I couldn't agree with the original poster more. I propose renaming capitalism to free-market cooperation. we can call it a co-op market for short. hippies will associate it with the positive connotations of farmer's markets and co-op living arrangements. if you call yourself a anarcho-capitalist progressives dismiss you out of hand. If you describe yourself as a co-op market advocate they will be intrigued and probe further.
they are now wide open to hearing logical ideas. since a lot of austrian economics is obviously true when listened to by the unbiased mind, you can slowly ease them into it with seemingly innocent statements. Only gradually will they come to realize what the implications actually are. And by that time they'll realize that a free-market is actually a good thing.
Remind them that it doesn't get more free market than their neighborhood farmers market. remind them that their co-op work ideas are really a form of decentralized currency. I think there's a big potential for progressives to respond to austrian ideas that the Ron Paul campaign only hinted at.
The term "anarcho capitalism" is horrible, it's just clumsy. Market anarchism, private property anarchism etc. are hardly better.
In any case I really don't think the word anarchism correctly captures the essence of extreme classic liberalism. Furthermore I don't want to have to associate with a bunch of lefitst thugs, they can have their word.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nazgulnarsil: I couldn't agree with the original poster more. I propose renaming capitalism to free-market cooperation. we can call it a co-op market for short. hippies will associate it with the positive connotations of farmer's markets and co-op living arrangements. if you call yourself a anarcho-capitalist progressives dismiss you out of hand. If you describe yourself as a co-op market advocate they will be intrigued and probe further. they are now wide open to hearing logical ideas. since a lot of austrian economics is obviously true when listened to by the unbiased mind, you can slowly ease them into it with seemingly innocent statements. Only gradually will they come to realize what the implications actually are.
they are now wide open to hearing logical ideas. since a lot of austrian economics is obviously true when listened to by the unbiased mind, you can slowly ease them into it with seemingly innocent statements. Only gradually will they come to realize what the implications actually are.
Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought.
Nick. B: nazgulnarsil: I couldn't agree with the original poster more. I propose renaming capitalism to free-market cooperation. we can call it a co-op market for short. hippies will associate it with the positive connotations of farmer's markets and co-op living arrangements. if you call yourself a anarcho-capitalist progressives dismiss you out of hand. If you describe yourself as a co-op market advocate they will be intrigued and probe further. they are now wide open to hearing logical ideas. since a lot of austrian economics is obviously true when listened to by the unbiased mind, you can slowly ease them into it with seemingly innocent statements. Only gradually will they come to realize what the implications actually are. Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought.
*sniff*
But I like the term anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: Nick. B: nazgulnarsil: I couldn't agree with the original poster more. I propose renaming capitalism to free-market cooperation. we can call it a co-op market for short. hippies will associate it with the positive connotations of farmer's markets and co-op living arrangements. if you call yourself a anarcho-capitalist progressives dismiss you out of hand. If you describe yourself as a co-op market advocate they will be intrigued and probe further. they are now wide open to hearing logical ideas. since a lot of austrian economics is obviously true when listened to by the unbiased mind, you can slowly ease them into it with seemingly innocent statements. Only gradually will they come to realize what the implications actually are. Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought. *sniff* But I like the term anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
I know me too...but we really have nothing in common with anarchist. Let's face it we're an entirely new school of thought.....we're anarchist no more. [:'(]
Nathyn: Niccolò: Nathyn: If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have. Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government. Government is a plague, a disease, a wild an untamed beast that can neither be fixed, reformed, or used for any means of good. Why not "reform" because if you hadn't noticed, it has never worked. No, there can be no peace with governments. How could there be when they refuse to treat you like a man? That's beside the point. If it is true that government is a plague, exactly why would you propose allowing it to be re-introduced in Anarchy? You wouldn't, right? Also, it's patently obvious that some governments are better than others. In America, you have the freedom to call your governments fascist. While, in many other countries, if you criticize the government, they'll murder you. You can't honestly believe that Germany today is as bad as Nazi Germany.
Niccolò: Nathyn: If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have. Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government. Government is a plague, a disease, a wild an untamed beast that can neither be fixed, reformed, or used for any means of good. Why not "reform" because if you hadn't noticed, it has never worked. No, there can be no peace with governments. How could there be when they refuse to treat you like a man?
Nathyn: If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have. Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government.
If it's possible to have societies with stable, honest governments in anarchy, I don't see what the basis is for abolishing the ones we have.
Instead of destroying the government, then petititioning all anarchists to let you form one (how exactly would this work? a majority vote?), why not simply petition the government that exists now? After all, the same amount of force necessary to remove government can equally be used to reform government.
Government is a plague, a disease, a wild an untamed beast that can neither be fixed, reformed, or used for any means of good.
Why not "reform" because if you hadn't noticed, it has never worked. No, there can be no peace with governments. How could there be when they refuse to treat you like a man?
That's beside the point.
If it is true that government is a plague, exactly why would you propose allowing it to be re-introduced in Anarchy? You wouldn't, right?
Also, it's patently obvious that some governments are better than others. In America, you have the freedom to call your governments fascist. While, in many other countries, if you criticize the government, they'll murder you.
You can't honestly believe that Germany today is as bad as Nazi Germany.
The problem with government is not that the currently existing ones are a plague or better/worse than previous variants of the same institution. The issue is that govt as govt is conceptually/definitionally based on a hijacking of people's right to self-defence, a monopolisation of the use of coercion, and a misguided claim to rightfully exercise it discretionarily... all traits which are making it impossible to accept under any form and, hence, to amend.
The only govt which could be re-introduced in anarchism would be one unanimously and expressly agreed to by the entire population it governs!
