I'm always thought that with enough education, anarchism (and for that matter, minarchism, libertarianism, etc.) would be sustainable, but that the concept of such a system is hard for the vast majority of people to accept / understand; remember, many people still haven't caught up to the fact that in the 21st century (more so now than ever, but this applied in the past before), left vs. right does not matter nearly as much as liberty vs. authority. There is also the issue of mis-information, another annoying side-effect of public education.
I believe that sometime in the future, assuming that we live long enough into this century (there are various predictions, both scientific and non-scientific of civilization ending), people will become educated enough to embrace anarchism. This is assuming, additionally, that the Internet continues to thrive in some form or another (a separate one made by users, or a darknet, for instance), which I'd imagine it would if this current one wound up too regulated and censored. When this time would come, is up in the air, but it would also have to require a more independent, self-responsible & self-reliant population, which I'd imagine isn't the majority for now.
Back on topic, however, I'll stop beating around the bush & choose "Minarchist", but I'm still new to the Austrian school & other economic concepts of Libertarianism.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
macsnafu: I went from being not interested in politics to being influenced by Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand to being a Libertarian to being a libertarian to being an anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly a 'long, strange trip", but I've still come a ways.
I went from being not interested in politics to being influenced by Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand to being a Libertarian to being a libertarian to being an anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly a 'long, strange trip", but I've still come a ways.
I went from being bleeding heart liberal/borderline pinko to a minarchist/capitalist. All it took was a little (real) education on economics. And reading Nock, of course.
Libertarian.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Localist. I have been studying early Cherokee social structure for a couple of years and believe there is some insight there for local rule. It also appears to correspond to Hoppe's ideas on natural orders.
As for economics, definitely anarcho-capitalist. The only think I hate worse than the devil is crony capitalism.
Please try stay on topic.
Despite having tried to make sense of many anarchist arguments and idolizing Murray Rothbard to a ridiculous degree, I'm still firmly a minarchist.
But I'm willing to keep on learning. I just can't see how anarchism becomes established efficiently, nor that what some refer to as market anarchism isn't really just a form of minarchism. i.e. Someone provides the service of force and law in some region, hence they are a type of government. Anyway, save the debates for future threads.
btw: This is my first post here. Despite having been a regular visitor to mises.org for about 10 years, I just found this forum.
I really don't prefer "fitting in".
I hope I can learn the best methods of being a... Successionist, Abolishionist, Anti-Imperialist, Rationalist, Constructionist, Negative law Theorist, etc, Freedom Lover... I can utilize.
The wheel must turn. It's time. Our revolution, the american one, should ever be in perpituity .
When we fail to impose natural rights, as supposed citizens, we not only violate our good will, we violate each other with a lack of commen sense, and an apeal to force. Be ashamed cowards. Defend your property rights.
O.K. you got me minarchist~for the sake of property rights only. I want a government who can only justify actions with the defense of individualism, and property rights. A state that protects the people from the state.
Does that make me an institutionalist, or a follower of method? Or, is a methodology of any kind an institution of reason?
You can call me what you want, and I hope it's something nasty. I want to learn from my ineptitudes.
Individualism Rocks
Economist... (economism = what Jay Nock decried as the idea according to which the whole of life consists in the individual production (including exchange) and consumption of goods).
As for minarchism vs anarchism, i consider it a false question. Both interpret every new step from the actual world toward the less possible governmental interventionism in society as being a step in the good direction. Only when we (ever) come as close to this ideal as to wonder if a new step would still be profitable will the minarchism vs anarchism debate be meaningful.
(If the question is raised during my own lifetime, I will become, at that point, anarchist and not minarchist. But as long as such is not the case, the two are just the same).
I suppose I started as a minarchist. I always beleived in the Constitiution and small governments who govern best. Mises.org challenged me to question some of the preconceptions I had about government and freedom. I've always been a history buff, so I understand how history is written by the victors. What I knew but didn't understand was that the victors write the history. The problem is that people rarely are able to be impartial obersrvers of the facts. Education, culture and society all mesh to create the filters with which you parse reality. Since encontering mises.org, I'd say that I've inexorably slid into the anarchist camp. The tipping point for me had to be learning of the Supreme Court decision which effectively took the power to decide cases away from juries and enshrined it in the judicicary. That's when we truly lost control of our mincarchist government.
Government grows, especially over time. It's kind of like kudzu, you constantly need to keep it trimmed back.
I flirt between both minarchism and anarchism, to be quite honest. Generally though, I find that as I read more anarcho-capitalist literature I tend that way. However, I do consider the debate irrelevant right now as I view any reduction in state power a success, and so minarchists are my friends until the day comes when we have to go further than them.
Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. Used to be a small-government conservative, then a minarchist, and then finally read The Ethics of Liberty.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Dynamix: I haven't noticed any poll options, so for those who'd like to make their stances known feel free to post here to identify your (current) position. #1. Minarchist #2. Anarchist #3. Other (please elaborate) I'm a member of the second camp. [EDIT: It's also understood that all comments of which of the above is "right" will be saved for other threads.]
I haven't noticed any poll options, so for those who'd like to make their stances known feel free to post here to identify your (current) position.
#1. Minarchist
#2. Anarchist
#3. Other (please elaborate)
I'm a member of the second camp.
[EDIT: It's also understood that all comments of which of the above is "right" will be saved for other threads.]
Count me in the second category.
Minarchism, in my view at least, only makes sense from a consequentialist standpoint. Deontological minarchism is not logically thorough.
Ultimately I'd like to see a market anarchist system, but am willing to work within the system in order to attempt to achieve those aims. I don't buy into the camp that says it's necessary for market anarchists to eschew political participation because that means participating in an evil system. Yes the system is evil but the majority of folks don't think that way and the idealized cold turkey approach for the purposes of maintaining ones own idealistic purity is not pragmatic. The way forward is to argue for a) more devolvement of power to local communities b) argue for market based solutions for government issues; i.e. infrastructure etc c) focus on those issues that a market based solution is least 'radical' for the average individual d) expand from there. Sometimes I think that market anarchists fall into the perfect is the enemy of the good trap.
libertarian:OK, I change my vote to minarcho-capitalist. I am not a constitutionist, since the 10th amendment allows states to arbitrarily set laws.
It's easier to fight city hall then it is to fight Washington D.C.
To be more specific, I would call myself a left-Rothbardian to distinguish myself from the paleolibertarians (Rockwell, et al). I think that electoral politics are by no means a sufficient way to bring about liberty (although I do practice defensive voting), and that the counter-economy, education, and peaceful civil disobedience are the means to the free society.
Wow, thats a lot of different types of anarchists.
I find I am usually more or less just a strong capitalist.
My stance is that the ultimate liberty is independence.
Years ago, I asked myself the following question: is there any good or service that society needs that government can provide more efficiently or justly than the market can provide it? Another way: is there any good thing that the government can do that the market can't? I answered no, and thus did my intellectual loyalties become clear.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Anybody have an opinion on Stefan Molyneux's DRO (dispute resolution organisation) model? I'm still trying to figure all this stuff out but I'm fairly sure that professional arbitrators such as DROs would spontaneously appear in an anarchist system. There would certainly be a demand for them.
http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/
So for the poll, count me as "other" until I explore this a little more.
Market anarchist. But I believe some government is necessary to keep those who would band together and terrorize the peaceful at bay.
Rothbardian Anarchist, with strong Hoppean influences.
Individualism is my religion.
I am just a libertarian with with pro-Austrian economic views. I'm not Right, Left, Center, or anything like that because I think those terms have been skewed.
Perhaps for this thread you can consider me a 'Minarchist.' That doesn't mean I'm against Anarchocaptialism, in fact, I think its the next logical step after Minarchy. I'm not fan of government in general and ideally I would love to see anarchocapitalism rule the day but I just don't think its realistic and hence I still refer to it as an ideal. In this day in age, no matter how much we hate to admit it, some government is neccessary. Almost inevidably we have to choose some sort of government and I would rather choose far less government than more of it. For me, less government ( moving toward anarchy) always equals more freedom. However, that doesn't mean we need even a little government forever. Perhaps one day we can do a peaceful transition into anarchocapitalism but its not likely now. Its rather absurd to go directly to a government-less anarchocapitalism from a large statist government like we have today. There needs to be a transition period and I think small government, or minarchy, is the way to go. Perhaps under minarchy we can gradually move towards the direction of anarchocapitalism in due time. Anyway, thats makes the most sense to me.
PS: I'd say were all on the right track here if Minarchy is the most government some of us will tolerate.
Actually, it is much more likely that the current government will collapse and we will find ourselves in anarchy, at which point rapidly establishing the proper judicial institutions will be a critical necessity, then it is likely that the current government, which is controlled by an entrenched ruling class, will shrink itself back to a minarchy.
History doesn't run backwards. Empires collapse. They do not revert to republics. Government can no more be shrunk than a tree can go back to a seed.
The question that faces us is to determine what type of seed is most desirable after the current tree has been burnt.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Agreed but unlike the past, we are a different civilization now. In the past it was unheard of for the common folk to have a voice let alone freely organize together for a stated purpose. It was always the elitists calling the shots. Granted, the people have less say in the U.S. today than ever before but we can still organize much better than civilizations before us. Perhaps, I'm a bit too optimistic but I believe we can still make a peaceful change without all the chaos that follows the destruction of an empire. Fortunatly the fight has not progressed to arms and ammunition but rather still remains a battle of ideas. I think the majority of us here can contribute a lot with ideas and helping people realize that liberty is the way to go. I think the ideas of Mises and Rothbard are just the right medicine for reinstituting liberty and I think it would be benificial for all of us to work to make these ideas mainstream.
