I just recently registered as a member here after lurking for quite a while. I, like many others, considered myself a minarchist, but after reading some Rothbard I began to question all aspects and “necessities” of the state and now consider myself a full-fledged Anarcho-capitalist after seeing those arguments destroyed with principle and reason by Mr. Rothbard and others in the same vein.
I am glad I finally joined a community of like-minded people to discuss these sorts of things with, as I belong to another forum that is absolutely crawling with statists that have little to no understanding of Anarchism. Aside from possibly a Mutualist and maybe one or to Anarcho-communists, my anti-statist views are often responded with hostility and usually degrade to petty insults (and even the An-communists often turn that way as they are often more hostile to the idea of capitalism than they are the state). Although this certainly allows me to see different arguments from “the other side,” it is nice to be able to productively discuss the topic of An-Cap without constantly being on the defense.
Anarcho communists are a bunch of fools who oppose private property more than they oppose the state, which isn’t difficult because really they don’t oppose the state they just call it by some name such as “the community”. Don’t take them seriously.
Moreover they very rarely, if ever, can make any detailed plan as to how their society would work .And when they do it’s always completely incoherent.
Oh I never have taken them very seriously. I have never been given any good responses to any of the questions I have asked them.
The Mutualist and I have found plenty of common ground on issues of the state, although he still doesn’t believe An-cap would yield a better society. He is certainly less hostile to the idea than pretty much everyone else on that forum though.
Yes, I have read a bit about it. I am a bit confused, however, what the substantial differences are (if any) between Anarcho-Capitalists (primarily of the Rothbard type) and agorists aside from perhaps etymological differences.
The main difference between agorism and ancapism is that agorism has a theory of revolution, based on counter-economics. Also, agorists tend to be more willing to work with mutualists and libertarian socialists, rather than conservatives and minarchists. Finally, agorists are generally left-libertarians as well, although this isn’t always the case these days (oddly enough).
I’m not really “against” left-libertarians or anything of the sort (although I cannot say they often sympathize or tend to be at all accommodating to my “capitalist” ideas, though). I think Mutualism in particular is not a terrible idea or anything, but I tend to hold more of a Rothbardian view on the issues. I guess I really just don’t see any substantial difference between agorists and An-caps to consider myself one and not the other…[:S]
There are no real substantial differences, so don’t worry. I believe it’s a silly distinction though, it’s just the libertarian left trying to claim agorism if you ask me. But there we go.
Yes, he did. Left-libertarianism recognizes and embraces that fact. Right-libertarianism… doesn’t.
There are agorists on this board who consider themselves neither left nor right (GAP, Jon Irenicus, probably others). Usually its a cultural thing in this case.
The left distinction is still needed for clarity. Rothbard actually repudiated some of his best work later on, and tried to form a strategic alliance between libertarians and paleoconservatives (it didn’t work). Thus, agorists (and left-libertarians in general) will generally draw from Rothbard’s work in the 60s and 70s.
Note also that this is not an unbiased account (I am a left-libertarian and an agorist myself), and I am far from the most knowledgeable person on this forum.
Well, I agree with aspects of both right and left-libertarianism. That’s why I avoid classifying myself either way. I’m probably slightly more right than left though.
There’s nothing inherently leftist about agorism. Hoppe views voting an ineffective, I’m not sure anybody would call him a left libertarian. The whole left libertarian, right libertarian distinction is silly at any rate.
Ultimately the primary difference between (most) agorists and mainline anarcho-capitalists/Rothbardians is in attitude. Agorists (from what I’ve gathered at any rate) tend to view their libertarianism from a typical hard leftist paradigm (akin to how Marxists view their own ideology), meaning that the state has contaminated every aspect of human society, and so a revolution is needed to overthrow it, destroying the world and creating it anew and uplifting humanity (of course, I say this with all the affection in the world, wombatron [:D]). All of this is the main reason I don’t consider myself an agorist.
Revolution has always been popular with the kids. Konkin was most radical until he had a kid. Then reality sets in and being a beatnik and a revolutionary takes a back seat to protecting your children and providing for their needs.
The young need somewhere to put their anger. Parents need somewhere to put their hope.