I just wanted to share a link to my manifesto on libertarian social democracy. The manifesto is in the form of a zine or pamphlet and is titled Anarchist Social Democracy: Structure & Theory. The following is a brief synopsis of some of the core ideas that I cover in this work.
" We are all Republicans: we are all Federalists."―Thomas Jefferson (First Inaugural Address)
The idea of libertarian/anarchist social democracy takes the ideas of Fabian socialism and social democracy and incorporates them into the framework of democratic confederalism. Thus, I envision a delegative democratic federal republic, such as the models proposed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Murray Bookchin. Decisions would be made locally, through assembly democracy, and the local general assemblies would send delegates to communicate their consensus to councils higher up within the confederation. This would resemble the federalist/republican models of Montesquieu, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. However, democracy would be done directly at the local level, where town hall meetings would become general assemblies for participatory democracy and "representatives" would be replaced by recallable and revocable "delegates." These delegates would represent the local general assemblies and would be bound by an imperative mandate, meaning that the delegate would not have the prerogative to act or vote contrary to the consensus of the assembly of his/her constituents.
In addition to the idea of bottom-up delegative democracy and federation, which derive from anarchist theory, I am influenced by the ideas of social democracy. (Cf. Beatrice Webb, Eduard Bernstein) The economic system would be a form of market socialism in which the municipality, governed on principles of direct democracy, would have ultimate control of all industry. There would be two tiers of ownership, akin to the way things currently are. The tier-1 owner of industry would be the municipality, and the people in the local community would reserve the right to regulate, abolish, or tax any enterprise as they see fit. The tier-2 owners of industry would be the workers. The workers would collectively own and manage companies as co-operatives, with payment in terms of shares rather than wages. The tier-2 owners would also, however, share in the tier-1 ownership insofar as they would be part of the democratic assembly that governs the municipality. If the municipality decided to tax a company or fine the company, then the revenue generated therefrom would be due to the community as a collective of individuals, not due to some council of oligarchs. Any revenue generated from corporate taxes would be divided up and given back to the citizens as a dividend or share of municipal wealth.
Libertarian social democracy would also incorporate the ideas of Georgism. (Cf. Henry George, Thomas Paine) The two-tiered property system would apply to land and natural resources too. The tier-1 owner of all land would be the local community. The tier-2 owner would be the person who possesses it. The local community could, therefore, democratically decide how land and resources should properly be used in the best interest of everyone. They could prohibit people from polluting the air and water, because those resources belong to the community. This would allow for sensible urban planning, rational ecological and environmental regulations, etc. The tier-2 owner would have exclusive right to the use of the land, within limits set by the local community, and would have to pay rent (land value tax) for that privilege. Since the municipality would own all land, the municipality would have the right to charge rent for the privilege of exclusive use of land and resources. More valuable land would be taxed (rented out) at a higher rate than less valuable land. This would eliminate the boom-and-bust cycle that is driven by real estate and land speculation. It would also tend to reduce inequality. The tier-2 owner, the local community, would own the land and be due the rent. However, the community is nothing but a collection of individuals. Consequently, the revenue from the rent or land value tax would be divided up in an egalitarian fashion and given back out to the members of the local community as a citizen's dividend.
The municipality could also implement a system of voluntary taxation. (Cf. the voluntaryism of Auberon Herbert) The general assembly could set rates of taxation. The contributions would be voluntary, but payment of those contributions might be a prerequisite to using the community's resources. For instance, renting land from the municipality and receiving the citizen's dividend and such could be contingent on voluntary payment. If you pay your taxes as a voluntary membership due, then you get all the privileges that come with citizenship. If you don't pay your taxes, then you don't get those privileges. The system of taxation should be progressive, so that people who earn more money are taxed at a higher rate. (This follows from Amartya Sen's argument for the justice of progressive tax schemes.) The municipality could then use the revenue generated from voluntary tax contributions for public projects like road maintenance, law-enforcement, etc.
The local municipalities would be federated into a large democratic confederation for purposes of social welfare and national defense. Each municipality would pay a membership due or tax to the federal level government. (There would be no direct taxation at the federal level. All federal taxes would be collected from the municipality.) The tax rate should be progressive, so that municipalities with more resources pay more than poorer ones. The federal level would also maintain a central bank and currency system. Banks would be publicly owned and revenue generated from interest and creation of new money would automatically be routed to the accounts of each citizen within the confederation as a citizens's dividend. There would be confederal councils, consisting of delegates from each municipality, wherein the delegates would discuss tax rates (membership dues) from each member community. There would actually be several levels of confederal councils, ranging from the district level, the city level, the regional level, to the national level and even inter-national. These confederal councils would be where deliberation is done on matters that affect various communities and cannot be decided locally. Excess wealth, above operation costs, held by the confederation would be used to give grants for research and development (R&D) and to fund scientific studies.
Additionally, it would be in the best interest of all citizens of the confederation if there were a scheme for mutual insurance at the federal level, similar to the schemes for social security and universal healthcare in Nordic countries.
The system of taxation, being both Georgist and progressive, along with the various citizen's dividends would bring about a distributist economy with an egalitarian distribution of wealth, but it would also provide each citizen within the democratic confederation with a universal basic income. The system of progressive taxation would meet the communist criteria of "from each according to ability," and the universal basic income would give to each an equal share of the wealth of the community. However, markets as a distribution mechanism and money as a medium of exchange would be preserved, but the market would be regulated by the democratic government insofar as banks and enterprises would be regarded as somewhat public property and would, therefore, be subject to communal control.
The above points are aspects of my thought that are more unique, which most other anarchists won't advocate. In this manifesto, I also talk about economics, labor and unions, national defense, and policing. These are aspects of my thought that are more in line with other schools of anarchist thought, so I won't elaborate on them here, but I do address them in the zine.