I figured this would just be a fun/interesting thread. I looked through old forums and only saw ones talking about where we were all introduced to libertarianism and the Austrian school, but none about when people formally declared themselves to be anarchists.
When people ask me, I still say that I'm a libertarian because I still have a lot to learn, and, while I agree with nearly 100% anarcho-capitalist theory now, I feel like it's a big step to make the official declaration (whether to yourself or other) of being an anarchist. I remember watching a video or listening to audio about someone going up to Rothbard (I think) at a conference and saying, "I just became an anarchist," and he responded, "Congratulations!" and saying that he actually did something similar.
I'd like to hear everyone's stories/memories to see what it felt like!
I think a year and a half ago is when I started calling myself an anarchist.
Full blown anarcho-capitalist in the last few months, but I would also always make the clarification that anarchy does not mean lawlessness. Most people seem to think that law can only come from the state.
I was always a sort of elitist individualist with authority problems, so I have been a de facto anarchist as long as I can remember. I have used the term since understood economics, back around 5 years ago.
Well, the process of becoming one was quite gradual as I was dragged kicking and screaming to the truth. Honestly, though, what sealed it was finishing Hoppe's "Democracy: the God That Failed" last summer. I remember that summer well because I mentioned it when we were debating things in history class and proceeded to be ganged up on by statists left and right. I still haven't forgiven myself for not expressing my ideas very well back then. Then again, I DID mention this site and admit to everyone that if they had questions, they should ask here instead of with someone as inexperienced as I was. I saw someone write Mises.org down, so maybe it helped a bit.
When I had to pay a 100% tax rate on an imported neck of a bass.
I don't do labels. It is in fashion.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
I was a constitutionalist that worshipped the Founding Fathers. Hearing about it being a bloodless coup made me cringe. Then I read Lysander Spooner's No Treason which destroyed my belief in social contracts like the Constitution. Some LewRockwell.com articles like this ended my love for the Founders. Then someone on here said that Rothbard's For A New Liberty was one of their most influential books. So I read it online and that was all I needed to declare myself an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. All I needed to hear were some ideas for how anarchy could possibly work, because I believed that taxation broke the non-agression axiom. So it took one year to go from hardcore neo-conservative to libertarian, then one year later I read For A New Liberty. Make sure you see this blog post if you haven't already.
Anarcho-capitalist to folks who are in the liberty movement, or interested in the philosophy.
Otherwise, avoid labels if possible - your position is nameless, it gets at people - they can't put you in a box and dismiss you.
Then I got asked if I was a label: _______ and I said yes, instead of re-flecting... or saying, I was an anti-monopolist, or a voluntarist (which puts them back on the backfoot). And makes them digg further.
I learnt from that though. Felt amazing regardless, me vs 30 odd folks & 4 classical liberal panelists at a 'free market' conference.
I agree, labelling doesn't help and becomes a means for slander. If someone asked me what I am, I would simply outline the NAP - pretty much sums it up and there would be few who would disagree with it (since they don't see that taxes are theft and that regulation, labor laws etc. rely on threats of theft/violence).
For me, I've started that using the label anarcho-capitalist/anarchist (depending on the impression I want and if they know the difference) since ~September 2010. I'll still go and use libertarian or voluntarist if they have no idea about anything and to try to communicate my position if I have no time, or feel it isn't worth my time- like explaining at the ASHRAE (networking) dinner last week to an Indian student that sometimes you have to use
"Saudi Arabia not Quatar is near Dubia becease thats all the guy knows- especially when he thinks India has the man-made islands that are in Dubia; sometimes us Americans can be really stupid."
I label myself proudly. That's how communication is achieved. If the ignorant want to throw invectives based on nothing then it makes it that much easier to identify exactly the people I don't need to concern myself with. Stridence to the point of abrasiveness has its merits, one is quickly rid of the thin skinned and religious fanatics.
You bunch of noobs
When I was 11 I first learned about anarchy (specifically through the story of Sacco and Vendzetti) in history class and started wearing anarchy signs and upside down flags on my clothes, that kind of thing.
I "became" an anarchist formally at 13 when I learned about politics and started signing my name (Adam) with an anarchy sign for the first A.
