I am an anarchist (Rothbard style).
All libertarians believe that all humans are alike in dignity, all have the same natural rights.
I have these questions to “libertarian” who said in his post there are inferior races:
How is it that you think there are inferior races? Which ones are inferior and superior according to you? Does the superior have more rights?
How can you support Ron Paul, whe he has said many times that all individuals have the same natural rights no matter the race, religion, sexual preference, etc.?
Anarchist (Currently Left Rothbardian)
That’s what the PM function is for. This thread is for identification.
I would say that I’m a minarchist. I realise the problems in having a minimal state (in keeping it minimal) and also with raising funds through coercive taxation but I consider it the lesser of two evils when I compare with anarchism which will (in my opinion) lack a universally and equally applicable judicial system. People must have their property rights upheld whether or not they can afford to buy this “service”. It is a pre-requisite to it being a free market.
I honestly don’t know. [:^)]
market anarchist
OK, I change my vote to minarcho-capitalist.
I am not a constitutionist, since the 10th amendment allows states to arbitrarily set laws.
I am a market anarchist. But I prefer Free (Market) Radical, LOL. We currently have the smallest government possible, IMO. Once the wishes of each sub-group to gain control of the government or a slice of the government, have their say so, you get what we have. There can be no scaling back, because as long as their is some unseen “greater good” to be served, everyone should and does have a share in what that is. So the only greater good that can exist is individual freedom, unless you want what we have. I don’t think that it is anymore preferable to wrest control from the federal tryany just to hand control of it to a local or state tyrany.
I am a polycentrist, in that I believe that a “natural order” (anarchy) would be based upon reciprocal obligations channelled by respected authorities in particular fields. I am also against elective abortion, as I feel it is as much an aggression against human dignity as war or slavery or taxes. |
|---|
Minarchist.
Court system, police force, and a small standing army for self-defense are the only rightful activities of gov’t.
In real life though, I am much more willing to accept the mob’s drive for redistributive action if it isn’t specifically creating gov’t monopolies to provide whatever good/service the mob is seeking at any given time. LOL
Paleolibertarian (which most definitely means market-anarchist), currently looking at the validity of the counter-economy, ie agorism.
Of course, I accept the main tenets of agorism, I’m just not sure it could ever achieve its goal of running the state “out of business”, so to speak.
I prefer just anarchist or anarcho-capitalist. The Free Radical (http://www.freeradical.co.nz) has some good stuff, but those guys are minarchist Randroids.
Firstly, I’m an Individualist. Secondly, a Market Liberal.
I went from being not interested in politics to being influenced by Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand to being a Libertarian to being a libertarian to being an anarcho-capitalist. Not exactly a 'long, strange trip", but I’ve still come a ways.
I went through pretty much the same progression as MacSnafu, though my influences were Rand, then Bastiat, Rothbard, Mises, etc. I put myself firmly in the Anarcho-Capitalist camp.
My progression of influences went roughly from Jesus to Bill Maher and John Stossel, then to Harry Browne (with a pinch of Michael Badnarik, introducing me to the concept of natural rights), on to Murray Rothbard. But of course there are hundreds of others that had influences upon me, including Bastiat, Spangler, etc. etc., just not as fundamentally as Browne and Rothbard.
Agorist
I guess I would be Other, mainly because I only recently crossed over into libertarian territory fairly recently, of which I credit to Ron Paul, although I can’t say I agree with him 100% (probably 90%). However, even when I was a self described “progressive leftist” a half-year ago, I was always reading on opposing viewpoints. I have to agree on a lot of what I’ve read so far on minarchy, particularly with Fried Egg’s comment on upholding property rights as a pre-req for the free market.
I’ll get back to this thread when I stop living online and I’ve hit some books ;D
At this point, I’m a minarchist with anarcho-capitalist leanings. The only thing that keeps me the former as opposed to the latter is the worry that a wealthy enough business (or a small set thereof) - a bank maybe - could potentially hijack the situation (perhaps hiring thugs and mercenaries as enforcers) and turn itself into a self-perpetuating set of inherited monopolies which use force to make sure that people buy their brand and their brand only, at least on a local scale, with little or no chance of being pulled down. We saw this in the US with some of the mining towns, and also possibly with the hijacking of the US government today - at least that’s how I perceive it. I could be wrong on this, but that is simply my concern regarding anarcho-capitalism. The way I see it anarchism of any form would eventually turn to either democracy (which really seems to be little more than oppression by the masses), monarchy, or some kind of rule by the corporate board of executives or whatever. In an ideal world, I would certainly prefer anarchism, however the world is not ideal, so I think there is at least a need for some kind of impartial judiciary to decide on cases of breached contracts at a bare minimum.