The state should never initiate force! So...
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Minarchist. I'm anarchist in mind and spirit, but a minarchist on pragmatic and strategic grounds since I think true anarchy is impossible (not logistically, i.e. what can be done, but emotionally, i.e. what will be accepted).
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Maxpot, I think it all depends on the definition of "government".
If you say, "let's keep the government but remove its ability to initiate force", people are much more receptive!
Ego: Maxpot, I think it all depends on the definition of "government". If you say, "let's keep the government but remove its ability to initiate force", people are much more receptive!
Yes, and I'd be fine with a cosmetic veneer of a "government" satisfying (some) people's need for a sovereign. But this seems to be more than most anarchists are willing to accept, hence my acceptance of the label "minarchist".
maxpot46: Ego: Maxpot, I think it all depends on the definition of "government". If you say, "let's keep the government but remove its ability to initiate force", people are much more receptive! Yes, and I'd be fine with a cosmetic veneer of a "government" satisfying (some) people's need for a sovereign. But this seems to be more than most anarchists are willing to accept, hence my acceptance of the label "minarchist".
That's a semantical trick I use sometimes. When I'm among people who believe in non-aggression but are unable to accept anything they percieve as "anarchistic", I use the word "government" to describe what is actually free market protection and arbitration. And that's not really incorrect, either. The concept of "government" is older than the state. In its original sense, it refered to the navigator of a ship, not the ruler of a society.
Then I let them figure out the implications of this "voluntary government". I stop referring to it by that name, and call it defense/arbitration service instead. Sometimes they balk, other times they decide they agree with the idea, at least in principle. At the very least, for those who are willing to think]/i] about the idea, it culls those who reject the very idea of non-aggression rather than renounce their god, the state.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Anarchist . Also in philosophy. But do have national security reservations for other non libertarian peoples peace
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
I'm a Danno - er, other.
Dunno which label suits me - I believe that informed consent should rule any human relationship, with some very limited exceptions. I lean strongly towards libertarian, but believe that government has purpose and function. I came here primarily to clarify and refine my ideas about economics, but stumbled across the forums, and expect I'll be annoying people right and left.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
maxpot46: Minarchist. I'm anarchist in mind and spirit, but a minarchist on pragmatic and strategic grounds since I think true anarchy is impossible (not logistically, i.e. what can be done, but emotionally, i.e. what will be accepted).
This is exactly what keeps me from being an anarchist...
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Twirlcan: I am a fifth level Half-Elf Anarchist.
lmao
But to answer the question, hmm let's see... paleolibertarian tory anarchist misanthrope with monarchist sympathies.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Radical philosophically-conservative free market social anarcho-autaurcho left-right-and-around-once-more anarchist without (too many) adjectives
My personal website & blog is at http://groups.msn.com/DennisLeeWilson and my graphic designs, including the “NEVER FORGET” on my avatar, at Artemis Zuna Trading Post
*For truth in labeling about “minarchy”, see the discussion thread on this subject at http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1102.aspx?PageIndex=1
Individualist, sovereign, free-market capitalist, objectivist. Though to "civilians", I just default to anarcho-capitalist or market anarchist.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
I am ultimately anarchist, though for strategic purposes I do tend to argue on minarchist terms with outsiders of the cause. I do see problems with anarchy in our current society...meaning if the government was suddenly abandoned at this moment people would not be able to deal with it and chaos would ensue, likely followed by the creation of another government (probably worse). To me the way to true, enlightened anarchy can only lead through minarchist channels. So, lets achieve the small government first, then we can take the last, little step.
But, yeah, among similar minded, Anarchist.
paleolibertarian, voluntaryist, anarchist, individualist, individualist anarchist, capitalist, anarcho-capitalist are all acceptable labels.
lets try to be creative here shall we?
class: anarchist
order: individualist anarchist
family: market anarchist
genus: left rothbardian (thank you brainpolice. I was previously unaware of this term and the definition presented. Seems, to me, to be a consistent and therefore non vulgar market anarchism)
species:agorist? though I often look at agorism as a plan of attack and I suppose I largely agree with Nic on being a practitioner in order to be considered one. Is degree a factor perhaps? perhaps not. Either way I am totally on board with agorism as the strategy. Out compete the state!