I will make Rothbards words mine to reply to your post.
http://mises.org/story/2801
That's almost all I have to say about it.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." – Barry Goldwater (1964)
www.mises.org.br
Stranger: Brainpolice: I still take issue with characterizing this philosophy as pro-archy (ruler) in any sense. I've seen the term polyarchy thrown around but even that term I don't think fits. I have no problem with seeing a society based on the principle of the non-initiation of aggression (and therefore free association) as being "without rulers", since I define a ruler in a way that inevitably involves some kind of forced association. I see a free market (especially and most importantly in the case of land) as being exactly what it means to be without rulers, for there is no unjust claim over someone else's legitimately aquired property involved. Polyarchy makes me think of polygamist. The fact of the matter is that people want rulers. They want protection. We cannot sell them personal sovereignty. It frightens them. The only way to ensure their personal liberty is with competing rulers.
Brainpolice: I still take issue with characterizing this philosophy as pro-archy (ruler) in any sense. I've seen the term polyarchy thrown around but even that term I don't think fits. I have no problem with seeing a society based on the principle of the non-initiation of aggression (and therefore free association) as being "without rulers", since I define a ruler in a way that inevitably involves some kind of forced association. I see a free market (especially and most importantly in the case of land) as being exactly what it means to be without rulers, for there is no unjust claim over someone else's legitimately aquired property involved.
I still take issue with characterizing this philosophy as pro-archy (ruler) in any sense. I've seen the term polyarchy thrown around but even that term I don't think fits. I have no problem with seeing a society based on the principle of the non-initiation of aggression (and therefore free association) as being "without rulers", since I define a ruler in a way that inevitably involves some kind of forced association. I see a free market (especially and most importantly in the case of land) as being exactly what it means to be without rulers, for there is no unjust claim over someone else's legitimately aquired property involved.
Polyarchy makes me think of polygamist. The fact of the matter is that people want rulers. They want protection. We cannot sell them personal sovereignty. It frightens them. The only way to ensure their personal liberty is with competing rulers.
You can have both personal sovereignty and protection at the same time; ie trough contracting with private protective agencies... and it's not a SF scenario, but already an increasing reality today... Or getting your self well-armed, or organising a neightbouring watch, or whichever alternative non-coercively grounded means of defence.
Besides, "a society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserves neither" -that is, you cannot have adequate protection from the very institution which is enslaving you at gun-point.
Finally, competing rulers is no better than a single ruler as long as they rule (aka enslave you), and statists might be tempted to use your argument to claim that we have a competition of rulers both internationally, in a multi-states world, and internally, in multi-party democracies.
Stranger: Brainpolice: I think what we ought to do is petition the non-propertarian anarchists to get their definitions straight and interpret Proudhon (who they often misinterpret to their own cause's advantage) properly. And petition them to drop the labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value. And to stop denying that the individualists are anarchists. Why overtly shy away from the term anarchism like that and grant the collectivists and syndicalists a monopoly on the term? They've been mischaracterizing us as statists and defenders of the status quo for a long time: why concede to their fallicious arguements? So we stole their words and now we're asking them to give up the crazyness? That's not very strategic if you ask me.
Brainpolice: I think what we ought to do is petition the non-propertarian anarchists to get their definitions straight and interpret Proudhon (who they often misinterpret to their own cause's advantage) properly. And petition them to drop the labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value. And to stop denying that the individualists are anarchists. Why overtly shy away from the term anarchism like that and grant the collectivists and syndicalists a monopoly on the term? They've been mischaracterizing us as statists and defenders of the status quo for a long time: why concede to their fallicious arguements?
I think what we ought to do is petition the non-propertarian anarchists to get their definitions straight and interpret Proudhon (who they often misinterpret to their own cause's advantage) properly. And petition them to drop the labor theory of value in favor of the subjective theory of value. And to stop denying that the individualists are anarchists. Why overtly shy away from the term anarchism like that and grant the collectivists and syndicalists a monopoly on the term? They've been mischaracterizing us as statists and defenders of the status quo for a long time: why concede to their fallicious arguements?
So we stole their words and now we're asking them to give up the crazyness? That's not very strategic if you ask me.
Apart from Proudhon, who was very close to libertarianism, at least towards the end of his life, you've got Stirner; who was a completely individualist anarchist and an egoist (in the philosophical sense of the term). So, i don't see any contradiction in the terms, on the contrary... and there was no stealing in the first place.
M-la-maudite:The issue is that govt as govt is conceptually/definitionally based on a hijacking of people's right
probably a function of government from its very conception.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/lectures_on_mac_4.html#more
Roberto Chiocca: I will make Rothbards words mine to reply to your post. Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? http://mises.org/story/2801 That's almost all I have to say about it.
No we're Voluntaryist. We're better than anarchists.
Anarchism has roots dating back to the Antiquity; for example, Diogene Laertes was a proto-anarchist, beside being a cynic and a comopolitan.
The abolition of the state as such was first advocated during the French revolution by a faction called Les Enragés, and which was opposing Jacobinism from the left... not exactly on the basis of the current right-libertarian platform though.
This being said, i agree with you that anarchists are liberals; actually, consistent liberals can only be anarchists -;)
allixpeeke: I prefer the term "anarcho-liberal" over "anarcho-capitalist," since I believe the term "capitalist" is extremely misleading to some and because I believe anarcho-capitalism is the pinacle of left-wing radicalism.
I prefer the term "anarcho-liberal" over "anarcho-capitalist," since I believe the term "capitalist" is extremely misleading to some and because I believe anarcho-capitalism is the pinacle of left-wing radicalism.
The term "anarcho-liberal" would be a tautology; "anarcho-" standing for (a form of) "liberal", while "capitalist" isn't necessarily free-market or liberal.
Why would "anarcho-capitalism" sound left-wing??
Nick. B: Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought.
... but this is precisely what being an anarchist means - NOT throwing stones in windows or what-not!!
nazgulnarsil: M-la-maudite:The issue is that govt as govt is conceptually/definitionally based on a hijacking of people's right probably a function of government from its very conception. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/lectures_on_mac_4.html#more
Actually, more a characteristic of govt and maybe a self-appointed function; but surely not a function it was entrusted with by the people over which it rules, and even less so a necessary one.
M-la-maudite: quote user="Nick. B"] Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought.
quote user="Nick. B"]
M-la-maudite: ... but this is precisely what being an anarchist means - NOT throwing stones in windows or what-not!!
Yes but left wing thugs have sully the name. Besides, we have nothing in common with these other anarchist idealogies besides our dissent for the state, otherwise they despise captialism or even basic property! Do you really want to associated with crackpots like that. I say lets rename ourselves voluntaryist, start anew with our Agorist brotheryn.
Nick. B: M-la-maudite: quote user="Nick. B"] Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought. M-la-maudite: ... but this is precisely what being an anarchist means - NOT throwing stones in windows or what-not!! Yes but left wing thugs have sully the name. Besides, we have nothing in common with these other anarchist idealogies besides our dissent for the state, otherwise they despise captialism or even basic property! Do you really want to associated with crackpots like that. I say lets rename ourselves voluntaryist, start anew with our Agorist brotheryn.
I personally think Voluntaryist is the best term regarding my political & philosophical stances, & market-anarchism as decent (but not perfect) regarding my economic stances. I find it cuts right to the point when I explain I'm only anti-state/government because I realized it is an involuntary & coercive institution, & that I'm in favor of self-government via the market & with other individuals, which would replace the mechanics of daily life maintenance that people currently have no choice but to leave the state as responsible for. I further clarify that government itself would occur naturally among self-governing individuals, and that groups of individuals, as long as they respect such (or the NAP if the person I'm talking to isn't very ignorant), the ignorant vision of chaos via anarchism would never occur, as we all as individuals have an interest in protecting ourselves, & the market would provide a means to protect other individuals as a business (which would ensure quality service & competition as well as honesty), as the opposite of such virtues would prove utterly profitless. I tend to end my exposition by commenting that I would never force them to listen to me if they don't want, & slip in a self-depreciating joke concerning the wordiness of my explanation. This approach has worked well among liberals & conservatives (both have commented the detail of the explanation saves me from sounding like an ignorant bottle throwing teen, more or less), & some have admitted that our "democracy" may require something different when it comes to a head (referring to collapse of the economy, which seems to be a universal topic that people tend to agree on, sans the ignorant liberal or conservative who either think nationalizing everything stabilize the economy, or that an erratic stock market somehow signifies stability). I am however in favor of entertaining alternatives for the political & economic stances that is normally associated with market-anarchists / anarcho-capitalists/ libertarians. I think we need to gather all the suggested names into a stickied thread somewhere, & take the debate there (or make this thread that stickied thread & continue).
"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
I frankly think that's BS. I have plenty in common with other anarchists. We're anarchists!
The fact is that we are libertarian anarchists. Trying to disasociate ourselves from what we are makes no sense.
I'll ask the same question here: under true anarchism, what stops everything from being exactly the same as it is now?
Brainpolice: Nick. B: M-la-maudite: quote user="Nick. B"] Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let's face we really don't have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We're basically a whole new school of thought. M-la-maudite: ... but this is precisely what being an anarchist means - NOT throwing stones in windows or what-not!! Yes but left wing thugs have sully the name. Besides, we have nothing in common with these other anarchist idealogies besides our dissent for the state, otherwise they despise captialism or even basic property! Do you really want to associated with crackpots like that. I say lets rename ourselves voluntaryist, start anew with our Agorist brotheryn. I frankly think that's BS. I have plenty in common with other anarchists. We're anarchists! The fact is that we are libertarian anarchists. Trying to disasociate ourselves from what we are makes no sense.
Really, how so? I mean besides our shared want for the dissolution of the state, I can't think of thing we have in common with other anarchist. Face it we're not anarchist, we're voluntaryist! It's really not that bad, I mean the anarchist movement can't see that it's a relic of the past and honestly believe that thier more important than they are.
What the OP said with regard to the psychology of "framing," is true.
On the other hand, don't forget the "repetition principle," and "familiarity effect," (I think those are the terms) also well known to psychologists. The more something is repeated and the more one is familiar with it, the more likely it is to be perceived as valid.
I'm in favor of exposing people to definitions of anarchy they are unfamiliar with and they (hopefully) will gradually start to think of it as valid after repeated exposure. If we try to jettison it, I bet it will come flying back in our face; ie others will use it as a perjorative and since we have not defended it we'll be stuck in an awkward situation.
I also think libertarian is a good term to keep; it's a hot commodity now! This is purely anecdotal but it seems to me that a lot of people who are the farthest thing from libertarian are trying to say "oh, I'm a bit of a libertarian at heart..." This is an indication that the word is has a lot of positive associations; else why would people try to hijack it? Now would be the worst time possible to give it up.
Really, how so? I mean besides our shared want for the dissolution of the state, I can't think of thing we have in common with other anarchist.
Opposition to coercive central authorities is hardly incidental, it's fundamental. That's what makes us anarchists to begin with. Like it or not, that places anyone who shares that fundamental opposition to coercive authorities on the anti-authoritarian side of the political spectrum, and it makes them have far more in common than they do with the political left or right, who by default are closer to the authoritarian side of the political spectrum.
Face it we're not anarchist, we're voluntaryist!
They're the same thing. If you are for voluntaryism as a principle, by default you oppose rulers, and hence you are an anarchist (which means "no rulers"). Anarchism is the logical conclusion of voluntaryism or libertarianism.
It's really not that bad, I mean the anarchist movement can't see that it's a relic of the past and honestly believe that thier more important than they are.
Anarchism is not a relic of the past, authoritarianism is. Anarchism, in the realm of political philosophy, is a relevatively new idea.
I have no idea why anarchists would want to - abandon anarchism (because of an essay Murray Rothbard wrote BEFORE he became an anarchist)? It makes no sense. You favor a voluntary society? You're an anarchist, simple as that. Why anarchists would want to leave their own movement or deny that they are exactly what they are (anarchists!) is beyond me.
I think the petition should be for a reclaimation of anarchism, not abandonment (which inherently would imply a reversion to some kind of minarchism).
Brainpolice:I have no idea why anarchists would want to - abandon anarchism? It makes no sense. You favor a voluntary society? You're an anarchist, simple as that. Why anarchists would want to leave their own movement or deny that they are exactly what they are (anarchists!) is beyond me.
Because the people you claim to be our comrades, for the most part hate the fact that we favour private property and importantly don't stand for the same things we do. They have no problems with coercion, they'd just rather if the "community" did it, instead of the "state".
Do you really want to be associated with Chomsky?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I have no idea why anarchists would want to - abandon anarchism? It makes no sense. You favor a voluntary society? You're an anarchist, simple as that. Why anarchists would want to leave their own movement or deny that they are exactly what they are (anarchists!) is beyond me. Because the people you claim to be our comrades, for the most part hate the fact that we favour private property and importantly don't stand for the same things we do. They have no problems with coercion, they'd just rather if the "community" did it, instead of the "state". Do you really want to be associated with Chomsky?
You have no idea who specifically I claim to be my comrades. The people who I claim to be my comrades are tolerant of market anarchism and are leaning towards it themselves (or basically ARE market anarchists with a leftish tinge). None of them favor coercion. You don't seem to see any distinctions though.
Chomsky isn't an anarchist, he's a state-socialist who claims to be an anarchist. I never claimed that Chomsky and Chomskyites are allies, so it's clear that you misread me. In fact, I've successfully gotten some socialists to totally turn on Chomsky because of his reformism and his general inability to understand what's wrong with the state.
Just because there are state-socialists parading as anarchists does NOT mean that we are not in fact anarchists and that we should let them claim a false title for themselves. Instead of saying that we're not anarchists, the point should be to point out that they in fact are not anarchists.
Brainpolice: Really, how so? I mean besides our shared want for the dissolution of the state, I can't think of thing we have in common with other anarchist. Opposition to coercive central authorities is hardly incidental, it's fundamental. That's what makes us anarchists to begin with. Like it or not, that places anyone who shares that fundamental opposition to coercive authorities on the anti-authoritarian side of the political spectrum, and it makes them have far more in common than they do with the political left or right, who by default are closer to the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. Face it we're not anarchist, we're voluntaryist! They're the same thing. If you are for voluntaryism as a principle, by default you oppose rulers, and hence you are an anarchist (which means "no rulers"). Anarchism is the logical conclusion of voluntaryism or libertarianism. It's really not that bad, I mean the anarchist movement can't see that it's a relic of the past and honestly believe that thier more important than they are. Anarchism is not a relic of the past, authoritarianism is. Anarchism, in the realm of political philosophy, is a relevatively new idea. I have no idea why anarchists would want to - abandon anarchism (because of an essay Murray Rothbard wrote BEFORE he became an anarchist)? It makes no sense. You favor a voluntary society? You're an anarchist, simple as that. Why anarchists would want to leave their own movement or deny that they are exactly what they are (anarchists!) is beyond me. I think the petition should be for a reclaimation of anarchism, not abandonment (which inherently would imply a reversion to some kind of minarchism).
How would abondoning the term libertarian and/or anarchism imply a reversion to minarchism at all? I may call myself a Voluntaryist, but I'm most certaintly not a minarchist. I thought this thread was about solidifying a new term or choosing another term to represent what once was/is market anarchist and/or anarcho-capitalist views, as it's been said neither label is entirely effective.
Because I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about ideas and their meaning. Etymologically, anarchism is the most accurate label to describe the ideas in question. Until the english language itself significantly changes, this will continue to be the case. To deny that we are anarchists, etymololgically, inevitably would imply that we are some kind of archists. My point is that if we actually abandon the idea of anarchism, yes, we've likely reverted to some kind of minarchist position.
I think what's mainly creating an issue here is that many people came into this "anarcho-capitalism" thing without being versed in anarchism as such, and upon discovering what anarchism as such really means and implies, they discovered that they don't actually like anarchism very much, and are by far more interested in the "capitalism" part. Preferance for the "capitalism" part then overshadows the anarchism part, and one thinks of oneself in an entirely independant category of their own that has nothing to do with the anarchist movement as such (since all the "socialist" connections are a big turn off).
Brainpolice: How would abondoning the term libertarian and/or anarchism imply a reversion to minarchism at all? I may call myself a Voluntaryist, but I'm most certaintly not a minarchist. I thought this thread was about solidifying a new term or choosing another term to represent what once was/is market anarchist and/or anarcho-capitalist views, as it's been said neither label is entirely effective. Because I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about ideas and their meaning. Etymologically, anarchism is the most accurate label to describe the ideas in question. Until the english language itself significantly changes, this will continue to be the case. To deny that we are anarchists, etymololgically, inevitably would imply that we are some kind of archists. My point is that if we actually abandon the idea of anarchism, yes, we've likely reverted to some kind of minarchist position.
