Petition to stop being an anarchist

Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate. 

While anarchists in the 19th century sense desired the total abolition of laws protecting private property; we desire the very opposite. To frame ourselves as anarchists is therefore not very sensible. From an etymological point of view, an-archon means that there is no rule, while mono-archon means that there is a single ruler. The political end of liberty is to abolish the monopoly on the production of law and order, therefore the correct word should be pluri-archon or multi-archon.

What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism.

This affects the political strategy that we ought to employ as well. For example, I cannot see Ron Paul proposing to abolish the government of the United States. However I can see him campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would allow competition in the provision of security and justice.

While we're at it we should abolish the word libertarian as well. It was a codename for anarchist when anarchists were banned in France, and it's just plain ugly in its english aspect.

Well unfortunately the term anarchism has been so denigrated and misunderstood that it is indeed ridiculously hard to communicate to people about it. I also don't like the term anarcho-capitalism because the word capitalism has also been denigrated to the point of being an anti-concept, and it has negative connotations for most people these days. I've distanced myself from the word capitalism because even in its original context it does not refer to a free market, it refers to the mercantalism and class systems of the 18th and 19th centuries. I always make a sharp distinction between a free market and "state-capitalism" when debating with the socialistically inclined.

Actually we do favor the total abolition of coercive laws protecting unjust property titles. Rothbard goes through many pains to make a distinction between merely protecting existing property classes and property titles and protecting property rights in "The Ethics of Liberty". The utilitarians are fallicious in assuming that existing property arrangements are legitimate per se. By making this assumption, they end up as defenders of the status quo and a quasi-fuedalistic or even quasi-fascistic regime. A consistant application of the Rothbardian-style theory of legitimacy in property titles would in some ways lead to a fairly drastic change in existing arrangements if it was enforced.

I also don't believe that this system known as anarcho-capitalism keeps rulers at all. A ruler is inherently coercive, imposed from above. I'd make a distinction between a ruler and a leader. A leader is chosen or consented to. A ruler is not, a ruler illegitimately lays claim to control others. In this spirit, I proudly declare what is called "anarcho-capitalism" to be precisely a system without rulers. There is noone who can legitimately lay claim on your life without your consent. You own yourself by default, noone else does. This is inalienable. You are of course free to rent yourself out to others (hence, wage labor) and to leaders that you consent to, but this in no way implies the existance of "rulers".

I do agree that market anarchism or free market anarchism (the terms I prefer) has pluralist implications, in that free association and free competition inherently implies the peaceful co-existance of multiple social and economic arrangements. I even will support people's freedom to go form a commune, or go live as primitivists, so long as I'm not forced into it myself. This, however, does not imply "multiple rulers" to me at all. Only a pluralistic society in which people are free to choose who to associate with and who to be lead by. This creates an extremely decentralized and multi-centered type of social and economic and legal order indeed.

So apparently we have some sharp disagreements as to what this philosophy implies, at least terminologically speaking. Perhaps our disagreement is merely semantic and etymological. I do not shy away from the idea of opposing rulers and opposing existing property arrangements.

 Yes, I think packaging the words 'anarchy' and 'capitalism' together isn't exactly the wisest of marketting ideas (although market anarchism doesn't pose as much of a problem.) I like the terms 'polycentric order', catallarchy (why not?), 'natural order', private law society etc. better. 

 Also agree on libertarian, I detest the word. Classical liberal is better, but by no means a perfect substitute; it doesn't even connote the same thing.

I kind of like anarcho-capitalism.

I'm not too worried about the marketing though. We aren't in the business of convincing people that anarchy is good, we are in the business of convincing people that the State is evil. In order for anarchy to happen people must consciously reject the state.

Voluntarchy?

I wrote a relatively lengthy response to this and it said "post pending moderation". I hope my efforts were not wasted.

Good idea.  If a few people start using "multiarcho-capitalism" in conversations, lectures, scholarly and popular publications, then people will be intrigued.  I think more people might take these ideas seriously if they could approach them without the negative associations and preconceptions they attach to libertarianism and the like.  But on the other hand, using unfamiliar terms can cause confusion and make it seem like a splinter group, hence detracting from support for anarcho-capitalism, so there's probably a tradeoff and you have to think carefully about your audience.

On a similar note I suggest that it is best to think of oneself as an Austrian (Misesian, praxeologist etc.) first, rather than a liberal or capitalist.  If people think Austrian economics is defined by the political beliefs of its adherents, they will not take it seriously.  Once they realise it rest on some serious arguments they will have to critique or accept them.  Also, not all Austrians (defined narrowly to include only the praxeological variety) are anarchists.  I do not know the positions of all of these Austrians, but I think a principled scepticism about anarchy is possible (Mises certainly thought so).

P.S. Does anyone know if Ron Paul would support anarchy in theory?  (sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread)

Brainpolice:

I wrote a relatively lengthy response to this and it said "post pending moderation". I hope my efforts were not wasted.

 

 

I've had that happen several times. Must be phrases trigger it? They always have been approved. 

Stranger:

Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate. 

While anarchists in the 19th century sense desired the total abolition of laws protecting private property; we desire the very opposite. To frame ourselves as anarchists is therefore not very sensible. From an etymological point of view, an-archon means that there is no rule, while mono-archon means that there is a single ruler. The political end of liberty is to abolish the monopoly on the production of law and order, therefore the correct word should be pluri-archon or multi-archon.

What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism.

This affects the political strategy that we ought to employ as well. For example, I cannot see Ron Paul proposing to abolish the government of the United States. However I can see him campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would allow competition in the provision of security and justice.

While we're at it we should abolish the word libertarian as well. It was a codename for anarchist when anarchists were banned in France, and it's just plain ugly in its english aspect.

I also believe that the term anarcho-capitalist is a bad one and is misleading. Indeed, the word anarchism is one of the most denigrated and misunderstood words out there. The same is true of the term capitalism, which has negative connotations for most people and has become an anti-concept in my opinion. Indeed, I do not even believe that the word capitalism in its original context refers to a free market, but rather the mercantalism and class systems of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the process that lead to them. When debating, particularly with the socialistically inclined, I always make a sharp distinction between a free market and "state-capitalism".

I disagree with your statements about private property. This philosophy does oppose protection of illegitimate property titles and illegitimate property arrangements. In "The Ethics of Liberty", Murray Rothbard painstakingly goes through much effort to make a distinction between property rights and existing property titles. Utilitarians often make the mistake of assuming that existing property arrangements are legitimate per se, and consequentially end up defending the status quo and a sort of neo-fuedalism. But a consistant application of the Rothbard-style theory of legitimacy in property titles would render a considerable chunk of it null and void.

I also disagree with you about rulers. Market anarchism or free market anarchism (the terms that I prefer to "anarcho-capitalism") does oppose the existance of rulers. I make a distinction between a leader and a ruler. A ruler is imposed from above, they illegitimately lay claim on your life. Since we presumably believe in absolute self-ownership, noone else can legitimately lay claim on your life against your will. This is inalienable. Of course, you are free to rent yourself out to others (hence, wage labor), but this in no way implies the existance of rulers. You are free to choose leaders for yourself, but you are not free to choose leaders for others against their consent. And you have no legitimate claim over anyone else's life against their consent.

You are correct that this philosophy inherently has pluralist implications in that free association and free competition implies the co-existance of multiple social, economic and legal arrangements. It is an extremely decentralized and multi-centered order. This even extends to one's liberty to go form a commune or live as a primitivist so long as they do not force me into it. So in a sense I think that market anarchism is the epitome of "anarchism without adjectives". But it in no way implies "multiple rulers". Free association implies no rulers and multiple voluntary arrangements. Noone forces anyone to associate with anyone else. A ruler, by definition, violates the principle of free association, even if indirectly.

