I've been involved in a debate with libertarians, firstly on the "I bet I can find 1,000,000 people who dislike George Bush!" group at Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5022036305), in the "New revolutionary anti-capitalist party in France" discussion topic (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5022036305&topic=8875). This has spilled over into a debate with Andrew Withers, the "Party Chairman" of the newly-formed UK Libertarian Party (UKLP), on that party's forum (http://libertarianpartyonline.org/forum), on the "Request to access forums" topic (page 17) of the "New Members" board.

I'm now setting up new discussion topics on both the Facebook group (at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=9162&uid=5022036305), the UKLP "New Members" board and the UKLP "Policy Discussion" board (which you can access if you post a message on the "Request to access forums" topic), entitled "Socialist libertarianism?", so that visitors to both sites can find the discussion and possibly contribute. I'm also putting this message on other forums and emailing it out to various contacts, since I think it is of wider interest.

A comment by Marianna Daniels on Facebook "If you and your friends wanted to create a socialist community within a libertarian society you could and no one could oppress you for creating it." helped me realise that there is a lot of common ground between libertarianism and the sort of democratic socialism that I am in favour of (based on proportional representation by single transferable vote), and my idea of a worldwide ethical revolution that would lead to mainly well-intentioned people coming to power. For more information about the struggle between people with good and bad intentions, I strongly encourage you to read my Good Intentions Manifesto, at http://www.goodintentionsnetwork.org/manifesto.html.

I am in favour of a democratic world where different forms of socialism (including communism/anarchy) and capitalism (including libertarian forms of it) can co-exist in different countries, and people can vote to change the sort of society they live in or move abroad if they so wish. Marianna's point that islands of socialism within a libertarian capitalist society would be possible means that the world could be an even better and more varied place than I had previously contemplated.

Libertarians (at least those who I have debated with) are in favour of the abolition of the welfare state and its replacement by charities as the only safety net by those who can't afford healthcare or education fees, or who are out of work. It sounds ridiculous to expect charities to be able to cope with the sheer scale of problems people face under the so-called "free market".

I raised the following point:

"A question for libertarians: what should you do about rich people and big corporations? They don't pay their fair share of tax under the non-libertarian capitalist system in which we live. Is the answer really to let them pay no tax at all? Even if that is what you would like to happen, how are you going to convince the electorate that it's a good idea?"

Marianna gave a very interesting reply:

"-The answer to that depends on which Libertarian you are talking to. Some, I believe Robert Nozick is one, believe that a Libertarian society would only be just if everyone started out equal (so that people who worked the hardest and were the most innovative would be the most well off, i.e. no more billionaires who never worked a day in their lives), thus some form of redistributive socialism would be a necessary pre-condition for this kind of Libertarianism. Others believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with people or businesses having more money and that everyone will end up better off, even if some people still have much more than others. I tend to disagree with the second group, but only in the case of corporations because if they retained too much wealth and market power from a pre-libertarian society they would be able to create monopolies which defeats the purpose of living in a free-market society."

Libertarianism suddenly becomes a lot more attractive if there is a massive redistribution of wealth (making everyone equal or nearly equal) when such a government comes to power. If most people in the country have good intentions as they would need to have to vote such a radical party into power, and are reasonably well-off as they would be after the redistribution of wealth, then voluntary donations to charities could suffice. Marianna's support for redistribution is welcome, but a loophole whereby individual capitalists could sell their shares to avoid their wealth from being redistributed (if as Marianna suggests it is "only in the case of corporations") would be undesirable.

Many libertarians have a moral objection to taxation, comparing it with theft. Trevor Johnson, with whom I have also debated on Facebook, would allow socialists to organise in political parties but not reimplement a welfare state even if a socialist party advocating that came to power in a previously libertarian country. I made the point that trying to prevent that would lead to an uprising/civil war. Andrew Withers, the UKLP Chairman, said "You seem to accept that under a Libertarian Government if we abolished the Welfare State, you said you feel that it would be reasonable to take up arms to oppose that eventuality, rather than accept that majority view of a democratically elected Libertarian Government." I advocate peaceful change, and certainly said no such thing, merely talking about a post-libertarian government. However, I think he was fishing for me to say where I stand on allowing libertarianism to be implemented.

If people died due to the abolition of the national health service, child labour became widespread due to families needing their salaries and not being able to afford to educate their children, or unemployed people starved under a libertarian government, then there obviously would be some sort of uprising, whether I supported it or not. If things were that dire then I would definitely support an uprising, but would advocate peaceful means unless attacked by the forces of the state violently first. Hopefully redistribution of wealth would prevent such circumstances from happening. I am not one who thinks that we should all obey the law and wait a few years for a chance to vote the government out - my first serious involvement in politics was participating in the mass non-payment campaign that defeated the poll tax and overthrew Margaret Thatcher.

I have set up a Facebook group "Close all tax loopholes - make the rich pay their fair share of tax!" at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6703288194. If corporations relocated to a libertarian country to try to use it as a tax haven then the confiscation of its assets in other countries, as I suggest in that group, including "money in bank accounts, shares on stock markets, call centres, factories, oil rigs, stock and equipment", should take place.

I have made quite a few suggestions of the sort of political parties or factions within parties are desirable to get the left out of its impasse and enable socialist (or ethical capitalist) revolutions to take place. These are as follows: revolutionary socialist platforms within broad socialist parties (or possibly even broader parties that don't limit themselves to socialists such as the now-split Respect); revolutionary anti-capitalist parties uniting revolutionary socialists and atheists; ethical capitalist parties; and now I can add socialist groupings within libertarian parties to the list. The ideal formation to set up/join will depend on the circumstances in a particular country at a particular time, including the history and current state of mainstream and left-wing organisations (plus organisations that do not easily fit on a left-right scale like libertarian ones), their policies and prospects for modifying them in a positive direction, and the presence or otherwise of democratic structures within political parties/organisations (including the right to form factions/platforms).

I may join the UKLP, which was only formed earlier this year, especially if it has democratic structures that allow me to influence its policies and socialists to organise openly within it. If it restricts itself to lowest common denominator politics, refusing to mention in election leaflets (etc.) the need for redistribution of wealth, then it is unlikely to take off. Similarly, lowest common denominator politics by the Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity and Respect, except with reformist rather than libertarian demands, has led to the failure of these initiatives. I had started to argue for a revolutionary anti-capitalist party, like the one being set up by the French LCR, that may involve uniting with anarchists instead of reformists. Some anarchists call themselves "libertarian communists" so perhaps uniting in a libertarian party could prove more successful...