How is it? That one person looks up to another and asks for some advice and guidance does not mean that one is ruling over the other.
Only to those who believe in class warfare.
And yet that’s not ruling. You’re conflating tenses, i.e. equivocating. I would’ve hoped that you’d’ve learned that by now.
I don’t see what the big deal is here. Words change meaning over time. It is pretty clear what Anarcho-capitalism means, I think, unless you have a specific goal to obfuscate the meaning.
It’s class warfare to observe that individuals have social power (i.e. influence) amongst each other ? What? Please elaborate.
It’s class warfare to assume that “social power” = “ruling”.
Not everybody. Just your conservative buddies.
No, I’m not. A ruler is defined as one who guides. Now, granted, this can be coercive, and usually is. But it needn’t be.
Equivocation.
You’re quite right. Anarcho-capitalism is indeed a misnomer. A few weeks ago, I proposed the term “eklektarchy” instead, which a few others have taken a liking to:
It combines the Greek words “eklektos” and “archon.” Eklektos means, in Greek, “the freedom to choose.” Archon, in Greek, of course, refers to leader or ruler. As you can probably infer, eklektos is also the root word of “eclectic” (which means “composed of elements drawn from various sources.”) I think “eklektarchy” is a really etymologically sound word, as it separates our philosophy from “anarchy” (no regulations or authority), and embodies the notion that we support having orderly rules we agree to follow, and some type of authority to answer to, but that we should be able to freely choose which rulers/authorities we pay for, and even that the authority we submit to be composed of elements drawn from various sources (contracting with one firm for our defense/security, another for our legal recourse, etc.).
No, it isn’t.
I wasn’t too keen on the word at first, but it’s a nice sounding word without the awkwardness of anarcho - capitalism. So yes, I believe it’s a sound and accurate word.
I don’t like the term, its pretty hard to pronounce and it sounds absolutely horrendous, two “k” sounds in four syllables doesn’t make for a pleasent sounding word.
I showed that it is an equivocation, Giles. You’re simply trolling now.
We’re all trolls now, if the term is going to be thrown around every 2 posts. [8-)]
Gotta agree here:
Stop calling eachother trolls, please, it becomes more grating than the “trolling” itself.
No, you haven’t.
It seems like a nice word etymologically if it’s usage was ever spread. Based on the concerns others have raised, would you be willing to modernize the word to Eclectarchy or Eclectarcy in order to make pronounciation easier?
well, Autarchy might be your word , but i really like shoving capitalism in there. so if i was to drop anarcho-capitalism in favour for another catch all, maybe i’d go for autarcho-capitalism.
Yeah, my problem is with the anarchism part not the capitalism part.
I have to agree with NUK. I’m partial to the word capitalism, if for no other reason than to make it clear I have no compatibility with anti-capitalism.
Capitalism may have it’s detractors, but they are the very people I am at odds against. Market Anarchism is a narrow definition, used only within the narrowest orders. Anarchism has much more negative connotation than Capitalism.
Re-inventing the wheel when it comes to names can be someone else’'s job. The way to make progress is to do. Libertarian Papers is an example of doing. The books in the Mises store, are doing. Mises Circles held nationally, doing. That’s real, it’s effective and it’s working.
It doesn’t really matter what we call ourselves. But if I have to call myself something, I like anarcho-capitalism so those in the know understand I align with Hoppe, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and the Austrian school at large.