So apparently either we sharply disagree about what this philosophy implies, or our disagreements are essentially semantical and etymological. I do not shy away from the idea of opposing rulers and currently existing property arrangements.

Wowzers. Both posts just magically popped up. I'm assuming the mods took care of it. Thankyou mods! Although now I have a double post, although the 2nd one was my best attempt to reproduce the original, with some modifcations. I guess patience is a virtue that I do not possess! :P

Multiarcho-capitalism is as ugly as a word can get (polyarcho- would be more apposite.) Polycentric capitalism at least sounds somewhat better. Like I said, catallarchy works just fine. IMO, it is one of the most appropriate words out there. Just needs some mild re-definition. Catallactics is a far better word than 'economics' even, and catallarchy is perfect to designate an order based on voluntary exchanges.

 I agree with BBB.
 

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.

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? 

I agree with Niccolo.

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. 

The problem with catallarchy is that it doesn't evoke anything, so it enters the debate with no frame. Plurarchy on the other hand, hijacks nicely the contemporary political fad of pluralism. 

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 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 prefer abolitionist myself. 

Stranger:

The problem with catallarchy is that it doesn't evoke anything, so it enters the debate with no frame.

Isn't that the point? To use a term that hasn't been turned into an anti-concept? 

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. 

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. 

Correct me if I'm wrong : I think that the idea of the abolition of the state - that is, introducing competition in the business of security production, was proposed by de Molinari in 1849 :

http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm

And de Molinari was a liberal - or a 'classical' liberal...So that's what we are - liberals - in the original sense of the word.

Stranger:

Words and labels are important in politics, and I believe the terms "anarchist" and "anarcho-capitalist" are the most misleading, inappopriate words to describe what total emancipation from the government produces. As studies into framing have shown, if we start with a term that is immediately associated with something bad, we are not going to get far into the debate. 

 

It's naive to think that it's our label that is holding us back. I'd be willing to bet a good chunk of gold that if we walk around describing ourselves as 'multiarcho-capitalists' (multicaps? brrr...) we'll not achieve an iota more adherents or respect. Possibly less.

Liberty means responsibility - that is why most men dread it. -Shaw

It's not our label - it's our ideas and principles that scares the bejesus out of most who actually understand what we're saying, who are only too happy to buy the false association of anarchism with bomb throwing mayhem they've been taught to make by the State.

 

 

Brainpolice:

I still take issue with characterizing this philosophy as pro-archy (ruler) in any sense.

 

Point well made. Simply, voluntaryists, or anti-coercionists would serve the purpose well since neither drags in 'archy', 'market', or 'capitalist', if it's an entirely new term we're seeking. But as noted, it ain't the label that's the problem.  

Juan:

Correct me if I'm wrong : I think that the idea of the abolition of the state - that is, introducing competition in the business of security production, was proposed by de Molinari in 1849 :

http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm

And de Molinari was a liberal - or a 'classical' liberal...So that's what we are - liberals - in the original sense of the word.

 

Market anarchism = Classical Liberalism, based upon the vews of ONE man?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population

 

 

Well said. I've lived in several countries that crushed any civil dialog that resulted in government criticism. As for America... we're watching the chipping away of our liberies on a daily basis. But there is yet hope...

Nathyn, How am I supposed to find out what classical liberalism is ?

By democratic polling and statistics ? Now that's indeed a fallacy.

Juan:

Nathyn, How am I supposed to find out what classical liberalism is ?

By democratic polling and statistics ? Now that's indeed a fallacy.

 

By reading what all the Classical Liberals had to say, not just Molinari. 

I'm not sure I see your point Nathyn.

Are you saying that de Molinari was not a classical liberal ?

That so-called anarcho-capitalism is not classical liberalism ?

Or else ? Did you read Molinari ?

Juan:

I'm not sure I see your point Nathyn.

