The term is entirely contradictory. It’s like saying anarcho-oligarchy or something. The goals of anarchism is to abolish all forms of hierarchical organization, governmental and non-governmental, in both public and personal life. Capitalism being one of them. I think voluntarism is a good “ism.” I’m somewhere in between an individualist anarchist and a liberal voluntarist (I wouldn’t consider myself totally anarchistic because I find it logistically impractical in some cases and disagree with certain things anarchists subsribe to). Either way, I think making capitalism a central point of your philosophy/system is dumb. Perhaps agorism or free-marketeerism are better terms [:S]
No, it’s not.
No, it isn’t.
Remember folks: the unsupported assertion merely requires gainsaying as a response.
Since when?
This is my point though, people have misconceptions of the type of anarchism of Rothbard, Hoppe etc. based on their knowledge of the leftist varieties of “anarchism”. It’s hardly a good strategic move to adopt such a term if you want to gain any ground. Same applies with capitalism, people think what we have today is capitalism, and depending on how you intepret it, it is, however it isn’t the type of capitalism that libertarian anarchists advocate.
And whilst I daresay many will disagree with me on this, another advantage of the term voluntaryist as opposed to anarcho capitalist is the emphasis. When somebody proclaims themself to be a voluntaryist the emphasis is on the idea that voluntarying social arrangements should be the basis for society, and coercion is to be condemned, being against the state merely follows as a consequence. On the other hand, when one proclaims themself to be an anarchist, they merely express their dislike for the state, which can be misconstrued no matter how clear their justification is.
In any case calling oneself an anarcho capitalist is silly, you’re either an anarchist or you’re not. The capitalism part is irrelivent.
Since a long time ago. Perhaps we just have a different conception of what anarchist philosophy is about. I think the following link is a good exposition of what I consider to be anarchism: An Anarchist FAQ.
Or perhaps you’re confused.
That may be the definition some so-called anarchists go by, but it’s an entirely unfeasible one, and therefore not really relevant. Abolishing all heirarchical organization would mean, absurdly, that people could not be allowed to voluntarily be part of any heirarchy. The fact that some individuals are necessarily more skilled and talented at organizing and coordinating the activities of other people, as well as capital, and that those other people may realize gains by following those individuals rather than trying to “go it alone” are a natural and normal part of the human condition. In order to prevent people from acting on those obvious facts, some authority would be necessary to identify and forcibly break up their voluntary organizations - a state to enforce the prohibition against heirarchy, a ridiculous contradiction in terms.
I once mentioned to a hate-filled “anarchocommunist” that abolishing all heirarchies means that there can’t even be governing bodies for sports. The hate-filled little thing agreed, and then spewed some elitist garbage about how sports are evil and all that. Showed a lot about the person’s mentality.
Their system is one massive anti-human floating abstraction.
-Jon
I would suggest calling ourselves Rothbardian’s, but that’s a bit too cultish.
It is since we disagree.
Of course sports are evil, some people are better at it than others.
For those who know the difference, I call myself a small-l libertarian. But in general, I find it is best to use a term nobody has heard before (Agorism works for me). That doesn’t give anyone the opportunity to form unwarranted assumptions, and incites curiosity.