian' who designs tax systems for fun claimed his perfect tax was voluntary. this seemed to important and too easy to miss. but i allowed myself to get bogged down in arguments from effect rather than sticking to the argument from ethics. admittedly the whole thing was complicated by the perennial problem of land.  there were one or two georgist commenters who seemed willing to accept that their view of property rights and land distribution could be reconciled with voluntarism even if they werent too bothered about the illegitimacy of coercion. one suggested that anarchist legal entities may well arrive at a philosophy of property rights and payments not dissimilar from georgism and land value 'tax'. another validly questioned why 3rd parties should be involved at all and couldnt anarchists voluntarily and directly reciprocate respect for each other's property. this was a new and illuminating idea to me. a decentralised system of reciprocal 'compensation' for 'exclusion' from land that was theoretically 'common' to all. i imagined decentralised systems of coordination similar to peer to peer file sharing except for legal agreements.

in the same way that i consider the Freeman movement and their challenges to the social contract to point toward voluntarism and share ideological direction with anarchism whilst having separate ideological origins, could, perhaps, georgism and prouhon-ian anarchism share ideological direction?
i must admit my ignorance of both the ideas of George and Proudhon. in my general impression of their views they seem to both posit that land is common to all and both seriously opposed the idea of rent. obviously George believed coercion to be the tool to overcome this inequitable tyranny of property and Proudhon, as an anarchist, more accurately saw the truth that coercion was the root cause of it.
what got my tiny mind grinding was the possibility that the ancap model of private agencies defending property rights may be less economically likely than the geo-anarchist model of property rights. one of the more open minded georgist commenters suggested that, as neighbors, it would be cheaper for me to simply pay him directly not to tresspass etc than it would be to build walls/hire guards/pay for a legal system to establish complex property rights. thus in effect i would not be a 'legal' 'property owner' i would simply be a human on a piece of land paying his neighbour to leave him alone. this would generate a cellular network of outward flow of value from properties.
this seems to answer so many questions and challenges faced by both propertarian anarchists and communalist anarchists. propertarians are challenged as to, absent the state, how would property rights be identified and secured. communalists are challenged as to how resources and value will be distributed more equitably absent coercive redistribution.
from where im sitting the two problems seem to cancel each other out. the georgist model of a tax on the value of my land paying a citizen's dividend to all others whom i exclude from that land is pretty clever.
its so clever it may happen to be the most economically attractive option to land owners in an anarchist society.
the most convincing predictions regarding the question of existing disparities in land distribution post transition into anarchy are those positing that land lords would face un-externalise-able costs such as security, sewerage, power connection and access (roads) and above all establishing a legal system that favoured this situation. without their current abilities to externalise these costs onto either their tenants or the public at large they would probably chose to sell their land. thus the market would redistribute this inequity without the need for any coercion.
now in light of my recent spat with georgism it seems that another economic model for voluntary property rights would have a similar redistributionary effect. if physically securing the extensive boundaries of his property proved prohibitively expensive the landlord may instead choose to pay his neighbours directly not to aggress against his property. this paymentt would have exactly the same effect as the georgist lvt/citizen's dividend seeks to achieve by 'compensating' the public for being excluded from what 'should' be common land.
the domino effect from neighbour to neighbour across a geometric cellular network of properties would be like ripples spreading across the land. polycentric and voluntary ripples at that. thus in one single mechanism we may be able to solve the problems of property rights, security, welfare, land, equitable redistribution etc.
tantalising eh?
perhaps this may also solve the provision of roads vs permission of access  issues.

now i dont suggest this as a perfect template and we should all hail the new adjectival-anarchism. the whole point is that if i or anyone else were capable of devising such perfect, one size fits all systems then that would be a perfect argument for benevolent technocratic dictatorship. there may be areas of geo-anarchism alongside areas of anarcho-capitalism alongside areas of primitivist-syndicalism or whatever. a universally favoured system may become the most popular amongst voluntary individuals - noone can know.

i just think that attempting to reconcile issues such as those raised by George and Proudhon in respect to land with voluntarism is a worthwhile endeavor whilst we continue to field demands for futurological predictions to satisfy the fears of statist slaves.

there is little point in sticking with coercion because those involved cannot imagine how something could be achieved without the state. ive read the guesswork of rothbard, block, friedman and molyneux. its pretty convincing and seems likely, however, there is no limit to human ingenuity and if people demand some factor that seems impossible without the state then some genius somewhere will be incentivised to provide it. georgists may have stumbled upon a mechanism that could address many problems. even if i am wrong and exclusive property rights secured by voluntary compensatory dividends to the community are a rubbish idea then one of the other 7 billion people around here or a lost innovator from among the billions that preceded us will come up with something better.