Then I'm afraid I cannot help you because this is pretty simple logic.

If it helps, here is an analogy:

Juan is from Argentina.

Juan believes in Austrian economics.

Therefore, people from Argentina believe in Austrian economics.

Is that argument logical? No, you're just one man, so it's a hasty generalization.

It's one thing to object to positivism, but you can't object to the fallacy of hasty generalization!

 Anarcho-capitalism is classical liberalism taken to its most radical conclusion. It is indeed a form of it. I have no problem with the label 'classical liberal'. If one, however, wants a specific label to describe market anarchism I still think Hayek's catallarchy is best, even if it is colourless for the time being.

Inquisitor, it is amazing that you would defend such a clear and obvious hasty generalization. 

Inquisitor:

 Anarcho-capitalism is classical liberalism taken to its most radical conclusion. It is indeed a form of it. I have no problem with the label 'classical liberal'. If one, however, wants a specific label to describe market anarchism I still think Hayek's catallarchy is best, even if it is colourless for the time being.

 

First, Juan did not say that Market Anarchism was a "form" of Classical Liberalism. He said that it was Classical Liberalism. Get it straight.

Second, Market Anarchism is Classical Liberalism taken to its most radical conclusion, according to you.

There are quite a few classical liberals who may have actually rejected market anarchism. Who are you or I to say what they would have believed? After all, were these men to have believed in anarchism, they would have said so. While it is possible they simply never considered it,  it is also entirely possible they had rejected anarchism for reasons which they never disclosed. And it is entirely possible they may reject anarchism even if they were to consider it, possibly even for the same reasons that many Liberals today reject Anarchism. 

Because individual human thought is so complex and subjective, for you to say that the beliefs of hundreds of very different men will all lead to the same conclusion is rather presumptuous. There's no way you could be sure without asking them. And it's important to point out that "Liberalism" is a broad generalization, not an absolute definition that all men who called themselves Liberals believed in X.

Generalizations about beliefs can only be made when the thinkers themselves accept the generalization, because only they, the ones which have direct access to their full worldview, can be fully certain as to what the contents of their views are. When a man calls himself "Liberal," we can be certain that he sees himself as a Liberal, as he understands it.

But the reverse is not true: Because our perceptions of others are subjective. And so, whereas you may see President Bush as a villain, others may see him as a hero, while still, another person may see him as simply an idiot. You can say that one of us may be right if we are more rational, but every man inherently regards his own judgment as infallible.

Furthermore, words, themselves, are nothing more than a faint echo of the consciousness that once was, filtered through the biases of the reader, and cannot be sufficient to judge a dead man's thoughts. Because to under words, one must grasp a whole man's life's worth of understanding as to what those words actually meant, to the man. Two men may write the same sentence, yet draw totally different conclusions as to what they're actually saying.

When you judge a man's thoughts, you do not judge a man's thoughts, but rather, you judge what he has said and done about his thoughts, through your own flawed human perception. And, of course, it is the nature of every man to believe his own judgments are infallible.  You can say my judgment is wrong  because it's irrational and I will say your judgment is wrong because it's irrational. Which of us is right?

I find your attempt (and that of many Libertarians) at monopolizing Liberalism to be both perverse and extremist. It is very much like when religious extremists say that their small, fringe group is the only legitimate form of their religion. It also shares the same similarity in that it is reactionary, appealing to fundamentalist values of an allegedly golden age of intellectual thought.

I don't deny that you are legitimately influenced by Liberalism and believe in freedom, as you understand it. Do you extend me the same courtesy? Somehow, I doubt it.

Niccolò:

Government is a plague, a disease, a wild an untamed beast that can neither be fixed, reformed, or used for any means of good.

 

 

Correct. The only use for it will be as a bad example. 

