Question:
Most of us call our way of thinking anarcho capitalism or voluntarism and i dont understand why.
I personally dont like either terms. Whenever i mention ancap to people they always think about some idiot goth kid who hasnt bathed in months and goes around throwing rocks at cars on friday nights. Then they ask why do you believe in what "they" believe in? Like someone who is clean cut and typically dresses business casual cant hate the government? (im sure jeffrey tucker gets much stranger looks when he says it to ppl) Then any further conversation they shut off and dont care. Even my best friends are like ok whatever dude.
when i mention voluntarism they think im some naive hippy dbag that is completely unrealistic. "why would people just voluntarly work together? they could do that right now and they dont." At this point they will give you an example as proof why it cant work. Then you answer and they respond with well ok what about this. then you answer. Then they will realize that this conversation can go on for years giving millions of examples and me answering them. This ultimately ends with well i just dont believe you, and they shut off again and dont care. I cant force them to educate themselves in freedom or AE nor can i sit there for hours on end explaining freedom. Also Im not in a position to call myself such an expert that i can now be a teacher.
Obviously i am over generalizing their reactions, but we all have seen their faces/reactions/responses when they hear you are an anarchist or a voluntarist.
My question why dont we use a term everyone already knows and understands? Why dont we use a term that most Americans believe in and believe they are? Why dont we use a term that embraces a sense of pride in themselves and pays homage to their ancestors?
The term is capitalism. Why do we think we are so different or special to rate our own term like 'Ancaps' or 'Voluntarists'.
Is there really anything fundamentally different in the definition of 'capitalism' vs ancap or voluntarism?
Try it next time you have a conversation about politics or economics. Tell them that you are a capitalist or believe in capitalism or to raise the probability of a resonse say you believe in 'pure, big, bad, in your face capitalism (what is 'pure big bad in your face capitalism? i have no clue, its no different than just regular capitalism but it will get more of a reaction out of them) The only thing you need to say if someone attacks capitalism is "thats not capitalism" because whatever downside of capitalism they suggest will not be capitalism. This response will challenge them to actually think on their own 'ok what IS capitalism'. They will come to the conclusion for themselves that capitalism isnt the use of force, isnt war, isnt bailouts, isnt debt, isnt mandated favoritism of special interest groups, its fair, and just.
Even socialist democrats think and realize they have incorrectly defined capitalism. Now you probably wont get them to get a 'V' tattoo on their forehead, but you will get them thinking 'is capitalism the problem'? or hopefully if you do a good job, 'if capitalism isnt the problem what is?'
Then for the average American who believes that capitalism works they will be more open to you, they will like you more, and they will trust you because you will remind them of a brother, sister, father, grandfather, any relative, a friend, neighbor, or teacher. There is someone in every family that has a relative who KNOWS that they were able to provide an opportunity and a chance of a better future for their children because of CAPITALISM.
I've heard suggestions that we should embrace our fellow anarchist of other varietals including anarcho commies. This is a horrible idea. Why should we go after another fringe subsection of society just to multiply our antigovernment numbers by a small percentage? We already have the VAST majority of the world believing in our way of life. I dont care if people read Mises or even know what Austrian Economics is. The important thing to do is to redefine capitalism back to its proper definition. When that happens the people will begin to ask our elected officials 'why did you vote for this and that', we are capitalists and "that is not capitalism". The paul krugman's of the world wont be able to hide behind responses like 'well i believe in capitalism, but it needs to be heavily regulated by the state' What the hell is that?! THATS NOT CAPITALISM. Thats not what the vast majority of people believe in. Obama couldnt get elected by calling himself a capitalist when he certainly is not. We should not allow them to hide behind the mask of a propagandized definition of capitalism. All we have to do is shout anytime anyone incorrectly defines capitalism, "THATS NOT CAPITALISM".
This goes for libertarianism too. Why are we fighting the current? How many of us actually come from a libertarian family? How many of us have a majority of libertarian friends? None? maybe a few, we are a republican or democrat society. Why are we trying to pick off republicans and democrats to join a libertarian cause? They are already with us, they believe and understand the fundamentals of why capitalism work. We need to embrace what they embrace, capitalism. This is the core issue.
The law of diffussion of innovation goes something like this. 2.5% of the population are innovators. We are the social, political, and economic innovators of society. We took it upon ourselves to go out on the fringes to understand why we believe what we believe. The next 13.5% are called 'early birds'. This is why so many politicians seem to go from terrible polls in the primaries (the innovators are voting for them) then can jump like herman cain, gingrich, santorum, and bachmann can jump to the teens over night. They convince the early birds to vote for them. The next group of people are the early majority at 34% and the late majority at 34%. These people are the people who dont take risks and follow the crowd. These people were waiting on the innovators and early birds to stick with a candidate so they can vote for them, and ultimately why Mitt Romney won. The early birds couldnt make up their minds so they ended up voting for the safest most stable voting numbers and that was romney. What this law tells us is we cannot have success until we convince the early majority and late majority to buy what we are selling. So what are we selling? No government, no laws, no mandates, freedom and liberty. Does 68% of population believe in anarchy? I dont think so. Does 68% of the people believe in no laws or mandates? NOPE. Do they believe in freedom and liberty? Maybe, but then we get into the question of what is freedom and liberty? People can believe freedom is laws that ban guns because 'that will give them the freedom from not being shot'. Freedom from from enemy nations? People will say that going to war is freedom for us at home. So i dont think we can convince the 68% to believe in freedom and liberty.
