We all knew it was coming. We said, its only a matter of time before you see a headline with “Anarchist plots to __________”. And you’d see a picture of several white guys. All “homegrown”.
Well, its here now. point is, I no longer have any trust in the media or the government. For all I know this is a government operation, instigated by the FBI or some other known terrorist group, reported by the media as anarchists.
Just an FYI - a lot of people still associate the word “anarchist” with “communist”. This was one of Rothbard’s original objections to adopting the term anarchist. After reading the article, it appears that these men were of the communist variety, not the capitalist. It’s annoying, but the media is actually using the term as most people understand it.
Wright and Baxter also discussed trying to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland.
Interesting…
Just heard about this on the radio. My first instinct was to wonder whether this was some kind of entrapment case like we’ve seen in the past with the islamic terror suspects. That is, the powers that be find some people who they suspect might be candidates for terrorist activities, and then provoke or incentivize them to radicalize and attempt a violent act. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case. Given that the article seems to hint that thier intitial plans only involved tearing down bank signs.
FoxNews is reporting on what it dubs a mob of “anarchists” attacking a Starbucks.
This is the problem with libertarians identifying themselves as anarchists, the term is legitimately used by those identifying attacks on private property, since dictionaries across the board list one definition of anarchists as those who advocate disorder in society.
Any libertarian, who is anti-state, would accomplish much more by identifying himself as being an “advocate of a private property society” or “property person” for short.
So, an anarchist is anyone who either, “seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government” or “excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.”
Those definitions put virtually any non politically motivated action gets you labeled an anarchist. But, if it is politically motivated action, then you are a terrorist.
I feel like the philosoraptor would be useful for this.
If you add the qualifier “philosophical” to “anarchist”, it effectively domesticates it.
In any case, the President might use the term “liberal” or “democrat” or “progressive” or whatever to describe his ideology, such as it is. He also orders the military to blow people up. The military under Obama has destroyed more lives and property than those idiot “anarchists” could ever hope to in their wildest dreams. Are “liberals/democrats/progressives” all in favour of blowing people up?
Usage dictates meaning, not etymology. While the roots of “anarchy” mean “no government”, it is silly and naive to stubbornly insist on using the label for its etymological meaning despite its contrary usage. Capitalism has a similar usage problem (popular usage means something closer to crony-capitalism or mercantilism) but at least its use in economics is specialized and, therefore, distinct from the popular usage.
I think the best label is antistate. To refer to the ideology, antistatism which is directly opposed to statism. The language of the debate is still somewhat open to revision because this is not an issue that has seriously reached the public consciousness. No one thinks about anti-government in terms of a serious, principled position advocating careful, measured, respectful, thoughtful, peaceful drawdown of all government monopolies without exception (even law and regional defense0 combined with liberalization of the monopolized goods and services to allow the market in the production of those goods and services time to develop.