Nathyn, was the long post really necessary? You read far too much into what I said. I wasn't even defending Juan's generalization, I was stating my own opinion. For the Lockean classical liberal, market anarchism is indeed the natural conclusion. Individuals are, of course, free under Locke to set up a minarchy or anything else they so wish, but not to impose it upon others. And that is the essence of the liberal, to recognize that the individual ultimately has the right to determine what sort of system they want to live in.

Nathyn,

I extend you no courtesy. I'm willing to respect your natural rights to life, liberty and property...because I'm a liberal. As to your assertions, I think they are fallacious..

whereas you may see President Bush as a villain, others may see him as a hero

Let's take your premise to its logical consequence. According to you nothing can be known about what other people think - radical subjectivism. Also, language is not a tool that enables comunication because

words, themselves, are nothing more than a faint echo of the consciousness

etc, etc. If that's the case, then you should stop posting. Or else you're contradicting yourself. IF language barely works AND we can't know each other's mind THEN there's no point in posting messages here. So don't do it.

First, Juan did not say that Market Anarchism was a "form" of Classical Liberalism. He said that it was Classical Liberalism.

I said it and I say it. Liberalism is the unconditional respect for life, liberty and property. Any idea wich doesn't fit that definition does not belong to liberalism.

I find your attempt (and that of many Libertarians) at monopolizing Liberalism to be both perverse and extremist.

Well, I could say that I find your attempt at hijacking the meaning of words to be perverse and extremist...

I

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.  But, regardless of my preference in the matter, I understand that "anarcho-capitalist" is the most used and most widely understood label we have.  We've already invested a lot in it, and to simply change our label (hell, why not just call ourselves "progressives"?) would lead to more public confusion and suspicion.

II

Multiarcho-capitalism, in addition to being an absolutely ugly word to look at and say, is just going to confuse the vast majority of people.

People might still incorrectly associate anarchy with chaos rather than order (and incorrectly associate government with order rather than chaos), but what do you think they're going to associate with a term like "multiarchy"?  Hell, I could see people interpreting that in many ways.  Multiple leaders; oligarchy under a new label; confusion as to which dictator to follow; warring governments; federalism.

III

You may have heard certain "left" anarchists claim that we are not actually anarchists.  They base this assumption on the assumption that we do not oppose hierarchy.  But what is hierarchy?  Is it hierarchy if I trade my wheat for your meat?  Certainly not.  I therefore differentiate between coercive hierarchy (real hierarchy) and voluntary hierarchy (apparent hierarchy).

If I force you to trade your meat for my wheat, then I am creating a hierarchy, and this is unjust.  (I am creating, essentially, a government, one which you have every right to smash with defensive force.)  If you and I agree voluntarily that you will trade your labour for my wheat, however, this is only an apparent hierarchy, not a true hierarchy, because A) I did nothing to force you into my employment and B) you are free to leave my employment at any time.  This voluntary "hierachy" is, in fact, not a hierarchy at all, and only appears to be so!

The same is true with regards to the hiring of private protection agencies or private arbitors.

In fact, we are more opposed to hierarchy than many of the supposed "left" anarchists!  Wherefore they (not all of them, but some) would like to use prevent you from falling under someone else's voluntary "hierarchy," they create a coercive hierarchy wherein they (the supposed anarchists) are above you.  (Disclaimer: this is not meant to imply that there aren't "left"-anarchists out there who truly are dedicated to voluntaryism, nor that we would not ally ourselves with these persons in our shared opposition to coercion.)

So, in reality, we are anarchists in every way imaginable.  We do oppose hierarchy, and indeed archism in general.

The only archy we can be considered not in opposition to is autarchy.  And, at least autarchism isn't nearly as ugly or scary a word as multiarcho-capitalism.

IV 

We have enough words floating around as it is--words with no or extremely little difference in definition.  Why create a new word, which will just confuse people all the more.

Libertarian 

A) I like the word, B) It's really not that difficult of a word, C) most people with a strong interest in politics already know this word and generally what it means, and D) it's a beautiful word.