So whats left that we have in common with the majority? In a Rasmussen poll conducted in early 2011 found that 10% of Americans believe communism is better than what we have. And 12% unsure. If socialism rallies, as we know how the parasitic nature of socialism can, then that will put them at the 22% and in the majority sector of the law. That means that getting the 68% of sheep to jump ship will become increasingly easier with each percentage point. In a 2009 Rasmussen poll, only 53 percent said that capitalism was better than socialism for society.
Still not the 68% we need, plus we want the 2.5% innovators AND the 13.5% early birds. Since we arent looking to win a SINGLE election, we are looking for a REVOLUTION of ideas. What the Rasmussen poll did find is that communists, socialists, independents, republicans, democrats, ect 95% of this country BELIEVE that capitalism is better for the economy than any other system.
We try and get people to understand by throwing out ideas and concepts one by one that challenges their notions that government is beneficial. Thats working from the outside in. When what we need to do is work from the inside out. Capitalism is in the people. We must start there.
Anarcho-Capitalism!?! What the hell is that? Why are we willing to give up the fight for capitalism by calling ourselves ancaps?! We already lost the word liberal to the history of time we must not lose capitalism. We must stop considering ourselves to be on the social paralysis fringe. We are the majority.
The Libertarian Party requires people to stop affiliating themselves with who they are, and to change. A Capitalist Party envelops the essence of what they know in their soul to be true.
I'm not a capitalist. I have very little capital. I'm a Rothbardian anarchist.
grant.w.underwood: My question why dont we use a term everyone already knows and understands? Why dont we use a term that most Americans believe in and believe they are? Why dont we use a term that embraces a sense of pride in themselves and pays homage to their ancestors? The term is capitalism. Why do we think we are so different or special to rate our own term like 'Ancaps' or 'Voluntarists'. Is there really anything fundamentally different in the definition of 'capitalism' vs ancap or voluntarism?
Well, yeah, kind of there is. For one thing "capitalism" doesn't fully express the details. It doesn't necessarily suggest anarchism. And this is to say nothing to the hundred different ways people define it today. Just listen to Michael Moore. "Capitalism" not only doesn't do a very good job of fully expressing your political philosophy, plenty of people already assume it means something that it doesn't even say in the dictionary.
I talk a bit about "capitalism" and relaying the concept to ignoramuses here.
My question is, why is having a label so important in the first place?
If your goal is really educating people, I don't really see labels doing much to help that process. In fact I don't see them doing much more than potentially harming it. The way you describe this scenario is very romanticized and unrealistic. If these people were such truth seekers, and were so easily able to be reached through logical appeal and reason, why are they advocating for the return of Stalin and Che?
Just who are these "average American[s] who believe that capitalism works"? Even people who would say they are "pro-capitalism" or "pro-free market" will openly advocate bailout, subsidies, regulations, drug laws, drone strikes, militarism...this is so far against what someone who subscribes to "voluntarism" believes in, it's utterly foreign. When you say "There is someone in every family that has a relative who KNOWS that they were able to provide an opportunity and a chance of a better future for their children because of CAPITALISM"...I think that is really stretching it.
We have a President preaching "you didn't build that", and you think people are walking around crediting "capitalism" for their relative prosperity? I'm not sure you really appreciate what we're dealing with here.
I've heard suggestions that we should embrace our fellow anarchist of other varietals including anarcho commies. This is a horrible idea. Why should we go after another fringe subsection of society just to multiply our antigovernment numbers by a small percentage?
Some say the same thing about the minarchists you seem to think are allies.
We already have the VAST majority of the world believing in our way of life.
I'm not completely positive what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.
The important thing to do is to redefine capitalism back to its proper definition. When that happens the people will begin to ask our elected officials 'why did you vote for this and that', we are capitalists and "that is not capitalism". [...] They are already with us, they believe and understand the fundamentals of why capitalism work.
I think Gary Johnson is kind of shooting for the same thing with his whole "you're libertarian, we're libertarians, be libertarian with me" campaign....trying to convince people that they already agree with him. I mean it kind of has an appeal, as on the surface it would seem that convincing people to change their minds is quite a bit harder than simply convincing them they're already on your side and are just using the wrong words.
But I'm not sure how effective that is...especially when, again, people are literally outright saying "I'm pro-intervention".
I'm not sure exactly how you think you're simply going to "trick" people into being anarchists by the cunning use of definitions.
I say again, why are labels so important? Why can't you just relay the ideas? People will come to terms with terms on their own.
From The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread:
Anarcho-capitalist to differentiate between any kind of state capitalism. And state capitalism is what most people think of when they think of capitalism. Voluntaryist to demonstrate that we support voluntary and cooperative social interactions. It does not mean we are against violence per se, but that we are for cooperation. Who is against cooperation? Thugs.
My question why dont we use a term everyone already knows and understands? Why dont we use a term that most Americans believe in and believe they are? Why dont we use a term that embraces a sense of pride in themselves and pays homage to their ancestors? The term is capitalism. Why do we think we are so different or special to rate our own term like 'Ancaps' or 'Voluntarists'. Is there really anything fundamentally different in the definition of 'capitalism' vs ancap or voluntarism?
Capitalism does not necessarily mean free market capitalism. Most people do not associate the word in that way. Putting in the qualifier "free market" or "anarcho" demonstrates the difference clearly.
The only thing you need to say if someone attacks capitalism is "thats not capitalism" because whatever downside of capitalism they suggest will not be capitalism.
Telling them this will be more likely to make them think you are dogmatic and claiming No true Scotsman.
I see nothing wrong with using different labels. Anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, libertarian, etc., there is no reason why we must use one term and one term only. If the people you are talking with shut down because of these labels, then you are either not explaining it well or they are not worth talking to regarding this issue. These labels are not remotely similar to something disgusting like Nazism or the KKK. There is no reason for anyone to shut down after hearing "voluntaryist" unless you are doing it wrong or they are not worth your time. Not everyone can learn or even want to learn.
Just don't talk politics with your friends and spend your time talking about it with people who seem more interested.
There's a good one.
gotlucky - cooperation is capitalism. I dont see any difference is ancap, voluntaryism, libertarianism, or capitalism. Whether you have a little of capital or are dead broke. We believe in the voluntary system of capitalism. All the deviations further puts us on the fringes. Why are we doing this when we are already at the heart of the country when we call ourselves capitalist.
the 'no true scotsman' makes sense, but i dont like it. Im not challenging what the people believe is the definition of what capitalism is. I think if you break it down for them, they will reach a very similar definition of what capitalism is. What they are calling capitalism is the implementation of 'capitalism' by our government. I believe the people know government action isnt capitalism if you ask them. As ive done and i they realize it.
I agree we should use one term and one term only, but why are we using negative terms? or terms that people dont know? they might not be nazism or kkk like you say, but they have a negative perspective fo them. Even libertarian, most ppl wont ever be true libertarians so they will never change their voting patterns. The term capitalism lets 95% of the population to continue to believe and understand what they already believed yesterday. They dont have to change their beliefs to be capitalists.
I've come to like the term "Market Anarchist". It says what it does right on the tin: Markets (ie. free exchange of property/capital/resources) and Anarchy (ie. a lack of a territorial monopoly on force. I've found that anarcho-capitalism is too loaded of a term, and too linked to Rothbard specifically to represent my views. Voluntarism is a good term also, but as you've said it's kind of wishy-washy and doesn't have the same descriptive power as other terms. People hear "voluntary society" and think it's all about drum circles and hugs. Still, depending on the audience and how they are introduced to the term, Voluntarism can certainly be effective.
I prefer to just call myself a libertarian when speaking with the great unwashed.
ya i like market anarchy, and it typically doesnt get a negative response. i receive a more of an inquisitive response. Though people dont connect social implications of market anarchy. They are inclined to think thats the way you believe business should be conducted. What about medicare? food stamps? public transportion? You will have to again break down a definition for them which you will start to pushing beliefs they dont agree with.
Capitalism includes an obvious exclusion of government from intervention of people interacting in a voluntary manner, and they know it works. You dont really have to explain anything to them once you clarify its definition.
"I prefer to just call myself a libertarian when speaking with the great unwashed."
-Minarchist
Not again
I completely agree Grant, libertarians need to embrace the word Capitalism, it is what we are, and it is mainstream. All these other descriptions require a building of understanding from the ground up, what's an anarcho capitalist, what's a voluntaryist, even libertarian, where do you/they stand on issue A,B,C,D,E,F? Most people do understand what capitalism means. I do agree with GotLucky also though, that we have to be sure to distinguish ourselves from Corporatists. I often call myself a "pure", or "true capitalist", taking ownership of the term, we are capitalists, we're not a subset of corporatists, they are a subset of socialists.
I think it would be a great move for the Libertarian Party to rename themselves the Capitalist party, while Ron Paul may have brought more understanding to some there are a ton of people that think Libertarians are just hippies that want to legalise drugs, with no understanding of the deeper reasoning behind it.
minarchist - libertarian is good, and one that is roundedly accepted. However the problem i see is you arent going to convince people to be libertarian or vote libertarian. They are a good republican or democrat just like their daddy. They look at it as a political ideology with the same type of politicians as repub and dems. So why change their vote? The libertarian party can only get the 17% of the vote as defined in the law of diffusion of innovation coincidentally the virtually the exact same percentage ron paul was polling at (and mind you he was running as a republican). We need the majority. The only thing we have in common is our belief in capitalism.
jj - lots of info, ill respond tonight as im too busy to read now. Thanks.
Eh, I'm not so sure that "obvious exclusion" is so obvious. A lot of people have come to define capitalism as the status quo. And historically many people have defined it as a system that relies on state priveleges to maintain itself. I'm not so sure trying to save the term "capitalism" is worth as much time as people devote towards it. Better to use other terms that don't have the baggage.
logisticearth - try it. Ask someone, does capitalism involve the government? if they say yes (which they might), ask what definition are you using that has government involvement in capitalism. They will say something along the lines of well not in real capitalism, but ______ this is where they will throw in bank bailouts, something related to corporations own DC., fill in your own leftist punchline. They know just as much as we do that that is not capitalism. They just dont have a word for it so they call it a part of capitalism and its not. Tell them the truth, its socialism. Capitalism has nothing to do with government.
Those terms are generally used to mean the same thing by libertarians, but the problem is with the people who are not libertarian.