Anarcho-capitalist.
#1 Minarchist
With Anarcho-Capitalist leanings, although as a newbie to the Austro-Libertarian scene, I'm having a hard time reconcilling certain aspects of full-bore Anarchism.
Anarcho-Capitalism is my view of a "perfect society" to which we should strive towards.
I am a fifth level Half-Elf Anarchist.
I have been really enjoying the scrolls of Hoppe and Rothbard lately.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Agorist.
I'll also note that I'm a Christian, and believe that the church should also be non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Position: If one had to label oneself, probably 'anarcho-capitalist' with purer anarchist leanings. (The 'ideal' world argument etc.) DRO's were a large influence and assuaged my fears over previously unresolved issues I'd had regarding property rights, disputes, security, free markets, conservationism, etc.
I'm new to the economics and arguments of Rothbard et al (and Mises for that matter - first post!) but what I've heard so far is exciting. I hang out at freedomainradio.com quite a bit although I'm not in total agreement with those folks over certain philosophical assumptions. Naturally I am absolutely against the state in any shape or form whatsoever, without exception - on strict moral grounds; which must, I believe come before any other. I'd be more than happy to converse, debate and swap ideas with you folks over IM, email etc anytime as I strongly believe in communities, the power of the open dialogue and the interactions which shape them.
Anarchist
Z Man:Agreed but unlike the past, we are a different civilization now. In the past it was unheard of for the common folk to have a voice let alone freely organize together for a stated purpose. It was always the elitists calling the shots. Granted, the people have less say in the U.S. today than ever before but we can still organize much better than civilizations before us.
Sorry to say, but it is still the elitists calling the shots. The people on this forum at least all have undergraduate education, and I'd wager a whole lot of them have graduate education as well. You are not going to convert Joe Nascar to the validity of the philosophy of freedom. He will not pay attention to you long enough, because he just doesn't care. He goes to vote because the elites tell him to, and the elites pick what candidates he is or isn't allowed to vote for. That is not going to change. We are not going to beat the ruling class at a game where they are the referees. Give up on that idea immediately.
The good news is that when the revolution is underway, it will be a struggle involving only the elites, us versus them, with the people mostly standing aside to watch in awe. That's the way all revolutions go. There may not be a single bullet fired in the process.
MacFall:Agorist. I'll also note that I'm a Christian, and believe that the church should also be non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian.
I think my relatives fit that description. They were members of the Haugian sect of Lutherans and they left Tinn in Telemark Norway in the 1860s to get away from the state run church and its laws (religious and state) about the heirarchy of the clergy.
They were war resistors in WWI, would not take any secular oaths or pledges and the only prayer they would say was the Lord's Prayer as they viewed other prayers as having priorities in the secular world.
Anarchist in the original sense. I'm a socilist who believes the free market is a myth- it does not exist, and never could. No rational being coul possibly teake it seriously, because any attempt to bring about a "free market" fails and creates mass inequality and much injustice.
Twirlcan: MacFall: Agorist. I'll also note that I'm a Christian, and believe that the church should also be non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian. I think my relatives fit that description. They were members of the Haugian sect of Lutherans and they left Tinn in Telemark Norway in the 1860s to get away from the state run church and its laws (religious and state) about the heirarchy of the clergy. They were war resistors in WWI, would not take any secular oaths or pledges and the only prayer they would say was the Lord's Prayer as they viewed other prayers as having priorities in the secular world.
MacFall: Agorist. I'll also note that I'm a Christian, and believe that the church should also be non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian.
Well... I wouldn't take it that far. I mean that the church should not have any ties to the state (and in fact should oppose it), and also that I am opposed to denominationalism. I favor Watchman Nee's view that the church should resemble the early, apostolic-era church, where each community had a church whose pastors were all mutually accountable. There was no real hierarchy beyond that. Constantine turning the church into a political organization was, I think, a major (and very intentional) setback. It has prevented the maturation of the church for more than a thousand years now, and I see the existence of the modern state as one of the roadblocks that must be cleared before it can be undone.
(If it was in poor taste for me to bring an old topic like this back up just let me know!)
I identify as an anarchist. If we take into account the secondary nature of the economic function.. well then I identify as an AnCap. (But I find that label a mixed bag..and am not sure what is a better title other than maybe Free-Market Extremist?) haha.
"Ordo est ordinem non servare."
Well, I find myself in the minority again . I am currently a Minarchist. However, since spending time on this site I am pretty close to switching changing my beliefs to anarcho-capitalism.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...