I became somewhat of a social democrat about 17-20, but, you know, reformism never works.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Conza88: Anarcho-capitalist to folks who are in the liberty movement, or interested in the philosophy.
I started calling myself anarcho-libertarian because of what Stephen Kinsella said here: "The West is often referred to as “capitalist” because it allows a much higher degree of genuine capitalism than have other countries. Yet because the western states have never been fully libertarian, there has been a large and growing degree of corporatism or mercantalism. Thus in popular usage “capitalism” has some corporatist connotations. If we call ourselves capitalism we may mislead outsiders and open ourselves to unjust criticism. This is one reason I tend to say anarcho-libertarian instead. But so long as we are clear that we mean laissez-faire capitalism, or to condemn corporatism, mercantalism, and protectionism, I see nothing wrong with using the term capitalism to describe an important aspect of libertarian theory and society. "
Unfortunately, when you google anarcho-libertarian the first thing that pops up is libertarian socialism, which is why one guy I was debating on YouTube said that I "believe in getting people to become socialist through trickery and lying." So I made it clear to him that I am an anarcho-capitalist, which means I try to get socialists to become capitalists through trickery and lying.
"I became somewhat of a social democrat about 17-20"
Still a noob I see.
In my opinion there are some major issues with the label. It is fine and dandy when talking to other self described "market anarchists", but outside of that you are simply in an uphill battle. When compared with other stripes of anarchism(including the American styled left-libertarians) the words are simply homonyms with radically different meanings. Furthermore, I think it is a bit of a linguistic faux pas to use the word "anarchist" to mean anything positive ("good") or productive....this may be one of the reasons why there are a bajillion different contradictory groups throwing the word around, and they just can't seem to agree with each other. I think they may have seriously undermined the original intent of the word.
As for one who pretty much has a "creative destruction" outlook on life, is apathetic/ non cognitive to the phrase"non hierarchical system", is a radical anti-federalistt, materialist, and free marketeer; I prefer to fight for the words "liberal" or "whig" (albiet perhaps "radical liberal"). Those are two fine terms with good histories, better than the overzealous sounding "anarchist". Besides I would rather be associated with Burke than Bakunin and show how I am anathemic to left wing conservative nut jobs like Proudhon.
I called myself an anarchist after listening to fine music such as this:
/sarcasm
For me, it started after I bought Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. His disdain for central planning comes through loud and clear on every page. The more I read, the clearer it became that government just can't get anything right, even if it really means to (which it never does). Then I started to read economics articles online and quickly stumbled on Mises.org and Rothbard. I quickly converted to the anarchist position. I spent some time in an "anarcho-reactionist" phase - easy to do if you read LRC every morning - but then I've settled down and have made peace with the social order as it is, with the caveat that I reserve the right to denounce the attitudes of most people regarding public policy as deeply immoral and self-righteous in the most perverse way possible.
Clayton -
...there are a bajillion different contradictory groups throwing the word around, and they just can't seem to agree with each other. I think they may have seriously undermined the original intent of the word.
That is true, and 'anarchist' also isn't quite literally what one means unless one means 'archon' specifically as political agents. I don't have any problem with hierarchy, inequality, intolerance or just plain ornery bastarads; they may not be enjoyable but it's really no worse than the general stupidities and foibles of humankind; that is to say I don't have any dislike for the desire for social climbing any more than I do for things like religion. Something like Propertarian Contractarian is more to the point, but I have found just as frequently that most people find the deployment of terms they do not understand to be pretentious or poseurish. Again, not that I particularly care what they think, but with the majority of humans you are never going to get a positive response out of astatism any more than you would atheism.
I definitely prefer Burke to Bakunin (thus the name). Proudhon's leftish imagination about the future of statelessness aside, he was actually rather personally conservative and closer to free marketism than someone like Kevin Carson. I don't mind calling myself a liberal or a radical liberal; it has the additional feature of being able to annoy and confuse Conservatives, but it doesn't exactly explicate the particular concepts involved, only certain tendencies. Richard Overton's outlook is quite agreeable, his philosophical justifications are bunk.
Started calling myself anarchist very recently...and even then not all the time. The subject of politics rarely comes up, though I'm sure with Turkey Day coming up it's bound to happen. I mostly just call myself a "capitalist" because the truest form of capitalism occurs sans state.