Other labels I like: radical liberal, consistent liberal, left libertarian, industrial radical, pluralist anarchist, anarchist without adjectives, marketeer.
I honestly do not care much for political/ethical labels though as so many seem both fiting and misleading at the same time. (my constant gripe with and subsequent avoidance of the terms 'left' and 'right'). Further I think I very much align with the views of Walter Block on market anarchism/libertarianism as not 'left' or 'right' even while I consider libertarianism a revolutionary movement ('left' in that sense). My 'aesthetic' morals, personal creeds, and preferences are a large mix of what are seen as traditional 'left' and 'right' and I do not find them in conflict with libertarianism.
In the end though I think any real anarchist must be pluralistic and tolerant of other breeds of anarchism. So I find any labels of anarchism explicitly denoting that to be redundant even while I recognize there are indeed a large number of 'anarchist' who are NOT tolerant and openly promote VIOLENCE against those with which they disagree (which to me takes them from anarchist back to statist). While one might not like or agree with other orders anarchists (tee hee), or may nearly damn well hate some of them (guilty as charged), there is no reason to openly show hostility to another form of economic or social interaction that does not express coerced conformity to its particular peculiarities. I want a free market of all things.
return "anarchist";
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
Philosophically I am an anarchist that believes anarchy the ideal to be striven for but unattainable, and perhaps, like heaven itself, even undesirable unless we all strive to be leaders. In some respect, no matter how small, we remain followers and as long as we are, we desire leadership and that generally is the degree to which we will desire, or more appropriately here, "tolerate" governance.
In the struggle to anarchism, education must imperatively teach self-reliance and independence of thought not entitlement. Universities like to churn out "leaders" who then, not entirely but generally, feel an entitlement to lead and consequently "govern". It is a learned erudite arrogance, or perhaps some wear the mantle as a caring-sharing saintly savior of the less fortunate leading them to the land of honey rather than enabling them to be themselves self-reliant and independent. It is a scary thought to the intellectual to have the masses independent and operating of their free will instead of under the collectivist agreement that replaces independent thought. But left, minimally unindoctrinated or maximally properly "educated", they will make correct decisions regarding their leaders and more than likely reject the know-best, caring-sharing, saintly saviors of humanity.
Unfortunately, I am the product of a public education and require much leadership since it never taught me to look after myself. It did strive to teach me the importance of cultivating relationships but as this post illustrates, It was not very effective. They never did mention that it was a rather lonely endeavour to think for yourself - I do not make the claim that I have attained such a state as I do have some friends I find agreement with without thinking and follow them around. It is most probably like anarchism, the ideal to be striven for but unattainable and even undesirable.
Put me down as a minarchist for now.
I might call myself a strategist, in that I strategize based upon my perception of consequences. It is what every thinking person does. I have not decided that any single political idealogy is the best strategy all the time
I love the concept of anarchy because it requires keeps participants responsible and requires them to be mututally respectful of all others. However because anarchy is too difficult for most people to accept, I opt for panarchy as originally set forth (circa 1860) since that would allow me and others who choose anarchy to live it at the same time, and place that others who choose their preferred -ism/-archy to live that in the company of like people of that choice.
So my answer is - #3 - panarchist which I find to be a neat 'blend' of anarchy and non-aggression too boot.
A term I use lately is palaeo-anarchist. I say this because I came to anarchism from the realm of Buchanan-Fleming palaeoconservatism and much of the reason I accepted anarchism was because it was the most effective system for preserving the things I cared about as a palaeocon. Naturally, the writer who convinced me of the consistency and, indeed, necessity of this position was Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
"Nolite confidere in principibus"
~ Psalm 146:3
I am a David Friedmanite anarchist and I support all anarchists no matter their reason for opposing the state. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Once we are all free of state tyranny and terror, there will be plenty of room for all the different social theories to peacefully coexist in their respective communities throughout this beautiful planet God created for us to enjoy.