Gheorghe-Ilie Farte
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi
The central thesis of my article is that people live a life worthy of a human being only as self-ruling members of some autarchic (or self-governing) communities. On the one hand, nobody is born as a self-ruling individual, and on the other hand, everybody can become such a person by observing progressively the non-aggression principle and, ipso facto, by behaving as a moral being. A self-ruling person has no interest in controlling her neighbors, but in mastering his own impulses, needs, wishes, desires, behaviors, etc. Inasmuch as he is an imperfect being who lives in an imperfect world, he needs to share certain interests, beliefs, values, customs and other characteristics with other people, i.e. to be involved in some communities. Depending on the following four criteria – the regulatory principle, the essential resources, the specific feedback and the fundamental values –, the countless and manifold human communities can be grouped in three categories: (1) affinity communities, (2) economic communities, and (3) civic communities. In other words, every community or human behavior has an affinity, an economic, and a civic dimension. If a civic community is merely a state shaped society, it can be called a political community. All communities are intrinsically variable. Throughout time, they ceaselessly change their composition, values, interpersonal processes and relations, territory, etc. Interestingly enough, the variability is unanimously recognized and accepted in affinity and communities economic, but is denied or abusively interpreted in the case of state shaped societies. If we confuse two types of order − cosmos and taxis – and two types of rule – nomos and thesis –, as well as we exaggerate the importance of certain type of community we bring some social maladies, namely the traditionalism, the commercialism and the civism, (with the worst form of it – the politicality). Whatever the communities they are involved in, all persons relate (implicitly or explicitly) to the libertarian non-aggression principle, living their life in strict accordance with the logical implications of the position they adopt. People who respect the non-aggression axiom necessarily manifest self-control, consideration for the life and property of the others, commitment to offer value for value, love of freedom and a high level of individual responsibility. By contrast, people who violate this axiom – the villains and the statists – invariably strive to control their neighbors, behave as parasites or predators, prefer forced exchanges, reject the personal responsibility (at most accepting the idea of social responsibility), and apply double moral standards. The first category of people generates a libertarian civic discourse as a spontaneous order, and the second creates a political/ statist civic discourse as a result of the human design and will to power. As a spontaneous order, the libertarian civic discourse implies free involvement, peaceful coordination, free expression, free reproduction of ideas and the power of one. Every communication performance in the frame of the libertarian civic discourse is important and has relevant results. All participants to the libertarian civic discourse are automatically members of some self-governing communities (at least members of the general libertarian community). The most important thing for these communities is to be connected to a communicational infrastructure which would make possible free involvement, free expression and the free reproduction of ideas. Inasmuch as today democracy means the tyranny of majority and participatory democracy the tyranny of majority plus the power of vested (and illegitimate) interests, only the emergence of self-governing communities by libertarian discourse offers us a little hope. It’s high time to fall in love (again) with liberty and to embrace the non-aggression principle. We don’t have to create a perfect world, but we can strive to develop our human nature.
Keywords libertarian  statist  spontaneous order  affinity communities  economic communities  civic communities
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Inclusion and Democracy.Iris Marion Young - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
The Question of Apriorism.Barry Smith - 1990 - Austrian Economics Newsletter (1/2):1-5.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Emotion Management in Crisis Situations.Gheorghe-Ilie Farte - 2013 - Argumentum. Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric 11 (2):59-70.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Democratic Public Discourse in the Coming Autarchic Communities.Gheorghe-Ilie Farte - 2010 - Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 2 (2):386-409.
Local Dialogue Heard Around the World.Susan Collins, Michael Kersey & Cindy Savage - 2007 - World Futures 63 (5 & 6):353 – 364.
The Nature of Virtual Communities.Daniel Memmi - 2006 - AI and Society 20 (3):288-300.
Libertarianism Vs. Community: Reply to Simpson.Ryszard Legutko - 1995 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 9 (3):421-425.


Added to PP index

Total views
505 ( #18,115 of 2,520,967 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #50,596 of 2,520,967 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes