Nick. B: But on serious note, do we really want to align ourselves with delusional people like Mr.1001Nights and others that will never fully accept us?
but we dont align ourselves with them. they are just liars.
its like this.
you are an innocent person, and someone guilty comes into court to plead his case, 'im innocent' he says. 'just like that guy' pointing at you. well, he's wrong, he's a liar, he's guilty, maybe he doesnt even know it.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Indeed recently I've been more optimistic. Professor Woods new book is selling exceedingly well, Peter Schiff is becoming more and more well known, the same applies for the wonderful Ron Paul.
I see the work of the Mises Institute behind most of this to be honest, with the Ron Paul 2008 campaign being the catalyst.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Nick. B: Alright, sorry to sound like the pessimist but lets be honest here, the Anarchist Movement is dead as a door nail. Brilliant, so when are we going to stop using the term.
Nick. B: Alright, sorry to sound like the pessimist but lets be honest here, the Anarchist Movement is dead as a door nail.
Brilliant, so when are we going to stop using the term.
The real heavy hitters would have to take up the mantle. Refer to "non-archy" as being pro-liberty instead of "anarchy". I really think there is a lot to be gained from doing so. But don't think much will change until the likes of Hoppe, Long et all make the effort.
There could be a "meeting of the minds", lol.. or everyone decides to simply listen to Rothbard, who obviously saw the esoteric problem and proposed the solution so long ago.
Self censorship / policing is a first step. I do it at RonPaulForums now. I refuse to acknowledge Anarcho-Capitalism with anarchy. [Because it's always negative]. And if anyone tries, "Oh you mean "non-archy", 'where the non aggression axiom and private property are respected?' 'tell me how that would result in chaos, again?'
The minarchists there are pretty small, since things have gotten worse a lot have jumped onto Anarcho-Capitalism, whether that is a result of the 'debates' or various articles posted by Rothbard, Long, Rockwell etc... have helped, I do not know. But there are many starting and still learning the ins and outs of the School like myself. It's great!
People are questioning the State and many things right now. Why make it harder to get the message accross by carrying the burden assoicated with the word? It's not efficent or effective, that much is clear.
Conza88:The real heavy hitters would have to take up the mantle. Refer to "non-archy" always instead of "anarchy". I really think there is a lot to be gained from doing so. But don't think much will change until the likes of Hoppe, Long et all make the effort.
Hoppe already refers to the natural order, he does occasionally use the term anarchocapitalism, but not often. I think he understands the laws of the term. Sobran is also reluctant to use it, Rockwell also refers to it as private government as far as I know.
Long on the other hand is never going refer to himself as anything but an anarchist, he's too busy courting the left. I'd be interested to see what Long would do if many of the people associated with the Institute did begin to drop the term. As for Rothbard, it was mainly Rothbard that linked Austrian Economics to anarchism.
We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines.
Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive.
Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."
- Murray N. Rothbard
anarcho-capitalist
Voluntarist is my personaly favourite.
GilesStratton: I see the work of the Mises Institute behind most of this to be honest, with the Ron Paul 2008 campaign being the catalyst.
If I understand the history of the Mises Institute correctly, weren't they criticized by the Cato-type beltway libertarians for their "radicalism" and unwillingness to compromise?Well, see where they are now. Seems like the Mises strategy (tu ne cede malis) did have some advantages in the long run.
Cork: Big-name, left-wing "anarchists" like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have been apologists for just about every mass murdering Communist regime in history (even Pol Pot, Mao, etc). Aside from the Pinochet (supposedly the worst dictator of all time, according to the Left), is there a single tyrant they don't cuddle up to?
Big-name, left-wing "anarchists" like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have been apologists for just about every mass murdering Communist regime in history (even Pol Pot, Mao, etc). Aside from the Pinochet (supposedly the worst dictator of all time, according to the Left), is there a single tyrant they don't cuddle up to?
That's not entirely true, as much as I am critical of Chomsky and Zinn (and don't consider them anarchists). They tend to criticize socialism if it is not "democratic" -- thus are opposed to such regimes. I think Chomsky has even said that he thinks the US is the most class-free and non-racist society in the history of the world. I think he agrees with us much of the time in that we have to change our own policies before we can criticize other regimes since we supposedly, in his opinion, have more power over our own government (ours tends to do far more damage and much quicker, too). As Lew Rockwell said: "There's only one evil empire in the world, and it's not China."
Anarchy is alive and well today. Unless there is a unified world government I don't know about...
Check my blog, if you're a loser
I agree with most of what I'm hearing here, but:
I have talked to quite a few anarcho-communists, and while a few do work along the closet-statist lines you (pl.) are talking about, there are quite a few who would allow us to live our free market lifestyles, form free market societies etc. So I don't think we can tar all of them. I'd prefer them as allies than enemies -not that they seem to want to be allies in reality!
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Some of the commentary in this thread is evidence of its own premise. I reject both the ancaps who have no clue about anarchism and attack the entire anarchist movement out ignorance and the ancoms who are hopelessly confused about economics and reject individualist anarchism. I'm sick and tired of the false dichotomy being perpetuated both but some of the people here and the infoshop types. Some of you people overgeneralize way too much and create oversimplified false dichotomies between "the social anarchists" and "us". It's rather annoying to have to clarify ad nauseum.
But on serious note, do we really want to align ourselves with delusional people like Mr.1001Nights and others that will never fully accept us?