So you are saying that because we are not called anarchists, we cannot have anarchistic ideas in whatever label is utilized? Wouldn't that be the same as saying because a Statist does not call themselves a Statist (they use other labels such as liberal & conservative, etc.), they are not Statists? If that were true, why would I bother using Voluntaryist as a better description towards my belief in voluntary action & non-coercion (which are fundamental principles of anarchism anyways), in order to distinguish myself from anarcho-communists, syndalcists, or other possible flavors which do not entirely embrace voluntary action and/or non-coercion?I don't see how I've "abandoned" principles of anarchism by utilizing a related label and/or descriptor at all, honestly.
Nitroadict: Brainpolice: How would abondoning the term libertarian and/or anarchism imply a reversion to minarchism at all? I may call myself a Voluntaryist, but I'm most certaintly not a minarchist. I thought this thread was about solidifying a new term or choosing another term to represent what once was/is market anarchist and/or anarcho-capitalist views, as it's been said neither label is entirely effective. Because I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about ideas and their meaning. Etymologically, anarchism is the most accurate label to describe the ideas in question. Until the english language itself significantly changes, this will continue to be the case. To deny that we are anarchists, etymololgically, inevitably would imply that we are some kind of archists. My point is that if we actually abandon the idea of anarchism, yes, we've likely reverted to some kind of minarchist position. So you are saying that because we are not called anarchists, we cannot have anarchistic ideas in whatever label is utilized? Wouldn't that be the same as saying because a Statist does not call themselves a Statist (they use other labels such as liberal & conservative, etc.), they are not Statists? If that were true, why would I bother using Voluntaryist as a better description towards my belief in voluntary action & non-coercion (which are fundamental principles of anarchism anyways), in order to distinguish myself from anarcho-communists, syndalcists, or other possible flavors which do not entirely embrace voluntary action and/or non-coercion?I don't see how I've "abandoned" principles of anarchism by utilizing a related label and/or descriptor at all, honestly.
Because, once again, anarchism (in terms of the actual etymology of the word, not just semantics) is the same thing as voluntaryism, or its logical conclusion. And those others who have the gaul to call themselves anarchists while rejecting voluntaryism are in fact not anarchists. The sensible thing to do would be to point this out - NOT yeild the term to those who actually don't consistantly embrace it. Otherwise, one is enabling what amounts to propaganda.
Also, some people in this thread aren't just talking about abandoning a word, they're talking about abandoning a movement. They clearly have distain for the actual anarchist movement and regaurd anarcho-capitalism is a monocentric way, I.E. as its own completely independant category that is 100% irreconcilable with any other segment of the anarchist movement, I.E. a closed system much in the way that Objectivism is. The thing is, I consider libertarianism to be a polycentric movement, so this flies in the face of my understanding of libertarianism.
Brainpolice: You have no idea who specifically I claim to be my comrades. The people who I claim to be my comrades are tolerant of market anarchism and are leaning towards it themselves (or basically ARE market anarchists with a leftish tinge). None of them favor coercion. You don't seem to see any distinctions though. Chomsky isn't an anarchist, he's a state-socialist who claims to be an anarchist. I never claimed that Chomsky and Chomskyites are allies, so it's clear that you misread me. In fact, I've successfully gotten some socialists to totally turn on Chomsky because of his reformism and his general inability to understand what's wrong with the state. Just because there are state-socialists parading as anarchists does NOT mean that we are not in fact anarchists and that we should let them claim a false title for themselves. Instead of saying that we're not anarchists, the point should be to point out that they in fact are not anarchists.
For the amount you just wrote you did a wonderful job in missing the point entirely.
As you say, the Chomskyites aren't anarchists, but socialists. Likewise for a great majority of the "anarcho" communists and collectivists, they just prefer to use the word community to state, and believe like all statists that it has coercion is a legitimate means to an end. In the case of liberals, it's equality, in the case of paleocons is tradition and in the case of anarcho communists is abolishing private property.
Perhaps you have the good sense to associate with those tolerant to private property it doesn't mean that they all do. Most of them are just angry kids who enjoy smashing stuff up. Unfortunately by calling ourselves anarchists we're confusing ourselves will fools who go around graffiting As all over the place. I'm simply leveling the same criticism against anarchism as you do against capitalism.
Brainpolice:Because, once again, anarchism (in terms of the actual etymology of the word, not just semantics) is the same thing as voluntaryism, or its logical conclusion
In terms of etymology liberalism means anarchism, what's your point? Are we to call ourselves liberals? That would be a strategical blunder if you ask me.
Brainpolice:Etymologically, anarchism is the most accurate label to describe the ideas in question.
I'd disagree, it means without rulers. In a sense market anarchists do favour rulers, albeit voluntary ones.
Brainpolice:Because I'm not talking about labels, I'm talking about ideas and their meaning.
And we're talking strategy. I wouldn't mind using the word anarchist (it's an ugly word though) if people didn't associate it with punk music, drugs and graffiti.
Brainpolice:My point is that if we actually abandon the idea of anarchism, yes, we've likely reverted to some kind of minarchist position.
How does voluntaryism imply minarchism? Not that I'm found of voluntaryism either, it's an improvement though.
Brainpolice:I think what's mainly creating an issue here is that many people came into this "anarcho-capitalism" thing without being versed in anarchism as such, and upon discovering what anarchism as such really means and implies, they discovered that they don't actually like anarchism very much, and are by far more interested in the "capitalism" part.
