Current Events

Re: G-20 Anarchists

DanielMuff — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:50:56 GMT

I know. I was replying to Conza.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

hayekianxyz — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:56:30 GMT

Sphairon:

GilesStratton:

I think you're definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.

Now I'm even more confused. The archetype of an anarchist is a guy wrapped in black garments causing mayhem and destruction. Aren't you, as a conservative, vehemently opposed to this?

Of course, but I don't see how that has anything to do with my definition of coercion. Any private defense agency will have to resort to coercion in order to sustain itself, as useful as it is social ostracism is not sufficient. Most anarcists, however, are utopians that believe once we get rid of property we will get rid of coercion and indeed all other social problems.

Mises denounced anarchists for all the right reasons, yet at the end of the day there's not all that much difference between the conclusions reached by Mises and the conclusions reached by Hoppe, Rothbard and other "anarcho" capitalists.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Sphairon — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:02:49 GMT

GilesStratton:

I think you're definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.

Now I'm even more confused. The archetype of an anarchist is a guy wrapped in black garments causing mayhem and destruction. Aren't you, as a conservative, vehemently opposed to this?

Re: G-20 Anarchists

hayekianxyz — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:44:35 GMT

Sphairon:

I'm curious, how do you justify coercion (if our definitions of coercion match)?

I think you're definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Sphairon — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 14:35:37 GMT

I'm curious, how do you justify coercion (if our definitions of coercion match)?

Re: G-20 Anarchists

hayekianxyz — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:47:10 GMT

Anarchist either reject coercion or leadership, we reject neither.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Nick. B — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:33:38 GMT

Daniel:

This. Many people on RPF confused an-cap-ism with anarchy. Anarchists have historically been anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.

Yeah, so? Things change; different schools of anarchy emerge.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

DanielMuff — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:29:22 GMT

This. Many people on RPF confused an-cap-ism with anarchy. Anarchists have historically been anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Stranger — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:08:06 GMT

Nick Ricci:

Conza88:

I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.

I think anarcho-capitalist is great, if only for the hilarious reactions it gets from left anarchists. "You're stealing our terms from us!"

You'd almost think they consider it their... property, or something.

There is an argument to make in favor of using different terms for different crowds.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

hayekianxyz — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:06:18 GMT

Byzantine:

wombatron:
They need to read their Proudhon and focus on building the new society, ...

That would require discipline, child-rearing, belief in something beyond one's self, and of course, marketable skills. Only racists and fascists care about those sort of things.

There you go spouting that conservative nonsense again.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Nick Ricci — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:12:41 GMT

Conza88:

I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.

I think anarcho-capitalist is great, if only for the hilarious reactions it gets from left anarchists. "You're stealing our terms from us!"

You'd almost think they consider it their... property, or something.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Conza88 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:24:59 GMT

GilesStratton:

Anarcho-capitalism is possibly the worst label we could have adopted. Mutliarchism, non-archism, eklektarchy are all far better labels.

I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.

The socialists corrupt EVERYTHING, 'Liberalism' then 'Left-Libertarianism' yada yada. The way I see it, we have anarcho-CAPITALISM (Haha, I can't see the left calling themselves Capitalists all of a sudden) It's a natural propellant.

Anarcho-Capitalism is basically the root, the hardcore. But when we fraternize with the enemy / masses, we are able to use other labels that are less affronting. "Classical liberal" "Constitutionalist" "Voluntaryist" etc.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

scineram — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:38:53 GMT

Cork:

I like that.

Re: G-20 Anarchists

Nick. B — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:08:31 GMT

ProudCapitalist:
YES! And now is the time to brand a new name, because we're going from almost nothing (in the minds of people) with some wind in the sails. Seriously, a good label would be very valuable going forward. You should register corresponding url:s. And this movement isn't larger than making it possible to change its name. If one could come up with something more catchy, and maybe pertaining to the human being or free will, which many still think are good things. And maybe something not so greek or -ism, then it'd be great!

I still think we should just call ourselves agorist.