Hey I was just wondering if any of you think its a bad idea to debate with friends. I feel that after talking about anarchism it the light of g20, people have been kind of exiling me a little, and I don’t like it. I mean want to talk, but he refuses to give anarchy any legitimacy, in fact I told him to come here and discuss his problems with it and he said that its not worth it because its as he says, “obviously illogical”. I am usually not outward about my political views and usually just call myself a libertarian because I am afraid of alienating myself. I’m sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I thought that this community would most understand my position( I am new to the anarchist position), so any help or advice would be warmly welcomed, thanks in advance.
People generally don’t like angry radicals, and I share their dislike. Furthermore, I find that it is only the angry radicals who are exiled.
Don’t be an angry radical - it only helps when singing to the choir.
I;m not angry and I do not condone what some of the anarchists were doing, but most of them, were just singing peacefully and dancing in the main protest plaza, Again I think breaking stuff is completely stupid so in that sense I share there dislike, But thanks for responding I do appreciate it =].
You certainly should engage your friends in such discourse. People seem to be sensitive to certain terminology (such as ‘anarchy’). You might want to discuss your position without using such terms, at least at first.
If you are being ‘exiled’ and you aren’t being an annoying ‘angry radical’ (as laminustacitus put it), then good riddance. Don’t waste your time being friends with people who at the slightest threat to their worldview push you away.
From what I’ve gotten its just the word anarchy, it stirs up thoughts of bomb throwers, lawlessness and chaos. So just don’t call it anarchy. Call it natural order, voluntaryism, polycentric law, etc…
Friendly debate is good. Best to keep the debate simple. Build consensus on basic premises, e.g. private property, non-aggression, etc. Then show how the opposing view contradicts them.
Understand that what the general public considers an ‘anarchist’ is much different than the libertarian oriented anarchism philosophy which you likely favor and which is covertly very logical indeed.
…and don’t associate yourself with the ‘so called’ anarchist that huddle at the g20 rallies. I avoid the term all together with most folks preferring instead ‘extreme libertarian’, ‘anarcho-capitalist’, or ‘voluntarist’
I introduce myself as a radical libertarian then go on to explain that what I proposes is similar to 19th century libertarianism or classical liberalism though the meaning of the word has been expanded. Since the evolution of the libertarian party, it has taken a bigger meaning and can include minimal size government. I believe however that the government is not justified in any size. I was at a dinner party with republicans and I think it went well.
Good advice here. I will refer to my position as ‘libertarianism’, ‘radical libertarianism’, or ‘voluntaryism’ in mixed company. I don’t suggest using ‘anarcho-capitalism’ as many people have bad images associated with both ‘anarchy’ and ‘capitalism’ [:)]
Why anyone would call themselves an anarchist is beyond me.
Are Libertarians “Anarchists”? - Murray N. Rothbard
Nonarchist / anti-monopolist / anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist / Austro-Libertarian / Principled and logically consistent Libertarian / Radical classical liberal…
There a number of labels that are far better if you so want to choose.
It’s probably too late now, since he’s got all the bs stuff that is associated with “anarchy” in his head, as a conception of you. Why would you associate with a label, traditionally carried by the traditional socialists? The vandarchists hate the state, because they think it protects private property..!
Well to each his own, but I refuse to be associated with the label.
The Rothbard Article was in the mid 1950’s. If you his work Betrayal of the American Right where he admits that he became an anarchist.
i actually referred to myself as an ancap lol
Why move onto the position you hold, when the issue of whether government is evil or not, hasn’t been agreed to by them? And why it is necessary or not. Debating without offering a position is pretty helpful, but people squirm pretty quickly. Deep down they know they’re wrong, or in a contradiction - they want to seek your position asap, so they can dismiss it. For whatever reason.
“I don’t think there is any point moving on to solutions, when we haven’t agreed on what the problem is.” [:)]
Yeah, I have read it. His position never changed, though the label he associated with did.
There is a reason he didn’t just refer to himself simply as an anarchist.
http://mises.org/resources/2667 - New Banner Interview
“Also, we have a long-range problem which none of us has ever really grappled with to any extent. That is, how do we finally establish a libertarian society? Obviously ideas are a key thing. First off you have to persuade a lot of people to be anarchists — anarcho-capitalists.”
His nonarchy article was before he came up with the label, anarcho-capitalism - but the same insights were still there and didn’t change. After that it became expedient to just refer to anarchism (no rulers), but of a different type. Instead of having to explain what nonarchy is.
shrugs lol.
Yes his position did change.
I think there is a stigma to being called an ‘anarchist’ like many people have said in this topic. However, to combat this stigma we must show that anarchism is not some ‘smash and destroy’ irrational ideology. It is one founded on logic.
I suppose there is nothing to be angry about?
Not after graduate school. Which is the point - it didn’t change from when he wrote the piece in the 50’s, to when he wrote the piece in the 70’s.
Have you read Justin Raimondo’s Enemy of the State?
It’s hard to debate with anyone who is closed minded or dogmatic. Whether they are a fanatical anti-propertarian left anarchist, or a neoconservative republican, or a progressive liberal true believer, or a “libertarian” ideologue.
It’s not what you are talking about, or what they already believe, but the level of sincerity in the debate.
If you can’t find people who will listen, and consider your opinions, and people whom you respect enough to listen to, and consider their opinions, then you are just wasting time and energy. It’s like a guy in front of an open door, who decides to side step 2 paces to his left, and go through the wall instead.
I am NEVER ashamed of my moral positions, and I am NEVER ashamed of my personal observations. When people try to shame you, by name calling or otherwise belittling you, they are demonstrating not just their weakness of character, but a fundamental lack of confidence in their own premises.
If anything, we should feel badly for them, although if they are really aggressive, it’s hard not to dislike them.
…because after graduate school he was an Anarchist.
Probably, if you want to keep them as friends. Unless they are open-minded. In which case, debate away.
He was always against the state after that time. Have you read the Enemy of the State?
When he wrote the nonarchist piece, he was against the state. What altered was the label association. He rejected associating with anarchy, because it was mostly associated with traditional socialists. He suggested nonarchy be used. He wrote that piece in 1950’s. Later on, the label of anarcho-capitalism was adopted, and thus the loss of the need to use nonarchy.
What is so hard to understand?