Did rothbard talk about this when he proposed the term 'Nonarchist'?
Anyhow id always advocate anarchy in the end, but youre right, making it structured in the way of private courts, private this, insurance that, etc, etc is skewed, but it merely is an explanation of how things COULD be.
I always say this when talking to statists, that you can have a state in a anarchist society as long as it is voluntary to join it. That way there will be all kinds of political variety and all people's views can be upheld.
The problem is when the statists want to force voluntarists into their system.
Or am i completely wrong and missed what you were trying to articulate clayton?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Old thread resurrected...
We substantially agree, but I want to do it by comparison, something that cannot be easily ignored, and you want to do it by education, something which can be.
Actually, I don't really care how it gets done. The point is that there is this self-reinforcing complex of ideas or attitudes or memes or whatever you want to call them and those are what need to be broken down by whatever means. Clearly, everything that has been tried to date to break this meme-complex is the wrong answer because it hasn't worked - that includes violent revolution. That doesn't mean that nothing that has been tried will ever work... perhaps it's a matter of waiting for the right opportunity. My only point is that we actually don't know what the right answer is, though we can probably rule out some things as obviously wrong answers (e.g. violent revolution).
I disagree that it's easy to change men's minds about the state; it takes a long chain of conceptual integration and consideration to come to the libertarian conclusion, even for people naturally inclined to philsophical thought.
*shrug - the case against the State is what I said is easy. How that case impacts individuals is too complicated to formulate. People are moved primarily by peer pressure, so once the case against the State starts rolling down the hill like the proverbial snowball, it could carry the entire social order with it.
The point I'm trying to underscore is that we have the one thing on our side that guarantees success in the long-run: the truth. It's so much less work to be on the side of truth because all you have to do is point people in its general direction and the truth itself does the rest of the work. There's no need for hyper-ventilating postmodernism or overwrought Hegelian dialecticalism. The statists are fighting gravity, that's why they have to wake up so early and work so hard to keep the juggernaut afloat. The formidable power of sites like Mises.org or LRC does not lie in their graphics or presentation or the catchiness and "relevance" of their content, or the clever, well-thought out presentation of their "talking points"... no such window-dressing is required because they just point in The General Direction of Truth and leave it to the reader to work out the rest as an exercise. I don't know how long it will take for the truth to conquer statism but I know one thing for sure: eventually, it will.
Clayton -