LogisticEarth's point is spot on, that the term 'capitalism' has been used to mean different ideas, and historically it has been identified with requiring the state to support big business. I don't know if you are familiar with this piece of Rothbard's, but it is specifically about whether libertarians are anarchists. There was a time when even Rothbard did not want to call himself an anarchist, but eventually he changed his mind. Right or wrong, the meanings of words can change over time, and apparently enough libertarians wanted to identify as anarchists so the term can actually refer to libertarians. But the fight for that word is not over. Not everyone hears anarchist to mean libertarian.
But I don't think that it's necessarily worthwhile to try to reclaim words. Consider the word 'gay'. Do you really care about it so much that you want it to mean 'happy' instead of 'homosexual'? Are you going to use it in your daily speech in order to reclaim the word? In my opinion, it would be a waste of your time. Too many people consider 'gay' to mean 'homosexual' that you would just be confusing everyone and wasting your time.
I see a similar situation with the word 'capitalism'. I'm not saying we ought to ditch it entirely, but too many people simply do not equate the word with free markets. Right or wrong, most people just simply do not see the word the same way you do. And if everytime you have a conversation with people you need to explain what you mean by the word, I think that might be a signal that other people do not understand the word in the same way. So by saying 'anarcho-capitalist', you are signalling to others that you are a capitalist - someone who either acquires capital or supports a system where individuals may acquire capital - and that you are also anti-state.
The people who are in the best position to reclaim the word 'capitalist' are those who write regular columns or essays or are on some sort of media, such as radio or tv. They are in the best position to reach a large audience in order to convince people that a word should really mean something else. But if you try to do it one person at a time, you aren't going to get anywhere.
Just to be clear, I do not believe that we ought to use one term only. I see nothing wrong with having more than one term, and sometimes those terms might have a subtle nuance that can be really important to some people.
jj - finished my project much faster than expected.
by saying we are capitalist we arent pushing an anarchy agenda or a libertarian agenda. We are pushing an economic fact that capitalism works, and 95% of the population agrees it works. Who cares about the little things? The little things like private schools, private roads, privatized everything is the conclusion of capitalism.
When you say that capitalism doesnt fully express the details, that EXACTLY why im for it. It doesnt require the 95% of the population to believe in anything different from what they believed yesterday. Picking at the little things prevents people from seeing the big picture.
We stress here freedom and liberty with the end deduction being in order to have freedom it means economically too. Well ppl have so many different aspects of what freedom and liberty is that we will never get the majority. Its going upstream without a paddle.
Lets do it the other way around! if 95% of the population knows that capitalism works best economically then lets push that! Anarchy and libertarianism is capitalism realized.
"I talk a bit about "capitalism" and relaying the concept to ignoramuses here." - i revert back to it being the best part. We want to unite the people not divide it. We can talk all day to people about freedom and they wont care. Ask if capitalism works, and they will agree. If they dont know that economic freedom (capitalism) realized is libertarianism why should we change their mind? They will realize it when we get capitalism back. They also wont fight it because its what they wanted! They were the capitalist revolution.
"people are literally outright saying "I'm pro-intervention" - just as we are the innovators, the 2.5%, those people are the 2.5% for socialism. Its impossible to get 100%. All i care about is the silent majority in the middle with 68% of the population. If those are the people we are up against we cant lose. If we draw a line in the sand, that government isnt capitalism (which i believe vast majority of people will understand and believe) then those advocating intervention will have to say they are something other than capitalist.
as for gary johnson's campaign stragedy - they still have to vote libertarian which only 17% will do. Could we of really asked for a better candidate than Ron Paul? How do we expect anyone to be better than him? He went after freedom and liberty when i think he should of gone after capitalism. Of course hindsight is 20/20.
I think the biggest problem is that EVERYONE (elected officials) preaches freedom, liberty, and prosperity. Its hard for ANYONE to stand out preaching that. In 2008, i was the in the 68% and didnt even waste time looking at ron paul. Although i like a lot of what he said i didnt waste anytime reading up on him because i thought he was just like every other politician (basically because i knew he wasnt going to win). This election i was the same until finally a close friend said i had to look at him because he preaches what i preached. We think its easy to see that ron paul was the obvious choice. As a part of the majority its not. I had to dig deep into voting records and study what he meant. I didnt agree on a lot of what he said, but i had to find out why he differed on those things when most of what he said was IDENTICAL of what i believed. Then i figured he was the best candidate, but i still disagreed on a lot. So i picked up 'revolution' and then he had to convince me that in fact those things that i disagreed with him on that I was the one that was wrong. Thats almost impossible considering how hard headed i am.
Thats what we have to do if we want the majority to go libertarian.
If he just would of preached capitalism, something that i knew was right and moral, pointed out how the other candidates arent capitalists i would of been voting for him without a second thought. Thats something i could relate to. Thats something 95% of the population relates to.
Do we as libertarians really care if people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism? Do we care if social democrats vote for libertarianism because economically speaking its the right choice? NO.
What we wont get, as Ron Paul proved, a majority of the people voting for our concept of liberty.
got lucky - ill read the rothbard today, and i dont believe i have read it.
I know ive said 'redefine' capitalism or take the word back, but its not exactly what i mean. Its more along the lines of people already know the correct definition of capitalism they are just misusing it or a lot of times havent even considered what it means. If we just let them consider the definition they will reach that conclusion.
Even saying anarcho capitalist you have to explain what you mean by anarcho and capitalism. When we can just use capitalism.