I generally don't like the term "anarchy" because I always think of the grumpy, rock-throwing commie anarchists. I grew up in the punk rock scene and it was littered with this kind of irritating militancy.
"it was littered with this kind of irritating militancy."
Oh the irony.
I mostly just call myself a "capitalist" because the truest form of capitalism occurs sans state.
I don't use the word 'capitalist' to describe my position because, to me, it doesn't seem to be a political persuasion. It's an occupation and an economic function. I know of the reasons Mises gave for accepting the use of 'capitalism' to describe the free market, and they are reasonable, but I don't think that transfers over to 'capitalist'.
Spring/summer 2008. I stopped being a minarchist when I stopped trying to figure out how anarchy could work.
I tell people I am an anarchist. I usually follow up with some statement about how social relations are possible without violence, and that peaceful society cannot be created by force.
I've always been an anarchist at heart. Very early on I saw authority without limits as a problem. I first self identified in 2003, though that wasn't the end of it. As for what I identify with in public, it ranges but if I'm pushed to be frank, I say I am an anarchist.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Militancy is aggression, which is how the state works. Anarchy is liberty and non aggression, the opposite of the state. So for anarchists to be militant....
Anarchy is liberty and non aggression, the opposite of the state.
Yes, strict liberalism and the state are utterly incompatible. No statist can be a libertarian, IMO.
Consistently, they can't be. But humanity is plagued with inconsistent ideas, so I accept minarchists as libertarians, although inconsistent. We can't reject what is so close to us. Anarchism was born out of anti state thinking which originated from minimal statists.
Call classical liberals statists, but without them, anarchist thinking would never exist. They just never got that far, as many minarchists do.
But humanity is plagued with inconsistent ideas, so I accept minarchists as libertarians, although inconsistent.
I do not accept them. I do accept that they have liberal ideas. Obviously I am not going to dismiss Mises because he believed in a Night Watchman State. I agree with them when they criticize the State, when they attack managerial meddling in people's affairs, and so forth. However minarchism itself is the fundamental fantasy that took us from liberal revolution to a centralized North American empire. This is more important than arguments over land abandonment and the existence of interest; this is the most total and fundamentally anti-liberal premise being shoved into liberalism; it will corrupt liberalism to the core if allowed to persist.
We can't reject what is so close to us. Anarchism was born out of anti state thinking which originated from minimal statists.
I don't want to ban them from writing in the Freeman, but I would say it is a disservice not to constantly point out the fundamentally incompatible nature of their schemes with liberal polities.
1) There were anarchists before the ascent of classical liberalism. Epicurus, for example. A market anarchist, I might add. 2) It is true that statist-classical liberals added much to the liberal theoretical tradition: economic, sociological, legal and ethical arguments. But in doing so they contradicted their own statism with every word. Lamentable as it may have been, we can ascribe much of it to a lack of a clear view of alternatives and infatuation with republican humanism. This, however, is an excuse that minarchists do not have.
I will have to check this Epicurus guy out, sounds interesting.
He has an ethical and social view that combines egoism, voluntaryism, utilitarianism, consequentialism and natural law by demonstrating that the logos of the world and humans do not generate contradictions between these. Though particular situations might generate tensions.
http://www.epicurus.net/
http://praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm
About 2004-2009.
"Militancy is aggression, which is how the state works. Anarchy is liberty and non aggression, the opposite of the state. So for anarchists to be militant...."
Non-state entities can be aggressive, no? That's not really what I meant by "militant". They were cloistered, ignorant and (sometimes) violent...and the anarchy appellation for them was mostly for fashion.
Plus, you can always make the argument that a politcal belief system that rejects private property outright is inherently militant, but there's steps involved in that equation that I'm not smart enough to take.
Before I realised how many completely insane "anarchists" there were.
Angurse:Before I realised how many completely insane "anarchists" there were.
If there were less, would you stick around?
Have you picked a new label immune from insanity?
Absolutely.
Will you change labels when all the crazies call themselves Voluntaryist?
There already are crazies that call themselves that. Socialists and Sarte-types.
I'm going to have to. I'm not going to waste much time defending terms over ideas.
Why not just define your terms and let those too lazy to investigate your substantive opinions wallow in their ignorance?