Mr1001nights does not represent all of social anarchism. Somewhat with my help, some of the social anarchists have turned against him. Most notably, Laughingman0X - who has critisized Mr1001nights for his utilitarianism and for supporting coercive positive obligations. I've conversed with plenty of social anarchists who are not like Mr1001nights. It is simply inaccurate of you to paint the entire anarchist movement with the brush of people like mr1001nights.
And from our good friend Cork, we have ridiculous statements such as this:
I've always hated using the term "anarchist," because anarchism is a movement dedicated to the destruction of the free market and little else.
Anarchism is a movement dedicated to the destruction of the free market and little else? Come on. There isn't even a comprehensively free market to destroy, and the claim is simply false. Attitudes like this are just as bad as Mr1001nights, only on the flip side. Mr1001nights creates a false dichotomy between accepting his worldview or being a "social darwinist capitalist who favors mass-starvation and enslavement". It makes no sense to, in turn, create a false dichotomy between being some sort of hard-line "capitalist" or being like mr1001nights. Over in the rational world, some of us reject both choices and see such a conflict as a joke. But apparently some people are prone to buying into cliche one-dimensional conflicts.
Cork: I've conversed with them plenty, and can assure you that they fit nearly every stereotype they're accused of. While not all of them defend tyranny as openly as Chomsky and Zinn, they want a far more massive state to keep capitalism in check until the commie utopia kicks in. Anti-capitalism is their #1 issue, even if it takes exteme statism.
I've conversed with them plenty, and can assure you that they fit nearly every stereotype they're accused of. While not all of them defend tyranny as openly as Chomsky and Zinn, they want a far more massive state to keep capitalism in check until the commie utopia kicks in. Anti-capitalism is their #1 issue, even if it takes exteme statism.
See, statements like this are simply false. I have an anarcho-collectivist friend who is essentially an agorist. The claim that social anarchists are by defacto closet statists is simply false, and you're spreading ignorance.
You seem to accept a false dichotomy or a non-sequitor in which if we are anti-capitalist, we must be statist by default. Well, sorry to break it to you, but there are plenty of anti-capitalists who abhor the state. Stereotypes don't do you well.
When you make such over the top claims, you put yourself in a position in which you are no better than Mr1001Nights and the infoshop types, and it generally has the effect of feeding the confusion and flamewars.
And here's some insight for you: people like Chomsky and Zinn are greatly deviating from classical anarchism, and they could easily be critisized from a classic social anarchist perspective. Chomsky's views do not align well with Bakunin's at all, despite his occasional rhetorical appeal to such classic anarchists.
A note on the early Rothbard article that people like to appeal to create some kind of vast dichotomy between "us" and anarchists: you do realize that this was written in the 50's, before Rothbard himself BECAME AN ANARCHIST? A decade later Rothbard was gladly calling himself an anarchist and heavily involved in anarchist circles. I make a facepalm every time someone refers to that article as some kind of authority proving that "we" are at opposite poles from anarchists. Yea, way to go - an article from a pre-anarchist Rothbard! Pre-anarchist Rothbard refutes anarchist Rothbard - sigh.
I'll echo the same opinion as most here: anarchy is an old term, but the ideas of liberty are still chugging along and it seems in some venues are getting their rightful due hearing.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Brainpolice: A note on the early Rothbard article that people like to appeal to create some kind of vast dichotomy between "us" and anarchists: you do realize that this was written in the 50's, before Rothbard himself BECAME AN ANARCHIST? A decade later Rothbard was gladly calling himself an anarchist and heavily involved in anarchist circles. I make a facepalm every time someone refers to that article as some kind of authority proving that "we" are at opposite poles from anarchists. Yea, way to go - an article from a pre-anarchist Rothbard! Pre-anarchist Rothbard refutes anarchist Rothbard - sigh.
That's true. Back in those days people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Block were Marxists. And Rand was still trying to get through to the Republican party. It's a wonder anyone could even describe themselves as libertarians though I'm sure there were a few. To be anarchist was unheard of.
And yet, he says much of the same things here in 1970:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html
In fact much of that is a rehash of the old, unpublished peice.
Semper Fidelis
Brainpolice:A note on the early Rothbard article that people like to appeal to create some kind of vast dichotomy between "us" and anarchists: you do realize that this was written in the 50's, before Rothbard himself BECAME AN ANARCHIST? A decade later Rothbard was gladly calling himself an anarchist and heavily involved in anarchist circles. I make a facepalm every time someone refers to that article as some kind of authority proving that "we" are at opposite poles from anarchists. Yea, way to go - an article from a pre-anarchist Rothbard! Pre-anarchist Rothbard refutes anarchist Rothbard - sigh.
This is a bit off topic, but many of us get the same feeling every time someone invokes early left-wing Rothbard against later right-wing Rothbard.
As for the OP, within educated circles, the term will always be in use because it has a very particular meaning and is instantly understood. For marketing purposes it is dead. For marketing, we should just be anti-tax.
Spence: You ever kill anybody?
Sam: I hurt somebody's feelings once.
I don't care what the frak you guys call yourself!
I will alway call myself an anarcho-capitalist!
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Stephen Forde: As for the OP, within educated circles, the term will always be in use because it has a very particular meaning and is instantly understood. For marketing purposes it is dead. For marketing, we should just be anti-tax.
Could you go into further detail of your stance?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap