Is this post useless or irrelevant?
A ruler is one who governs, governing is “to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:”, so there will be multiple rulers.
Indeed, you conservatives labeled yourselves incorrectly. For the record, what libertarianism advocates is individual self-government, not allegedly ‘voluntary’ hierarchy.
Go away.
Hahaha. Give up Giles, conservatism is dead.
So basically you suggest we come up with a new appellative that indicates our advocacy of self-government instead of no government.
And you have the state to thank for that, meant literally.
No, self government doesn’t describe it accurately either. Something that captures the essence of competing governments would do nicely.
Don’t lie Giles.
govern :
- to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
- to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
In the political realm govern means to give orders. But you are of course equivocating. Anyway, anarchy means no ruling - no governing.
Well, I said " conservatism is dead" as a metaphor of sorts. Maybe I should have said, conservatism is dead in the long run. Today conservatism is alive and kicking mostly thanks to the state.
Anarchism is a system that would have plenty of rulers.
The only question is if people would choose the metric system or the US system when labeling them.
In fact, we should just give up. Given this type of confusion the roads will never be built properly!
Of course not. Self-government is libertarianism and libertarianism is NOT what you advocate.
That’s called nationalism/tribalism. What libertarians advocate is competing producers of security in order to replace the minimal state. Libertarians do not advocate government.
But it is. We we advocate is no rulers and simply contracting with others to provide certain services. Given the governments have a coercive monopoly on justice, defense, etc, and PDAs do not, I fail to see how there are any rulers.
To “guide” lmao.
All others labels or whatever, ‘guide’ with COERCION. Who is doing the “guiding” in an anarcho-capitalism society? Who is using ‘guide’ in the sense of coercion/force? Give an example.
“Multiple rulers” - Like who, give an example. You mean business owners right? The boss? He’s the ruler? [8-)]
“Anarcho-Capitalism” is just fine.
If your conservative sensibilities get spooked by its in your face radicalism that begins with its name that`s your problem and nobody elses.
This.
Neither of those definitions refutes the legitimate point. Since I could that I do have the right to rule over somebody if I have the right, or authority, to do so. The problem with the current situation just misplaces the right of authority.
And the second agrees with my point.
I’m not equivocating, just using the correct definitions of words, I hear the communists are quite fond of confusing the meanings of words…
an⋅ar⋅chy
noun
-
a state of society without government or law.
-
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
- confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
anarchy is a word, like gay previously mentioned. which can mean different things in different contexts. im quite comfortable i and the others here can detect te appropriate context. it will be part of the anarcho-capitalist project to make definition 3 the dominant meaning over the other competing meanings. Such changing of the emphasis of words within a culture is common.
This has nothing to do with conservatism, but when you want to post something relevant, I might listen.
You went to dictionary.com and only retrieved the second definition/meaning, conveniently overlooking the first and more common one.
The legitimate point is that libertarianism is not ‘voluntary’ ruling.