Im sooo with Mr Buddy on this. We should not be using the C word at all.
The average person sees Capitalism exactly as the dictionary definition ie, the means of production are in private hands. This meaning makes no distinction of where the real source of power comes from… using the coercive apparatus of the State to enforce this ‘private’ control to the benefit of a politically connected elite.
Recently I had a friend who thought I was a Socialist because I explained that the current monetary system redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich via monetary inflation and by having first use of the newly printed money.
To her this was Socialist talk. And to her the current financial / banking system (that is enforced by the State with the barrel of a gun) was actually Capitalist. We see these things as the polar reverse of current viewpoints.
The real definitions have become so twisted you may as well throw them away, even when talking to students of political economy.
Yep. Lew Rockwell’s article on the Norway tragedy is a great analysis of this dynamic at work. The promoters of ideologies are constantly struggling to have their ideology appear to be the most clean/pure/etc. so that it will win proselytes and maintain adherents. But the one ideology that gets clobbered by everybody equally is classical liberalism… in fact, that’s why I have to insert the adjective “classical” in the first place, the distinction between conservative and liberal was grossly distorted especially during the Progressive era. In their struggle to not appear like the jackbooted authoritarians they are, Progressives began calling themselves Liberals, since that word had the connotation of an ideology that is tolerant and inclusive. So, now we have to say “classical liberal” or “libertarian” lest someone think we mean Social Democrat or some other flavor of Progressivism.
I’m not sure anarcho-capitalism necessarily offers a social viewpoint. It offers a political viewpoint of being anti-state, but it’s okay with institutionalized racism, sexism, or other typically authoritarian social standards as long as they’re voluntary (by it’s standards of what is voluntary). That’s actually the biggest divide I’ve noticed.
Propertarian does look good…but I still say it doesn’t sound as good as “voluntarism”. “Private property” still has a negative connotation…not as bad as “capitalism”, but people still associate “private property” => private sector => greedy corporation => doesn’t care about anything but profit => will let someone starve to save a dollar. This, despite how virtually no one denies the legitimacy of private property when it comes to their property. But the fact that this is dissonant Doublethink doesn’t stop people from holding on to those notions…and it doesn’t stop them from forming conclusions about people and ideas before they’ve even heard them.
Labels are important, as they can serve as a way to economize on information costs…which is important to everyone, but even more so to people who have difficulty thinking. It is for this reason you can’t just be satisfied to say the common lofty refrain: “labels are stupid. They don’t mean anything. Definitions are in the mind of the listener. People can define words however they want. It’s all relative. Words are just sounds. I don’t believe in ‘isms’, blah blah blah”. And you also get stuff like this too. The fact is people use labels (and yes, to the point of the hifalutin naysayers, labels are used and relied on more than they should be)…but that certainly doesn’t mean thought shouldn’t be put into them. In fact it points to the opposite.
It is for this reason I think discussion like this has a purpose, and it is for the reason stated above that I think voluntarism is possibly the best label. Even despite how people may agree to private property in some circumstances, they will argue the exact opposite in others…But everyone knows what “voluntary” means, and there is no one who argues the alternative is preferred (even if their actions imply that they believe force is preferred in certain circumstances…they still have a hard time actually coming out and admitting it. They are aware how bad it sounds). I think that’s an important key. When you frame the debate in such a way that the statist has to admit they favor force over voluntary action, it not only highlights the root of our entire philosophy, but it exposes the flaws in theirs in a very obvious and easily understood way.
" but it’s okay with institutionalized racism, sexism, or other typically authoritarian social standards as long as they’re voluntary (by it’s standards of what is voluntary)."
That is the social viewpoint. Anarchism is “without ruler.” A ruler is a head of state, a governing official or the thing that nuns hit you with. So by being an anarchist, one says they are against rulers, against governing officials and the things that nuns hit you with. I think there ceases to be a “politicial outlook” with the elimination of the state. There is no “politics.” Just social viewpoints on the nature of humanity. So when I think of anarcho-capitalism. I don’t think of it within the confines of a environment which retains the state, I think it is as an environment absent of the state which has no political viewpoints.
That’s all well and good, but my point is that the anti-authoritarianism doesn’t seem to transfer into a lot of social realms with regards to things like sexism.
Sexism is a personal character flaw and should be addressed accordingly. I doubt that “sexist attitudes” are something that require legal remedy, that is, threat of the use of force. “Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.” (Epilogue to Jonathan Gullible by Kenneth Schooland) Rectifying personal character flaws through threats of force is not moral instruction, it’s just an amoral shifting of the strategic equilibrium in society regarding what are advantageous and disadvantageous forms of expression.
The movement for dwindling the state and adhering to “homestead/contract/production” property rights based on an awarenes of economic principles was known, from its inception, as “liberalism”. We who would see the state dwindled to nothing and who call for no systematized exceptions to the above conception of property rights are the inheritors and the present-day culmination of that grand tradition. If for no other reason than for new liberals to feel they are part of a grand, evolving tradition, and not some new intellectual fad, we should fight to take back “liberalism”.
Clayton, I agree that sexism does not necessarily entail the use of force or any action against property. The problem is that not all sociological things, including authoritarianism, necessarily relate to property.
Just because something isn’t legally sanctioned does not mean it’s not institutionalized. When the people in power of institutions generally all discriminate in similar ways, then institutionalized discrimination is present. What I am saying is that beyond a simple anti-state stance, Anarcho-capitalism fails to go into sociological questions of authoritarianism or offer any critique of how authoritarianism presentes itself in any other form than the state.
Rothbardian Anarchist, just Rothbardian or just Anarchist for short. (Like Marxists-Leninist Communists can either be Marxists, or Communists for short.)
I am fine with shoving the term ‘Capitalism’ into people’s face, but I am not into hyphens so much. Another small problem is that we are mostly broke and not capitalists at all, so it may sound strange to someone if you go around calling yourself an Anarcho-Capitalist (like Jim Rogers calls himself adventure capitalist.)
Rothbard should not have been as modest and just called Anarcho-Capitalism Rohbardian Anarchism.
PS, “voluntarist” is bad. First of all no one knows what that means, second it sounds weak. It is a sterile word. You have to be more in your face than that.
Right. Because everyone knows what “Rothbardian” means. And they’re are just dying to listen to people who display a “shove things in your face” attitude while calling themself an anarchist.
Your post is made up of nothing but you puting words into my mouth. I did not say “everyone” has heard of Rothbard, and I was not talking about shoving things into people’s faces (what??).