Really, it is.
Defintion of anarchism:
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
Or,
Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).
In regards to the first, a defintion of government:
the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed: monarchical government; episcopal government.
Now a definition of the word govern:
to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:
to have predominating influence.
The second defintion of anarchism needs no elaboration.
I wonder where PDAs fit into all of this.
Better yet:
The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἀναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers",
Definitions, "ruler":
a person who rules or governs; sovereign.
To rule:
to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
volunteering to be 'governed' and being coerced to do so are two different things.an-cap is system wherein the relationship between the governed and the governing is voluntary by consent, with no prioir coercion.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Could you try to post something relevant?
i guess.
perhaps you could offer me some direction?
:-p
nirgrahamUK: i guess. perhaps you could offer me some direction? :-p
The fact that the two words don't go together.
i have no idea where you are coming from giles.
minarchist capitalist?
Maybe the term "Anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer. I envision a system similar to today, but one where the govt. does not hold a monopoly on force. People would be free to choose which systems they would like to associate with. Anarcho-cap would still have govt. or govt. like structures, but they would not have a monopoly on the use of force.
nirgrahamUK: i have no idea where you are coming from giles. minarchist capitalist?
No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe.
Ultima: Maybe the term "Anarcho-capitalism" is a misnomer. I envision a system similar to today, but one where the govt. does not hold a monopoly on force. People would be free to choose which systems they would like to associate with. Anarcho-cap would still have govt. or govt. like structures, but they would not have a monopoly on the use of force.
Correct.
Mu.
Have anything more to offer than a problem of semantics?
banned: Have anything more to offer than a problem of semantics?
If only I could post something as enlightening as this.
GilesStratton:No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe.
anarcho-capitalist; who thinks if having to choose between different evil statist options, monarchy is not as bad as democracy.???
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton:No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe. anarcho-capitalist; who thinks if having to choose between different evil statist options, monarchy is not as bad as democracy.???
Amongst other things I do agree with Professor Hoppe on that, and if you come up with a name for anarcho capitalism that makes sense then you summarized my views.
banned:Have anything more to offer than a problem of semantics?
It's not just semantics that is at stake here, but possibly an enlightening insight into the anti-authoritarian radicalism of the libertarian left as opposed to the "voluntary" or "natural authority" stance of the libertarian right ("closet monarchists", duh).It could be that all the hostile namecalling in the countless "left vs right" threads was merely due to a falsely used common term, "anarchism", which, for the left, seems to suggest a general refusal of authority (see critical attitude towards religion, family or the infamous Hoppean "natural elites"), while it's merely a term for "abolishing involuntary government" for the right.While I'm not a fan of sectarian struggle, it seems more and more necessary every day to draw some clear lines by which to distinguish. If libertarianism was just the absence of involuntary government, then we wouldn't have to argue that much. Giles is wise to point this out and seek a solution.
Sphairon:While I'm not a fan of sectarian struggle, it seems more and more necessary every day to draw some clear lines by which to distinguish. If libertarianism was just the absence of involuntary government, then we wouldn't have to argue that much
Sphairon:It's not just semantics that is at stake here, but possibly an enlightening insight into the anti-authoritarian radicalism of the libertarian left as opposed to the "voluntary" or "natural authority" stance of the libertarian right ("closet monarchists", duh).
This post accurately captures the point of the topic.
i actually think giles is apeing the language and stance of the left. and i dont mean libertarian left. i mean socialist. they are all about claiming that capitalists exploit workers, rule them as their masters etc. they cant conceive of capitalist & worker in a voluntary symbiosis.
anarcho-capitalism is an excellent description because it says.
anarchy - no-involuntary government
capitalism - system of production featuring private property and division of labour
nirgrahamUK:i actually think giles is apeing the language and stance of the left. and i dont mean libertarian left. i mean socialist. they are all about claiming that capitalists exploit workers, rule them as their masters etc. they cant conceive of capitalist & worker in a voluntary symbiosis.
What does this have to do with anything I've said. I'm pointing out "we" label "ourselves" incorrectly, hence the numerous silly left/ right clashes on these forums In any case there's a good reason that many Republicans don't refer to themselves as Nazis.
nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government
No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
GilesStratton: No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
Who are the "rulers" in an anarcho-capitalist society?
Who is setting the "rules" or "governing" ?
GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
is being gay : happy , or homosexual ?
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton: nirgrahamUK:anarchy - no-involuntary government No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't. is being gay : happy , or homosexual ?
Is this post useless or irrelevant?
Conza88: GilesStratton: No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't. Who are the "rulers" in an anarcho-capitalist society? Who is setting the "rules" or "governing" ?
A ruler is one who governs, governing is "to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:", so there will be multiple rulers.
I'm pointing out "we" label "ourselves" incorrectly,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:I'm pointing out "we" label "ourselves" incorrectly, Indeed, you conservatives labeled yourselves incorrectly. For the record, what libertarianism advocates is individual self-government, not allegedly 'voluntary' hierarchy.
Go away.
So basically you suggest we come up with a new appellative that indicates our advocacy of self-government instead of no government.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Juan:Go away. Hahaha. Give up Giles, conservatism is dead.
And you have the state to thank for that, meant literally.
Solomon: GilesStratton: No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't. So basically you suggest we come up with a new appellative that indicates our advocacy of self-government instead of no government.
No, self government doesn't describe it accurately either. Something that captures the essence of competing governments would do nicely.
A ruler is one who governs, governing is "to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:"
Anarchism is a system that would have plenty of rulers.
The only question is if people would choose the metric system or the US system when labeling them.
In fact, we should just give up. Given this type of confusion the roads will never be built properly!
No, self government doesn't describe it accurately either.
Something that captures the essence of competing governments would do nicely.
GilesStratton:No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't.
GilesStratton: Conza88: GilesStratton: No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn't. Who are the "rulers" in an anarcho-capitalist society? Who is setting the "rules" or "governing" ? A ruler is one who governs, governing is "to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:", so there will be multiple rulers.
To "guide" lmao.
All others labels or whatever, 'guide' with COERCION. Who is doing the "guiding" in an anarcho-capitalism society? Who is using 'guide' in the sense of coercion/force? Give an example.
"Multiple rulers" - Like who, give an example. You mean business owners right? The boss? He's the ruler?
GilesStratton: Anarcho Capitalism is Nonsense ...
Anarcho Capitalism is Nonsense
...
"Anarcho-Capitalism" is just fine. If your conservative sensibilities get spooked by its in your face radicalism that begins with its name that`s your problem and nobody elses.
But it is. We we advocate is no rulers and simply contracting with others to provide certain services. Given the governments have a coercive monopoly on justice, defense, etc, and PDAs do not, I fail to see how there are any rulers.
This.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan:1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation. 2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point. Since I could that I do have the right to rule over somebody if I have the right, or authority, to do so. The problem with the current situation just misplaces the right of authority.
And the second agrees with my point.
I'm not equivocating, just using the correct definitions of words, I hear the communists are quite fond of confusing the meanings of words...
an⋅ar⋅chy
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
anarchy is a word, like gay previously mentioned. which can mean different things in different contexts. im quite comfortable i and the others here can detect te appropriate context. it will be part of the anarcho-capitalist project to make definition 3 the dominant meaning over the other competing meanings. Such changing of the emphasis of words within a culture is common.
Marko:If your conservative sensibilities get spooked by its in your face radicalism that begins with its name that`s your problem and nobody elses.
This has nothing to do with conservatism, but when you want to post something relevant, I might listen.
GilesStratton:Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point.