Or you just have some attachment to people and ideas that aren't compatible with voluntaryism but claim the high ground of pluralism in any attempt to justify this. Anarchism will always and only ever be based on private property. Sorry to break it to you. In any case the collectivist communes and libertine communities would die out, capitalism would replace them.
For the amount you just wrote you did a wonderful job in missing the point entirely. As you say, the Chomskyites aren't anarchists, but socialists. Likewise for a great majority of the "anarcho" communists and collectivists, they just prefer to use the word community to state, and believe like all statists that it has coercion is a legitimate means to an end. In the case of liberals, it's equality, in the case of paleocons is tradition and in the case of anarcho communists is abolishing private property. Perhaps you have the good sense to associate with those tolerant to private property it doesn't mean that they all do. Most of them are just angry kids who enjoy smashing stuff up. Unfortunately by calling ourselves anarchists we're confusing ourselves will fools who go around graffiting As all over the place. I'm simply leveling the same criticism against anarchism as you do against capitalism.
I think you're speaking from an over-generalized prejudice and are acting unecessarily closed-minded. Most of them, most likely, are not violent people (most people PERIOD, for the most part, are not violent people). And one's age isn't really necessarily relevant to the content of their ideas, that's just a stupid ad hom. You very well know that there is a huge differance between anarchism as a political position and anarchism as a cultural slogan for chaos, and you very well know that those who approach anarchism as a political philosophy are hardly to be confused with a bunch of vandals. Unfortunately, instead of refuting the cultural cliche that anarchists are just vandals, you're espousing it! That's counterproductive. "Most of them are just angry kids who like to smash stuff up". That's simply false, you're playing off of common statist prejudices against anarchism.
Well the way I see it, we need to be associated with things everyone already enjoys. I can barely think of any sane individuals who would be opposed to a small woodland creature. In a general sense, I'm rather confident every enjoys a nice hot breakfast. Finally, society enjoys holidays and festivals in almost every scenario. A little adjectives never hurt anyone either. Therefore, I propose the new name:
The Wonderful Christmas Chipmunk Pancake Club (of capitalism)
Of course, we would only need to include the parenthetical description when we explain our platform. Otherwise, it's best not to be so polarizing.
However, I don't believe changing any of our current names or classifications is necessary. I think that anyone who believes that would help is seriously underestimating the political apathy within society.
Market anarchists do not favor rulers. A voluntary ruler is a contradiction in terms. A ruler, by defacto, lays claim over other people's lives. Noone has a legitimate claim over anyone else's life. Personal sovereignty implies that only you can rule yourself, not over others. Individual sovereignty and rulership are inherently opposing principles.
The point should be to clarify that that isn't what it is.
And frankly, who cares if some people listen to punk music and smoke a little pot?
I said that the abandonment of the actual idea of anarchism inevitably likely implies a reversion to some kind of minarchism.
Or you just have some attachment to people and ideas that aren't compatible with voluntaryism but claim the high ground of pluralism in any attempt to justify this.
You clearly do not understand my position. I do not attach to any people who's ideas aren't compatible with voluntaryism. The entire point of the pluralism is in the context of voluntaryism. Anyone's ideas, if they are regaurded as preferances to voluntarily pursue, are theoretically compatible with voluntaryism. This simple point is where the pluralism inevitably comes from.
Anarchism will always and only ever be based on private property. Sorry to break it to you.
I never argued otherwise. I argued that those who claim to oppose private property are mostly caught up in semantics and in fact support it.
In any case the collectivist communes and libertine communities would die out, capitalism would replace them.
That's your personal prediction that doesn't directly have anything to do with being a voluntaryist (I.E. noone has to agree with your preferance or your prediction to be one). It's also naive to think that one single system would dominate when there is vast diversity in terms of preferances. So long as there are people with different preferances than you in a free society, sorry to break it to you, but there will be other associations out there than the ones you prefer. A free society isn't going to uniformly represent ANYONE's preferances. So long as there is some degree of demand for communes and "libertine communities", they will exist in one form or another at least insofar as the people who prefer them wish to form and join them.
Brainpolice:I think you're speaking from an over-generalized prejudice and are acting unecessarily closed-minded.
No, you're just being partisan in an attempt to pander to the left by making ad hoc arguments about how we have to accept anybody who proclaims to hate the state.
Brainpolice:Most of them, most likely, are not violent people (most people PERIOD, for the most part, are not violent people).
Yes, and yet most people advocate the state because they don't see it as violence. Same applies to the anarcho communists you love. I'm sure many of them may be lovely, if out of touch with reality, nonetheless they couldn't care less about our property rights because they don't see them as just. And as such their views aren't compatible with ours.
Brainpolice:And one's age isn't really necessarily relevant to the content of their ideas, that's just a stupid ad hom.
This rebellion against all authority can be explained biologically, in a way that relates to age. So in a way, yes it is relevant. Moreover, people aren't going to take a bunch of teenagers seriously no matter how valid their ideas area.
Brainpolice: You very well know that there is a huge differance between anarchism as a political position and anarchism as a cultural slogan for chaos, and you very well know that those who approach anarchism as a political philosophy are hardly to be confused with a bunch of vandals.
You're correct, I do. As does everybody on these forums. The general public? The first thing that comes to their mind upon hearing anarchism is the Sex Pistols. Which is a shame because they're a terrible band and a bunch of savages.
Brainpolice:Unfortunately, instead of refuting the cultural cliche that anarchists are just vandals, you're espousing it! That's counterproductive. "Most of them are just angry kids who like to smash stuff up". That's simply false, you're playing off of common statist prejudices against anarchism.
