Europe is too much of a soft touch

[walrus]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

You can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.

Anarcho Syndicate is generally built on a form of a 'Federal structure'. But yes it could be described as a confederacy, but I tried to avoid that term, as I suspect it has 'loaded' meanings to Americans.

As for 'no democracy without property rights'; the 'people' ('the syndicate'), not the 'person' would 'own' property, thus it is not an issue.

After the revolution and prior to the civil war our first form of government was a confederate. Didn't work out well. If you read our history you will see there were a few presidents before Washington, Washington was the fist under the constitution. So a confederate was tried here in the US and was not sustainable. I believe Switzerland is a confederate, don't know how many other confederate countries are out their. No American should take issue with you using the word confederate especially when discussing forms of government. None of us are advocating slavery, although I know you commies are big on that in your gulags and what not.