Really, it is.
Defintion of anarchism:
Or,
In regards to the first, a defintion of government:
Now a definition of the word govern:
Or,
The second defintion of anarchism needs no elaboration.
I wonder where PDAs fit into all of this.
Better yet:
Definitions, “ruler”:
To rule:
volunteering to be ‘governed’ and being coerced to do so are two different things.an-cap is system wherein the relationship between the governed and the governing is voluntary by consent, with no prioir coercion.
Could you try to post something relevant?
i guess.
perhaps you could offer me some direction?
:-p
The fact that the two words don’t go together.
i have no idea where you are coming from giles.
minarchist capitalist?
Maybe the term “Anarcho-capitalism” is a misnomer. I envision a system similar to today, but one where the govt. does not hold a monopoly on force. People would be free to choose which systems they would like to associate with. Anarcho-cap would still have govt. or govt. like structures, but they would not have a monopoly on the use of force.
No, my views are essentially similar to those of Dr Hoppe.
Correct.
Mu.
Have anything more to offer than a problem of semantics?
If only I could post something as enlightening as this.
anarcho-capitalist; who thinks if having to choose between different evil statist options, monarchy is not as bad as democracy.???
Amongst other things I do agree with Professor Hoppe on that, and if you come up with a name for anarcho capitalism that makes sense then you summarized my views.
It’s not just semantics that is at stake here, but possibly an enlightening insight into the anti-authoritarian radicalism of the libertarian left as opposed to the “voluntary” or “natural authority” stance of the libertarian right (“closet monarchists”, duh).
It could be that all the hostile namecalling in the countless “left vs right” threads was merely due to a falsely used common term, “anarchism”, which, for the left, seems to suggest a general refusal of authority (see critical attitude towards religion, family or the infamous Hoppean “natural elites”), while it’s merely a term for “abolishing involuntary government” for the right.
While I’m not a fan of sectarian struggle, it seems more and more necessary every day to draw some clear lines by which to distinguish. If libertarianism was just the absence of involuntary government, then we wouldn’t have to argue that much. Giles is wise to point this out and seek a solution.
This post accurately captures the point of the topic.
i actually think giles is apeing the language and stance of the left. and i dont mean libertarian left. i mean socialist. they are all about claiming that capitalists exploit workers, rule them as their masters etc. they cant conceive of capitalist & worker in a voluntary symbiosis.
anarcho-capitalism is an excellent description because it says.
anarchy - no-involuntary government
capitalism - system of production featuring private property and division of labour
What does this have to do with anything I’ve said. I’m pointing out “we” label “ourselves” incorrectly, hence the numerous silly left/ right clashes on these forums In any case there’s a good reason that many Republicans don’t refer to themselves as Nazis.
No, anarchism is a lack of rulers. What we advocate isn’t.
Who are the “rulers” in an anarcho-capitalist society? [:|]
Who is setting the “rules” or “governing” ?
[8-)]
is being gay : happy , or homosexual ?