Actually, it's called being realistic. People aren't likely to wake up from their perpetual dream and understand that anarchists are a serious lot of people, of whom Hoppe, Rothbard and the like are indicative. Hence it makes no sense to associate ourselves with kids who through bricks through windows, fools who are clearly not anarchists and yet claim the title (the anti capitalists and Chomskyites) and morons whose "anarchism" is not conistant with our own ("anarcho" communists).
In all fairness, I think the same applies for capitalism.
As such it makes every bit of sense to reject "libertarianism" which amounts to nothing more than Republicans who don't mind weed and perhaps abortion, reject "capitalism" which refers to the status quo and to reject "anarchism" which is meaningless and in many examples pejorative.
I'm not pandering to anyone in this thread. And I'm not the one being partisan here, you are, by insisting that it's "anarcho-capitalism or nothing". You are the one repeatedly insisting or implying that libertarianism should be a monocentric movement in which we exclusively stick to those who have preferance for "capitalism", and just prejudicially write off all "leftists" as vandals and hopeless utopians. I'm the one maintaining the pluralist or anarchism w/o adjectives perspective here, which is the opposite of partisan. So it's rather nonsensical and hypocritical of you to imply that I'm being partisan here.
Yes, and yet most people advocate the state because they don't see it as violence.
Yes, that is a problem. Of course, that's no reason to develope an elitist hatred of the commoner, which you have repeatedly expressed.
Same applies to the anarcho communists you love.
I don't love anarcho-communists. I don't even like Kropotkin very much. Stop misrepresenting me (I guess you can't help it though, since you clearly misUNDERSTAND me).
Sorry, this "agism" is stupid. Just because someone is young does not mean that they don't take ideas seriously or are particularly immature. Neither does it mean that they blindly rebel against "all authority". That you repeatedly have to shift the topic to an ad hominem about people's age or culture demonstrates you own inability to constructively critisize people's ideas.
And yet instead of clarifying that that isn't what anarchism is about, you're actually reinforcing the cultural cliche.
Hence it makes no sense to associate ourselves with kids who through bricks through windows, fools who are clearly not anarchists and yet claim the title (the anti capitalists and Chomskyites) and morons whose "anarchism" is not conistant with our own ("anarcho" communists).
Once again: THE PEOPLE I'M TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT JUST ANGRY KIDS WHO THROW BRICKS THROUGH WINDOWS, THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN AN INTEREST IN LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY WHO COME FROM A "LEFT-WING" BACKGROUND. Stop conflating the two. You keep bringing this up when it's not relevant to what I'm talking about. You just keep reverting to prejudice rather than what's actually in question. You are in fact stifling progress for the libertarian movement by assuming that people are mere savages before they're even given a chance to familiarize themselves with the ideas. It's quite ridiculous.
Brainpolice, GilesStratton is correct. Too many people have preconceived notion of an anarchist and sadly it is permanent. Libertarian I don't mind, but I think we should really entertain the term "Voluntaryist". It kinda grows on you, and also again we and anarchists have fundamental differences when it comes to our ideal society. And historically, anarchist have no problem forcing people into their voluntary society, do you really want to be lumped in with people who set the spark for WW1?
Brainpolice:Market anarchists do not favor rulers. A voluntary ruler is a contradiction in terms. A ruler, by defacto, lays claim over other people's lives. Noone has a legitimate claim over anyone else's life. Personal sovereignty implies that only you can rule yourself, not over others. Individual sovereignty and rulership are inherently opposing principles.
You know full well I didn't mean rulers in the sense you just used. Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite, trusted with the task of arbitrating between groups. In which case "anarchism" is not just silly strategically, but misleading.
Brainpolice: The point should be to clarify that that isn't what it is. And frankly, who cares if some people listen to punk music and smoke a little pot?
The people whom it is imperative to be taken seriously by.
Brainpolice:I said that the abandonment of the actual idea of anarchism inevitably likely implies a reversion to some kind of minarchism.
But we never rejected the idea, just the term. At least Nitroaddict didn't.
Brainpolice:You clearly do not understand my position. I do not attach to any people who's ideas aren't compatible with voluntaryism. The entire point of the pluralism is in the context of voluntaryism. Anyone's ideas, if they are regaurded as preferances to voluntarily pursue, are theoretically compatible with voluntaryism. This simple point is where the pluralism inevitably comes from.
No you claim the anarcho communists and capitalists can live side by side. Perhaps some of them can,but I'd doubt the majority will really respect property rights when push comes to shove.
Brainpolice:I never argued otherwise. I argued that those who claim to oppose private property are mostly caught up in semantics and in fact support it.
You just have an Orwellian conception of the term "property rights".
Brainpolice:That's your personal prediction that doesn't directly have anything to do with being a voluntaryist (I.E. noone has to agree with your preferance or your prediction to be one). It's also naive to think that one single system would dominate when there is vast diversity in terms of preferances. So long as there are people with different preferances than you in a free society, sorry to break it to you, but there will be other associations out there than the ones you prefer. A free society isn't going to uniformly represent ANYONE's preferances. So long as there is some degree of demand for communes and "libertine communities", they will exist in one form or another at least insofar as the people who prefer them wish to form and join them.
What do you mean? A personal prediction like abolishing the state will lead to greater material prosperity? If that's a prediction then so is mine. I never said they'd die out completely. I just said they'd be far less attractive when people are forced to give up prosperity and choice for some silly notion of equality. Which is essentially meaningless when they're surrounded by people who are definately not their equals, living in a "capitalist" system. A system which they'd have to respect.
It's rather simple for them to rant about inequality now but when the times comes and they find themself forced about by the community to do certain taks and give up the internet they use to broadcast their egalitarian fantasies I daresay they'd not be so keen. Especially as they'd be looked down upon by those not particularly fond of egalitarianism. I don't see them thriving in this context. These silly ideologies only have supporters now because the state exists and it's not been proven an absolutely failure.
So, perhaps some may favour equality over everything and else, and furthermore these people would be able to blind themselves of the unequal world around them. And if they then refrained from trying to force their "equality" on others they'd be able to live in these communes. But common sense tells you these people wouldn't be very numerous.
As for the libertines, well, competition between communities would eliminate them.
Brainpolice, GilesStratton is correct. Too many people have preconceived notion of an anarchist and sadly it is permanent.
He is in fact buying into that preconcieved notion himself!
It kinda grows on you, and also again we and anarchists have fundamental differences when it comes to our ideal society.
Once again, we ARE anarchists!
And historically, anarchist have no problem forcing people into their voluntary society, do you really want to be lumped in with people who set the spark for WW1?
Anarchists didn't set the spark for WWI. Nationalistic and elite interests did.
Brainpolice: Brainpolice, GilesStratton is correct. Too many people have preconceived notion of an anarchist and sadly it is permanent. He is in fact buying into that preconcieved notion himself! It kinda grows on you, and also again we and anarchists have fundamental differences when it comes to our ideal society. Once again, we ARE anarchists! And historically, anarchist have no problem forcing people into their voluntary society, do you really want to be lumped in with people who set the spark for WW1? Anarchists didn't set the spark for WWI. Nationalistic and elite interests did.
The term Voluntaryist get's to the point of anarchism far more efficiently than wadding through the ignorant responses when using the term anarchism (no matter what prefix it's attached to) when trying to educate others abotu one's position, at least this is in my experience. I hardly see how it is some sort of forbidden thing to utilize a related term to better describe another term in order to combat ignorance about said term (in this case: me using voluntaryism to better explain fundamentals of anarchism, instead of the term anarchism itself).I will always be an anarchist to those who know better, Voluntaryist to those who do not. What is so bad about that, aside from acknowledge the memetic weakness using the term anarchism has *presently* (it will change eventually through education & example) in today's society?
Brainpolice:I'm not pandering to anyone in this thread. And I'm not the one being partisan here, you are, by insisting that it's "anarcho-capitalism or nothing". You ae the one repeatedly insisting or implying that libertarianism should be a monocentric movement in which we exclusively stick to those who have preferance for "capitalism".
That's a strawmen, I even made a topic about my dislike for that silly phrase.
And as for the idea of anarcho capitalism or nothing. Well, I was wrong, anarcho communism would be able to exist, I just doubt it would survive. And yes, you're pandering to the left.
Brainpolice:Yes, that is a problem. Of course, that's no reason to develope an elitist hatred of the commoner, which you have repeatedly expressed.
I have other reasons too. But anyway, government rests upon consent. They consent to the government. They make up the majority of the population. Do you agree with this so far? If so then you must agree that it is because of the poor that we are stuck with this plague.
But in regard to the word anarchism, this is not relevant.
Brainpolice:I don't love anarcho-communists. Stop misrepresenting me (I guess you can't help it though, since you clearly misUNDERSTAND me).
No, I understand you perfectly well. You favour an alliance with the left based on cultural factors and you're doing your best to bend over backwards to try and make your ideologies fit. Either they recognise property rights to the same extent that we do or they're not compatible with us. If they do recognise property rights as we do, that means fully recognising private property, and still choose to live in communes, that's fine. Silly, but fine. This isn't difficult stuff.
Brainpolice:Sorry, this "agism" is stupid. Just because someone is young does not mean that they don't take ideas serious or are particularly immature. Neither does it mean that they blindly rebel against "all authority". That you repeatedly have to shift the topic to an ad hominem about people's age or culture demonstrates you own inability to constructively critisize people's ideas.
No, you just focus on the ad hominem and ignore the rest. I agree this isn't particularly relevant to their ideas. But their ideas can be explained by their age. Not once, however, have I said that discredits them. So, perhaps I post some ad homs. You on the other hand favour straw men.
And yes, being young by definition does make people less mature. Yes, again, biological factors related to age does mean that the youth are more inclined to rebel against authority. All I said was others won't take them seriously, which they don't.
Brainpolice:And yet instead of clarifying that that isn't what anarchism is about, you're actually reinforcing the cultural cliche.
No, I'm just not willing to and not silly enough to think that we can change anything. We can associate ourselves with tthese fools. But we can't change people's minds about what anarchism stands for.
Brainpolice:Once again: THE PEOPLE I'M TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT JUST ANGRY KIDS WHO THROW BRICKS THROUGH WINDOWS, THEY ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN AN INTEREST IN LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY WHO COME FROM A "LEFT-WING" BACKGROUND.
Congratulations, I never said otherwise though.
Brainpolice:Stop conflating the two.
I'm not conflating the two. I'm just not delusional enough to think everybody doesn't.
Brainpolice:You just keep reverting to prejudice rather than what's actually in question.
Or, I'm in touch with reality.
Brainpolice:You are in fact stifling progress for the libertarian movement by assuming that people are mere savages before they're even given a chance to familiarize themselves with the ideas. It's quite ridiculous.
No I suggest giving the libertarian movement a chance by distancing ourselves from these culture (or lack thereof) anarchists. Meanwhile dropping relations with the fraud and inconsistant anarchists. Starting with adopting a different name. You seem to have a strange attachment to a word.