Every avenue leads to requires people to think. Why not make it easy on them and just have them think about one thing. What is capitalism? The people know they just havent thought about it.
If it's ever asked I don't give a straight answer, it comes out like, "Vaguely along the lines of a 'libertarian' or anarcho-capitalist," and then I'll name off some influences or some other b/s.
@JJ
"I prefer to just call myself a libertarian when speaking with the great unwashed." -Minarchist
I'll just repeat for emphasis until you understand your mistake.
We didnt know that you talk to yourself.
What is this supposed to mean?
I thought "the great unwashed" was your personal title. Pardon my mistake.
Wow...good one.
What does it mean?
The great masses of ignorant people who make up most of the population at any given time. See: Malachi's family tree.
The biggest obstacle to mainstreaming libertarianism is getting people to understand it, most people already believe in it, they just don't know or misunderstand what IT is. Most people already have a broad basic understanding of the term capitalism. Many have smuggled corporatism into their concept of capitalism, but removing that one aspect is much easier than teaching the masses an entirely new political system.
The great masses of ignorant people who make up most of the population at any given time.
See: Malachi's family tree.
since i havent really said it the only definition capitalism needs is the private ownership of the factors of production. That is the basis for freedom. All government action is in direct contradiction of that definition.
I cant help but consider this an elitist assertion
It is an elitist assertion.
anyone who is not omniscient can be considered ignorant in some respect.
Everyone is ignorant to some extent, but some more than others.
Is this how a collectivist sees the world?
Interesting question, you'll have to find one and ask him.
grant.w.underwood:When you say that capitalism doesnt fully express the details, that EXACTLY why im for it.
So you're for labeling something, just so long as the label doesn't really give anyone a good understanding of what's inside. Great philosophy.
It doesnt require the 95% of the population to believe in anything different from what they believed yesterday.
Here again I think you're really getting close to delusion.
Lets do it the other way around! if 95% of the population knows that capitalism works best economically then lets push that!
One more time:
"Abolish capitalism, and replace it with socialism."
"I'm pro-intervention"
"[Capitalism doesn't work]"
President of the United States: "[Capitalism] doesn't work. It has never worked."
(Yes, yes, "THAT'S NOT CAPITALISM" blah blah blah. Again, I just don't think you're going to trick people into being against intervention by somehow convincing them they just don't have the right definition of a single word. To be honest I'm not even sure how you're going to convince them about the definition in the first place, but even if you could I'm not sure how that's supposed to change the political philosophy of interventionism espoused by more than 95% of the population...people that you claim actually are for the opposite.)
grant.w.underwood:We want to unite the people not divide it. We can talk all day to people about freedom and they wont care. Ask if capitalism works, and they will agree.
You have got to be kidding. You go around and ask 20 people if "capitalism works" and I'll go ask another 20 if they're "pro-freedom", and we'll see who gets more "yes"s.
I'm afraid you really are delusional.
"people are literally outright saying "I'm pro-intervention" - just as we are the innovators, the 2.5%, those people are the 2.5% for socialism.
1) advocating freedom does not make us "innovators" by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you.
2) if only 2.5% of the population is in favor of socialism, how in the hell do you explain Barack Obama getting almost 70 million votes [23% of the population]? Then you got another 60 million for John McCain. That's anoter 20%. So that's more than 40% of the population (63% of the voting public) outright casting their support for socialism.
And I'm supposed to believe "pro-intervention" is only 2.5%? Flip it around. I will bet you any amount you want that it is less than 2.5% that isn't pro-intervention.
Not kidding. Bring me anyone who doesn't already identify with the term "anarcho-capitalist" and I'll show you how they're pro-intervention.
All i care about is the silent majority in the middle with 68% of the population. If those are the people we are up against we cant lose. If we draw a line in the sand, that government isnt capitalism (which i believe vast majority of people will understand and believe)
Then my friend you are delusional.
grant.w.underwood:then those advocating intervention will have to say they are something other than capitalist.
They already proclaim it, loud and proud. I have no idea what you think this will accomplish. It's as if you think everyone wants to be known as a "capitalist", and they'll do anything to be part of that club...so all you have to do is convince enough people that interventionism isn't capitalism, and the interventionists either have to convert or get shunned.
This is total nonsense.
as for gary johnson's campaign stragedy - they still have to vote libertarian which only 17% will do. Could we of really asked for a better candidate than Ron Paul? How do we expect anyone to be better than him?
Ah so you think Gary's problem isn't his strategy, it's just he's using the wrong word. Instead of telling everyone they're libertarian, he should be telling them they're capitalists, and then all of a sudden he'll be President.
Okie dokie.
Plus I really want to reiterate this point. "Capitalism" does not imply anarchism. This is the reason for the specificity of the terms that are more widely used to describe the political philosophy of property rights and non-aggression.
i was the in the 68% and didnt even waste time looking at ron paul. Although i like a lot of what he said i didnt waste anytime reading up on him because i thought he was just like every other politician (basically because i knew he wasnt going to win).
Well then you're in a severe minority of the population you group yourself in with.
So i picked up 'revolution' and then he had to convince me that in fact those things that i disagreed with him on that I was the one that was wrong. Thats almost impossible considering how hard headed i am.
Would you look at that. Ron Paul converted even a hard headed curmudgeon like you. Yeah. Total failure, this guy.
grant.w.underwood:If he just would of preached capitalism, something that i knew was right and moral, pointed out how the other candidates arent capitalists i would of been voting for him without a second thought. Thats something i could relate to. Thats something 95% of the population relates to.
No, it isn't. You're delusional. 95% of the population does not believe "capitalism" is "right and moral". Did you see this? Have you talked to any random person outside the Mises forum?
Do we as libertarians really care if people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism? Do we care if social democrats vote for libertarianism because economically speaking its the right choice? NO. What we wont get, as Ron Paul proved, a majority of the people voting for our concept of liberty.
what? Then what the hell are you arguing? You seriously just made my point for me. Your entire argument is that people innately support "capitalism", and all you have to do is convince them that "capitalism" is anarchy, and they'll be on your side...because they already support capitalism...so once they get the definition right, everything will be right as rain.
...yet here you literally just said that just because people vote for libertarianism in the name of capitalism, it won't lead to a majority of people voting for our concept of liberty.
So what in the world are you arguing?
P.S.
"Capitalism" does not imply anarchy. This is the reason for the specificity of the terms used to refer to the political philosophy of property rights and non-aggression.
good stuff. i have to put my son to sleep before i respond to the rest. for the record. this was rasmussen poll that said "95% of americans believe capitalism works best"
so whether they like it or not, they are still admitting it that capitalism is better than any other system. unless you can present a reason why the poll is incorrect it should be allowed as evidence in american's beliefs and not delusional.
grant.w.underwood: good stuff. i have to put my son to sleep before i respond to the rest. for the record. this was rasmussen poll that said "95% of americans believe capitalism works best" so whether they like it or not, they are still admitting it that capitalism is better than any other system. unless you can present a reason why the poll is incorrect it should be allowed as evidence in american's beliefs and not delusional.
First of all, you're going to have to provide a link to this survey. The only one I found was this one, which shows a full 20% saying "socialism" is a better system.
But more importantly, once again, you entire strategy hinges on (among other things) the assumed fact that people do not hold "capitalism" to mean the same thing you do. Indeed, that's you're entire strategy...convince people that "capitalism" means something other than what they currently think it means, and then voila they'll agree with you...because they already agree "capitalism works best".
Again your whole thing is:
"It's not ideology that matters. The particular policies that people ascribe to and advocate don't matter at all. All that matters is how you define the terms. It's simple. You find something that people say they agree with, say, "capitalism"...and then you simply convince them that that word doesn't mean what they think it means...but rather it refers to what you want it to mean. See how easy this is? You don't have to change anyone's feelings about policy or their philosophy...you just have to find a concept they say they already agree with, and then tell them that that concept is actually whatever you want them to agree with!"
"Like, for example, lets say I wanted people to agree that I should be able to keep slaves. All I have to do is realize that 95% of the population thinks 'capitalism' is the best system. My job is basically done for me! All I do now is any time I say something about owning slaves and someone objects, I simply say 'oh you don't agree with me owning slaves? Well you're in favor of capitalism, right? And you think owning slaves should be outlawed? THAT'S NOT CAPITALISM!' And then they'll go: 'Oh really?' And I'll tell them that actually capitalism is all about owning slaves. And then they'll come to the realization: 'Wow. I never knew that. Well. I'm definitely pro-capitalism...so if that means owning slaves is okay, I guess I'm good with that too.' Easy as pie!!!"
You're literally claiming that you can gain philosophical allies with cunning use of definitions.
It's utter nonsense. It doesn't matter what people call it...they're in favor of aggression and collective ownership of goods. You're not going to get them to all of a sudden aggree with non-aggression and private ownership by simply telling them that the term they use to describe their philosophy actually refers to your philosophy.
Nonarchist?
“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
We should call ourselves Rothbardians.
Let's see...Rothbardianism is a philosophy based on the Austrian School of Economics and employs both anarchist and capitalist thought to create a system known as anarcho-capitalism, which emphasizes the free market within a stateless society.
^^^
Or we can call ourselves heralds of the austrian school.
Yes, but Rothbardianism is so much more...evocative.
I don't know what you guys call yourselves but I call myself...
Superfly!
[view:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cmo6MRYf5g]
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
JJ - i responded to you last night with a nice long message, but of course i forgot my IPad eats my long posts.
I think you are missing point. Though in places you get it, but there is a slight perspective differience. As for the milton friedman video - I think its a great example of this perspective differience. First, Friedman defines that EVERY country has capitalism. I think this is a great argument to shut down that socialist. There is always going to be capital and someone HAS to own it, in the soviet union it is owned by the state. Its an abstract thought that im sure 99% of socialists have never even thought of and probably 99% of capitalist havent either. Since, it is a different way of looking at it that im sure most people have never thought of it is NOT the definition of capitalism. It also proves my point of the need for a clear definition of capitalism one that everyone agrees on, 'capitalism requires private ownership of the factors of production'. (here i would like to hear an argument of why this definition cant be the standard or at least be a part of the definition? Do you believe people's subjective definition of 'capitalism' really differ from private ownership?)
Here is our differience though. When you defend milton when he says along the lines of, 'just because a country has capitalism doesnt mean they have freedom. What i say is if they have freedom they have capitalism.' By his and your definition it doesnt make ANY sense. If every country in the world has capitalism, like you are arguing by showing me this video, then you can say any country that doesnt have freedom has capitalism. There is ZERO point to the word capitalism. It means nothing.
