Anarcho-capitalists are not democrats. Start a new thread.
I call anarcho-capitalism individualist democracy. The reason being that existing democracies are collectivist: they legislate according to majority vote, and they do not allow individuals to opt out of the government that is chosen by the majority and start competing agencies to protect their rights.
What do y'all think?
Perhaps you should explicate what you mean by democracy as such, and its relation to anarcho-capitalism. They have little in common as I understand them.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
It's a big improvement on anarcho capitalism.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Solomon: Perhaps you should explicate what you mean by democracy as such, and its relation to anarcho-capitalism. They have little in common as I understand them.
Individualist democracy = each individual person rules himself and his property
GilesStratton: It's a big improvement on anarcho capitalism.
Criticism of this observation welcomed.
Of course, there is the question, "Does anarchy mean lawlessness or statelessness?"
How about "self-rule"?
nameless: How about "self-rule"?
Richard Chambers:What do y'all think?
Rubbish. Anarcho-capitalism is very clear. And I resent being labeled democratic in any way. Democracy = socialism. Socialism = Statism.
Statism teh uber bad.
Anarchism means lack of coercion, without coercion PDAs or other providers of defense would be meaningless.
Good job for the anarchists to reconcile that one.
You do realise, LS, that 99% of the people who understand that "anarcho" part isn't about throwing bombs and bricks through windows (which, to a large extent it is anyway), equate anarchism with socialism anyway, right?
GilesStratton: Anarchism means lack of coercion, without coercion PDAs or other providers of defense would be meaningless. Good job for the anarchists to reconcile that one.
No it doesn't.
You can, of course, redefine it to serve whatever agenda you're currently seeking on these forums, but that does not mean that self-labelled anarchists are specifically referring to your definition to describe themselves.
GilesStratton:You do realise, LS, that 99% of the people who understand that "anarcho" part isn't about throwing bombs and bricks through windows (which, to a large extent it is anyway), equate anarchism with socialism anyway, right?
Haven't I lectured you yet on this?
I don't care what idiots, statists and socialists think. If they get to define the language I can use, I am screwed. It will be impossible to win any rhetorical battles with that lost in advance.
Regardless, I will not identify as a democrat in any way shape or form.
nibbler491: GilesStratton: Anarchism means lack of coercion, without coercion PDAs or other providers of defense would be meaningless. Good job for the anarchists to reconcile that one. No it doesn't. You can, of course, redefine it to serve whatever agenda you're currently seeking on these forums, but that does not mean that self-labelled anarchists are specifically referring to your definition to describe themselves.
I'm going to show you all three definitions of anarchism on dictionary.com
The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).
1. Not applicable, since "government" and "state" aren't synonomous, in fact, Nock used the word government to describe what most people on these forums would refer to as PDAs.
2. I don't even need to comment.
and 3. I've already commented.
liberty student: GilesStratton:You do realise, LS, that 99% of the people who understand that "anarcho" part isn't about throwing bombs and bricks through windows (which, to a large extent it is anyway), equate anarchism with socialism anyway, right? Haven't I lectured you yet on this? I don't care what idiots, statists and socialists think. If they get to define the language I can use, Iam screwed. It will be impossible to win any rhetorical battles with that lost in advance. Regardless, I will not identify as a democrat in any way shape or form.
I don't care what idiots, statists and socialists think. If they get to define the language I can use, Iam screwed. It will be impossible to win any rhetorical battles with that lost in advance.
But in this case, anarchism has historically been a leftist movement. Who was the first self described anarchist? Proudhon. Up until Murray Rothbard no capitalist would ever use the word anarchist to describe themself. Even Tucker and Spooner bought into anti capitalist economics.
GilesStratton:Even Tucker and Spooner bought into anti capitalist economics.
