G-20 Anarchists

[ProudCapitalist]

I think that “capitalism” is a good name for it, for us. It is a very strong brand name because everyone has heard of it. Even in the most primitive of brains, it balances socialism and therefor doesn’t seem very “extreme”. Nor is it new. And its historic track record of (relative) application is brilliant, even by most utilitaristic “measurements”.

Let’s all call ourselves capitalists from now on! Then no window smashers will want to mix themselves with us, and nor will journalists make any connection between us and them commies, the guys who hate us and what we stand for the most.

[Nick_B]

@ProudCapitalist

YES! And now is the time to brand a new name, because we’re going from almost nothing (in the minds of people) with some wind in the sails. Seriously, a good label would be very valuable going forward. You should register corresponding url:s. And this movement isn’t larger than making it possible to change its name. If one could come up with something more catchy, and maybe pertaining to the human being or free will, which many still think are good things. And maybe something not so greek or -ism, then it’d be great!

I still think we should just call ourselves agorist.

[scineram]

@Cork

I like that.

[Conza]

@GilesStratton

Anarcho-capitalism is possibly the worst label we could have adopted. Mutliarchism, non-archism, eklektarchy are all far better labels.

I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.

The socialists corrupt EVERYTHING, ‘Liberalism’ then ‘Left-Libertarianism’ yada yada. The way I see it, we have anarcho-CAPITALISM (Haha, I can’t see the left calling themselves Capitalists all of a sudden) It’s a natural propellant.

Anarcho-Capitalism is basically the root, the hardcore. But when we fraternize with the enemy / masses, we are able to use other labels that are less affronting. “Classical liberal” “Constitutionalist” “Voluntaryist” etc.

[Byzantine]

@wombatron

They need to read their Proudhon and focus on building the new society, …

That would require discipline, child-rearing, belief in something beyond one’s self, and of course, marketable skills. Only racists and fascists care about those sort of things.

[Nick_Ricci]

@Conza88

I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.

I think anarcho-capitalist is great, if only for the hilarious reactions it gets from left anarchists. “You’re stealing our terms from us!”

You’d almost think they consider it their… property, or something.

[hayekianxyz]

@Byzantine

@wombatron

They need to read their Proudhon and focus on building the new society, …

That would require discipline, child-rearing, belief in something beyond one’s self, and of course, marketable skills. Only racists and fascists care about those sort of things.

There you go spouting that conservative nonsense again.

[Stranger]

@Nick Ricci

@Conza88

I actually think it was the BEST name that could have been adopted for the hardcore.

I think anarcho-capitalist is great, if only for the hilarious reactions it gets from left anarchists. “You’re stealing our terms from us!”

You’d almost think they consider it their… property, or something.

There is an argument to make in favor of using different terms for different crowds.

[DanielMuffinburg]

This. Many people on RPF confused an-cap-ism with anarchy. Anarchists have historically been anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.

[Nick_B]

@Daniel

This. Many people on RPF confused an-cap-ism with anarchy. Anarchists have historically been anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists.

Yeah, so? Things change; different schools of anarchy emerge.

[hayekianxyz]

Anarchist either reject coercion or leadership, we reject neither.

[Sphairon]

I’m curious, how do you justify coercion (if our definitions of coercion match)?

[hayekianxyz]

@Sphairon

I’m curious, how do you justify coercion (if our definitions of coercion match)?

I think you’re definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.

[Sphairon]

@GilesStratton

I think you’re definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.

Now I’m even more confused. The archetype of an anarchist is a guy wrapped in black garments causing mayhem and destruction. Aren’t you, as a conservative, vehemently opposed to this?

[hayekianxyz]

@Sphairon

@GilesStratton

I think you’re definion coercion as synonomous to aggression, whereas I simply mean violence when I say coercion.

Now I’m even more confused. The archetype of an anarchist is a guy wrapped in black garments causing mayhem and destruction. Aren’t you, as a conservative, vehemently opposed to this?

Of course, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with my definition of coercion. Any private defense agency will have to resort to coercion in order to sustain itself, as useful as it is social ostracism is not sufficient. Most anarcists, however, are utopians that believe once we get rid of property we will get rid of coercion and indeed all other social problems.

Mises denounced anarchists for all the right reasons, yet at the end of the day there’s not all that much difference between the conclusions reached by Mises and the conclusions reached by Hoppe, Rothbard and other “anarcho” capitalists.

[DanielMuffinburg]

I know. I was replying to Conza.