Im saying the word has to mean something and it means private ownership of the factors of production. So the soviet union didnt have capitalism like milton says they had socialism.
Now the argument of if we focus our efforts in defending capitalism rather than defending freedom.
I take this argument a few ways. i believe libertarianism is losing, but i dont believe Ron Paul has failed. Libertarian has gained enormous ground because of the Ron Paul movement gathering millions of libertarians along the way. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but its not. The only thing the Ron Paul movement did was pick up followers of freedom from the republican base and the social liberal fiscally conservative democrat base. Where we have gained 10 million, conservativism has lost the entire base. The Goldwater movement im talking about that ultimately peeked with Ronald Reagan. The huge majority of this country in the 80s believed in small government and knew government interfered with prosperity and businesses. During the Clinton years, we lost sight of why we were the wealthiest country in the world, because we were so wealthy. It didnt matter if government grew or shrank because the economy was booming. Then of course 9/11 happened and the conservative base is lost.
Where libertarianism has gained (throwing out a random guess) 10 million, pro-intervention has picked up probably over 5 times that (another guess).
as for where i found the poll. It was an article, now of course i cant find it that had combined two of rasmussens polls, asking americans about their opinions of socialism and capitalism. the poll you found is the same one of the two i found, but with much few questions and numbers.
lets use this one (since its the most recent), which obviously isnt as good as the 95% one i found, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2012/39_say_u_s_has_crony_capitalist_system .
Putting out the numbers here, what i think it means, and comparing to my original poll:
"64% of American Adults now rate capitalism as a better system than socialism." - compared to the original report i found this is better. I was originally saying that only 53% of the population believed in a capitalist system. So this is fairly good news although still shocking that only 64% of the people think this.
15% think socialism is the better way to go - i believe this is the same question, as the one you found where 20% think socialism is better. which is better. I was claiming 10% here. I believe my poll the question was more along the lines of 'are you a socialist'. The 20% you presented was also in my article i had just omitted from my post for propaganda reasoning, since 10% was better than 20%, and i think this question is phrased in a more of sympathetic to socialism sort of way. Medicare/food stamps/free healthcare/ect do you support that sort of system over a capitalist system. Which i think its reasonable to assume the numbers would double from a question like 'are you a socialist'.
21% who are undecided. - i believe my poll was the same as yours with 27% undecided.
So in a matter of 3 year 1/10 Americans went from supporting socialism to capitalism.
i think 64% believing in capitalism is a great number and with so many undecided, along with the trend of undecided moving to capitalism, its a good outlook.
So lets take the 15% who believe socialism is a better system. If we were to ask them about strictly the business aspect. Which is a better system a capitalist system or socialist system. Clearify it to, do you think that mom and pop hardware store down the block should be owned by mom and pop or the government. I would say a conservative estimate would be that half of them would agree mom and pop should own it and therefore believe a capitalist economy is better than a socialist economy.
as for the 21% - no clue what they are thinking, maybe they just dont know what socialism is? haha. I have to believe that anyone on the fence about this doesnt believe the government should own a mom and pop store because if they did they would definately already be a socialist.
So that would put us at 92.5% believing a capitalist economy is better than a socialist run economy when i was saying the poll found 95% believe that.
That is an incrediblely high number. I dont think a wack job like michael moore has even advocated putting small businesses in government ownership. I could be wrong since i dont spend much time keeping up with fat socialist gossip.
the definition of capitalism - you are advocating that i have to 'trick' people or convince people to believe in a different definition of capitalism than one they already believe. Its quite the contrary, im saying 99% of the population already knows my definition of capitalism. They already know that capitalism means the people own the businesses and in socialism the government owns it (maybe 99% cant spew that out of their mouth, but i think 99% if asked under capitalism can you own your own business they will say yes). Thats all i am looking, private ownership of the factors of production.
Do you really think i would have to result to trickery to achieve that?
So far it has nothing to do with getting people to vote with you or agree with any ideologies.
So lets go into starting a Capitalist Party:
I agree with you that this does not initially mean freedom. There would be blue dogs and republicans with vast opinions on social issues, but they would agree on the main thing im after, private ownership of the factors of production.
'If i go around and ask 20 people if capitalism works and you ask 20 people if they are pro-freedom.' Of course you will win. Even Stalin advocated pro-freedom though.
If you go around and define your concept of freedom and everything your freedom entails to 20 people and i go around and ask 20 people do people have the right to own their own business then who do you think will win?
I will win everytime i promise you. Do you think im delusional in thinking that?
Advocating freedom does make us innovators. Look at the people in the world today, you are pushing for freedom in a sea of interventionalists. Whether or not your mommy ever told you that you are special you are. If you need a hug i will give you one. Freedom is special and so is the mises.org. when we are living in a state free state one day you will tell your grandkids about how you were a part of that movement from the beginning.
When you say how did obama get 70 million votes and mccain 60 million when they were outright supporting socialism if this country isnt socialist. Its easy, the people are choosing the lesser of two evils. Obama and Mccain parade around not claiming to be socialist, but capitalist. They arent proclaiming, "loud and proud" as you put it, to be socialist. If ANYONE had forced them to say they are a socialist then they wouldnt of been elected.
If you disagree with that then why doesnt obama just come out and say he is a socialist? its because he will lose the vote.
We are allowing these socialists to prance (or in Romney's case dressage) across our TV sets cloaked in the misconception of capitalism because no one is defending capitalism. When all anyone has to do is stop and think, hey wait a second thats not capitalism. Its something else and no one is telling them what that is. Its socialism.
People are afraid to say 'hey im a capitalist'. So no i dont think people want to be known as a capitalist, but they would rather be a capitalist than a socialist.
Its not 'nonsense' if you convince people interventionism is socialism that people will convert. Look at the Ron Paul supporters. They learned. They converted. I converted. I had no clue that false patriotism and intervention leads to socialism because no one until Ron Paul told me. I was in the 2.5% with a lot of the libertarian ideals, but i was still an interventionist. Once i peeled away a couple of my interventionist ideals they all started going away. Its not stupid to be this naive either, it started the second we won our independence.
Thats what i think will happen when we start defending capitalism. with the new poll, probably 90% of this country, do not think government should be involved in the peoples right to own their own business.
the factors of production - land, capital, entrepeneurship, and LABOR. You are a factor of production, you have self ownership. No one has a right to that property. Once people start fighting for capitalism again freedom will be realized. The ultimate conclusion of capitalism is anarchy.
You say capitalism doesnt mean anarchy? how can it not? If the people own themselves, all the land, and capital where is the government in that? If the government has no claim in the factors of production they have no claim in anything.
Where i think Ron Paul was fighting an uphill battle was he was trying to change everyone's belief of freedom. I think he would of been much more successful if he explained it the other way around. We believe you should own your own business. that means owning the land on which you stand, the capital you accumulate, and you have self ownership of your labor. That means the president cant send us to war unless you allow him to goto war, the federal reserve cant own the dollar you own the dollar, ect.
Thats the law of diffusion of innovation. Start with the why? Capitalism, because it creates economic growth and makes everyone more prosperous. Then the how? we will get the government out of the factors of production land, labor, capital. Lastly the what? the what is every piece of freedom.
Going Ron Paul's route - what was his 'why'? he didnt have one. he had freedom. We need to audit the fed. why? We need to get out of these wars. why? We need to cut the budget. why? We need to follow the constitution. why? when need to close our bases across the globe. Why? We need to get government out of medicine. Why? we need to give the power back to the states. why? We need to end conscription. why? We need to end the income tax. Why? We have to much debt. Why? We need to privitize tsa. Why? We need to cut 5 cabinet agenies. Why? We need to eliminate foreign aid. Why? We need to end the war on drugs. Why? We need to eliminate capital taxes. Why? We need a gold standard. Why? Why does he believe all this? he has never said. People subjective definition of freedom is infinitely more complicated the the subjective definition of capitalism
ECT ECT ECT ECT ECT ECT.
All those why require a specific answer when the why with me is because its not capitalism. Its easy. Your average american will look at ron paul's platform and just be confused. They think it is strange and all over the place.
I'm not saying a libertarian party cant do it by doing it the same way or that it wouldnt be preferable because they would have more of a freedom ideology. I just dont think the American people arent political enough to go out on the fringe and vote against what their family and friends have done for 100 years. A capitalist party wouldnt be on the fringe. 64% already 100% in it. It will be new and different. It will give the millions of Americans a new party to vote for that has the same platform their family and friends have voted for since the birth of this country, capitalism.
I just say progressive-liberal or social-democrat, because I see little use in calling or identifying myself with anything else.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I thought you despised progessives. Have I been reading you wrong or were you making a joke? Maybe there is a third option I haven't considered.
I'm just saying that to start with a label that most people find "in opposition" in any conversation or debate is going to be met with a Sisyphus like task. It's best to just focus on a few specific "little things" and prevent the topic on hand from going "meta". A political label is going to come with A LOT of baggage, may as well not give your hand away unless you need to.
vive - this is my whole point. People dont find opposition with capitalism. 64% of Americans believe in capitalism which is a 10% gain from a couple years before. I also believe that somewhere in the mid 90 percentcile believe capitalism is the best way to handle the business sector.
So thats why we should be standing up for capitalism and not freedom. Freedom will come when capitalism starts being legalized.
Pick any aspect of freedom you want that libertarianism fights for and it can be realized through capitalism, but try and convince a majority on a specific aspect of freedom and you have debate (drugs, gambling, prostitution, education, banking, CIA, debt, national defense, police, ect ect ect).
I believe socialism has been proven completely wrong by facts. Thats the battle that should be fought.
We should be demanding from our politicians why they are socialists when they claim to believe in capitalism. That fight can be won.
Just look at these socialist they admit capitalism has been proven correct or else they wouldnt claim businesses should be privatized. We shouldnt be arguing with socialists about healthcare, roads, military, wars, or whatever else. We should be asking why are they a walking contradiction? how can you claim capitalism is good here, but not there.
Then throw out the Thomas Sowell's three questions. They cant answer it.
Capitalism has the truth on its side. We shouldnt hide it by preaching freedom and mask the truth because we feel the truth has an adverse reation to people. We should be putting the truth uncomfortably close to there face and let them prove it wrong. They cant, all they can say is "well i just dont believe it." All you have to say is 'fine, continue living a lie in a state of ignorance'. You cant win them all, but you will find most people want the truth.
People like me who saw the truth of capitalism all around me, but before Mises i couldnt prove it. Well lets give the 64% that believe in capitalism the ammunition to defend it. Let the people reach the same conclusion of anarcho capitalism at their own pace, but in the mean time let them fight for capitalism.