That seems to me an unfair statement. They weren't anticapitalist so much as capitalism had not been formulated properly yet. Austrianism had not yet left the European continent. They were individualist on economics, 80% of the time. Their main weak points: interest rates and land. In the pre-Bohm-Bawerk world the former is somewhat forgivable. The later is not. But I heard Block quote Rothbard on the media about every dog having his bite: every libertarian being able to support one unlibertarian thing and still being able to keep the name. I think the same should hodl true for capitalist economics. Granted, they did take a big bite. But they're still capitalists.
I despise democracy.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
To insert my $0.02, I like the term "participatory democracy". I think it sums up a lot of my views very nicely.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron:To insert my $0.02, I like the term "participatory democracy".
You're not an anarcho-capitalist. You are an anti-capitalist.
wombatron:I think it sums up a lot of my views very nicely.
You don't get a vote.
laminustacitus: I despise democracy.
Hear, hear!
GilesStratton:But in this case, anarchism has historically been a leftist movement. Who was the first self described anarchist? Proudhon. Up until Murray Rothbard no capitalist would ever use the word anarchist to describe themself. Even Tucker and Spooner bought into anti capitalist economics.
You know, you're probably right. And frankly, Proudhon is about as relevant today as he was when he was alive. Not at all.
But I think people know what anarcho-capitalism is, even if the anarcho bit may be misleading. To those who know, those zany leftists who think that you can voluntarily replicate a tyrannical and unnatural social order and call it libertarian, they seethe when someone brings up AnCap, and even worse, that the Saint of the Left [sic], Murray Newton Rothbard identified as one (must have been during his LSD phase, I know, I know ).
I agree with you on a lot of things, but not on your current spin that the state might have some legitimacy. I am as anti-state as ever. States are simply unnecessary, and willbe even more as time progresses. The same with the left, which gets more anarchonistic each day.
liberty student:You're not an anarcho-capitalist.
True enough.
liberty student:You are an anti-capitalist.
Not really. I just think the word (along with "socialism", for that matter) has zero utility in an anarchist setting.
liberty student:You don't get a vote.
Then I call for a vote for whether or not I get a vote!
wombatron:Then I call for a vote for whether or not I get a vote!
Anarchists.
wombatron: liberty student:You are an anti-capitalist. Not really. I just think the word (along with "socialism", for that matter) has zero utility in an anarchist setting.
Is it possible to be for mutualism, and not be socialist and/or anti-capitalist?
liberty student:But I think people know what anarcho-capitalism is, even if the anarcho bit may be misleading. To those who know, those zany leftists who think that you can voluntarily replicate a tyrannical and unnatural social order and call it libertarian, they seethe when someone brings up AnCap, and even worse, that the Saint of the Left [sic], Murray Newton Rothbard identified as one (must have been during his LSD phase, I know, I know ).
Rothbard had an LSD phase? really?
CorporateGhost:Rothbard had an LSD phase? really?
No. That is why I used the winking smilie. It means,
Richard Chambers: Anarcho-capitalists are not democrats. Start a new thread. I call anarcho-capitalism individualist democracy. The reason being that existing democracies are collectivist: they legislate according to majority vote, and they do not allow individuals to opt out of the government that is chosen by the majority and start competing agencies to protect their rights. What do y'all think?
Not bad, it reminds me of this piece: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein186.html
Democracy properly understood could really only mean anarchy, but unfortunately the word has actually never been properly understood or applied.
liberty student: Statism teh uber bad.
liberty student: HAR THIS IS SARCASM DO NOT TAKE IT SERIUS LIKE REST OF TEH INTERWEbZ!!
Obama is teh lux0r n00b
Ron Paul is teh l33t pr0
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
liberty student:Is it possible to be for mutualism, and not be socialist and/or anti-capitalist?
Well, I'm generally for what mutualists call "socialism", and I'm also pretty much for what an-caps call "capitalism". Those words are supposed to opposites, and yet I can qualify as being both. That's why I think that they have zero utility.
Marko: Not bad, it reminds me of this piece: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein186.html Democracy properly understood could really only mean anarchy, but unfortunately the word has actually never been properly understood or applied.