Across several recent threads the question of whether or not supporters of free market economics should drop the term “anarchist” since it has been adopted by such unscrupulous people as rioters who damage private property. Several proposals have been brought up incuding voluntaryist, Plurarchy or Pluriarchy. Stranger pointed out that in French, the word “volonté” means will, and “volontarisme” means the will of government is being imposed upon reality, in other words submitting reality to willpower. I pointed out that plurarchy and pluriarchy are both dangerously close to plutocracy - which means rule by the rich. Supporters of the free market are far too often of wanting the rich to rule over everyone else. So I have a proposal - nonaggressionist. It has the virtue of being directly derived from the non-aggression principle. If you describe yourself as a nonaggressionist it is very easy to explain what this means by describing the non-aggression principle. It also has the virtue of not being used (I think) by another group that we would be ashamed to be associated with. Thoughts?
I liked your suggestion on using a German word. However, I have thought that the word catallaxy captures just the sort of thing we intend to bring about, the spontaneous market order. Polycentric order is also another good descriptor, IMO.
This might not apply everywhere, but I live in a very heavily Hippie area, so I like using words that progressive statists already associate with positive things. this way I can get a lot of common sense points in before they realize I am supporting a free market.
instead of free market, talk about voluntary exchange or cooperative markets
instead of decentralization or command economy, talk about creating all local economies
instead of entitlement programs, talk about helping people to help themselves
instead of speaking in generalities about the evils of the state, talk about individual freedom of things like medicine (marijuana)
By the time you get through this they’re usually “totally like, with you man, right on brother” [8-)]
And then you can explain that by having the private sector do things that people think of as governmental responsibility, we rob them of their power to interfere negatively with all of the good things we talked about. This has been the approach that has had the most success for me. A lot of statists are pretty hardcore about things like universal healthcare, you have to ease into it.
I also cite research that shows that people don’t have a natural tendency towards violence and aggression and it usually takes a strong outside force to drive conflict. I identify government as this outside force in the majority of situations.
All good points, thanks.. 
In regards to anarchism, I’m going to quote myself:
In regards to that, I’m in favour of Multiarchy, as suggest by Stranger. Natural Order, and Catallxy isn’t too bad I suppose. I think another possible title is aristocracy.
I think nonaggressionist is too non-specific. The marxist libertarians (wrap your head around that) claim to buy into the NAP, it’s the position on property that causes the schism.
Catallactics (sp!) isn’t bad.
The more I think about it though, I am an Austrian. I really don’t have an issue with anything Austrian.
Polycentric Order sucks for two reasons. One, BP is already cyber squatting the term, and he’s much more sympathetic to syndicalists and socialists than the thinking that drove this thread, and two polycentric order is non-specific. We still have the issue of people who think it is not violence to come and take my stuff because I am a capitalist (someone who produces more than he consumes and saves the difference).
I agree regarding non-aggressionist, but also too long & doesn’t roll off the tongue.
Polycentric order should remain a concept and/or title to be used, not a label… the moment it’s used as a label, the concept becomes hijacked in of itself. trying to define exclusivley what polycentric order is would seem to be counter to part of it’s meaning, methinks.
(Regarding alternative labels for ourselves, not the above…)
Catallactics I am unsure of…
:shrug: I’m still in favor of Voluntaryist. Perhaps we should post a list of “new terms being considered” in one post to see where we are currently?
*Edit: thread is active enough for me to get confused by the posts.
Yes, I agree. It doesn’t really say anything, and it sounds dorky.
“Marxist libertarian” (LOL) [:P] Anarcho-communists are just communists with a different strategy.
I like the word “liberal”.
A nonaggressionist is something you are against, not something you are for.
Hehehe NAPsters…
Not catallactics - that is the science of exchange, i.e. economics. Catallaxy, which is the outcome of the spontaneous actions of market agents. In a word, the market order.
Doesn’t resolve the property rights position though.
Markets are predicated on property rights.
That’s why I’m throwing in my hat for Voluntaryist due to it’s clear property rights stance, but I’m not sure if Voluntaryist covers the economic grounds Catallaxy provides, though.
Perhaps both could be used (lol, might be a mouthful…) ?
The mutualists don’t seem to believe so. They seem to believe that workers own capital, not the person who has accumulated it.
That’s a massive disconnect, from people who claim to be “market anarchists”
The problem I see is that while technically one could spectrum mutalists as market-anarchists, what are actual market-anarchists to be called when the tent is as big as it is?
I considered myself a market-anarchist (and still do), but now it seems market-anarchist requires another one or two labels, and not simply the inital one in of itself.
I could see how some traits would allow mutalists to be them, but why not just call them mutalists instead of market-anarchists? We already have a huge problem with statists-in-wolf’s-clothing co-opting anarchism, which partially why I’ve abdicated from using anarchism or the suffix anarchism to describe myself.
It seems that the efforts of making a huge tent for allies, is ignoring fundamental theory concerning de-centralization. Would not an attempt at creating a big tent under one label for other labels result in a centralization of terms, & thus, the subsequent confusion of said terms involved?
This mess already happened to libertarianism, & I honestly cannot put the blame on anyone but ourselves.
Why invent our own term? Hijack an existing one that applies perfectly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocracy
Who cares? If they like the term, they can use it too. They’re similar enough to us for it not to matter and they’re not the kind of people who dismiss anarcho-capitalists. “Voluntaryists” says nothing about property rights either. Neither does polycentric order. Nor does market anarchism. Even anarcho-capitalism allows for abandonment of property.
I believe you may have missed the genesis of this discussion. It was about separating capitalists from marxists, in and out of the anarchist/libertarian movement.
So caring about mutualists, which are as far as I can see, Marxists, is pretty important to this.
Because they’re not?