Nathyn:

You can't honestly believe that Germany today is as bad as Nazi Germany. 

 

It sure as tax isn't. It's just a heavy pneumonia compared to pulmonar plague. 

Any government is a disease, some kill fast, some take their time, but there is no such thing as a "good" disease. Especially here in Germany, the state grows like a cancer, has already infiltrated the most intimate parts of everybody's life and it is far beyond he point where we should have yelled "TOO MUCH OF THAT ***, STOP IT RFN!!!!" but hey, it's Germany. Most folks just shut up and obey.

Rhotair:

Nathyn:

You can't honestly believe that Germany today is as bad as Nazi Germany. 

 

It sure as tax isn't. It's just a heavy pneumonia compared to pulmonar plague. 

Any government is a disease, some kill fast, some take their time, but there is no such thing as a "good" disease.

 

That's a great way to put it. Which is worse, dreading the knock on the door from the Gestapo, or spending one's life increasingly on one's knees in obeisance to the Mommy State? I really don't know that - if you consider the long term impact - a 'nice' socialist state that kills you slowly is that much better than a 'mean' one that kills you quick. I suppose the former allows people to engage in self deception to the point of not even explicitly having to acknowledge their slavery, so perhaps that's better. But slavery is slavery in the end.

Either way, I don't think the knee jerk sentiment that Nathyn expresses is as self evident as he thinks.

 You shouldn't be worried about a slogan or label. That's the problem in general. People are more into bumper sticker politics than actually rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty. I care not about society's labels, slogan or God. If people don't understand your intentions, it's because you haven't put enough work into making them known. It takes more than a chat room and casual parsing of philosophy. A movement takes muscle. Too many people don't want to affect their level of comfort.

Who says you have to be classified?  

MrJekyll:

 You shouldn't be worried about a slogan or label. That's the problem in general. People are more into bumper sticker politics than actually rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty. I care not about society's labels, slogan or God. If people don't understand your intentions, it's because you haven't put enough work into making them known. It takes more than a chat room and casual parsing of philosophy. A movement takes muscle. Too many people don't want to affect their level of comfort.

Who says you have to be classified?  

 

The fact that there exists such a discipline as etymology, tracing words back to their root words, means that words do not come into existence empty of meaning. New words are built from existing words and differentiated. The word "anarchist" has a historical meaning as well as roots to its meaning. Before we've even explained anything, people have a prejudiced opinion of us. So before we can hope to achieve anything, we first have to repair the damage we caused to ourself by choosing words that are, at first look, nonsensical. Anarchy-Capitalism? Is this a joke?

Pluralism is good and it has a historical meaning. Archy, rule, is synonymous with order and security. Combining the two into the word plurarchy gives us a head start in argument. Plurarchy, how would that work?

Plurarchy has the positive frame and specificity that Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Natural Order" doesn't have.  

To instead get into semantical fights over the true meaning of anarchy or hierarchy is in my opinion a waste of energy. The anarchists did not hesitate to invent the word libertarian when anarchists were banned, and it was a big success for them. I look at the list of the different forms of anarchy and in my opinion anarcho-capitalism is so distinct as to be entirely unrelated to other forms of anarchy. That means the word itself makes no sense. Instead of trying to conquer the vocabulary, let's create something.

I say we call ourselves voluntarists. I mean thats what we want right? A non-coercive,voluntary, and free society right? Plus when people think of an anarchist, they think of those Black Bloc morons who are violent, vandilise property, and really have no idea of politics other than this: DEM EVIL FASCIST CAPITALIST PIGS EXPLOIT ME BECAUSE MY COLLEGE PROFESSOR TOLD ME SO!!!! AND IF I THROW ROCKS AT THE RIOT POLICE I'LL BRING DOWN THE STATE FOR SURE, WHY ITS FOOLPROOF, IT'S INGE--(Then all of sudden get  a shitload of teargas in their face.) I say we officially call ourselves voluntaryist. What do you guys think?