Rothbard asserts that one cannot inalienate himself from his freedom. Any contract that gives up free will is unenforceable and meaningless.
If someone accepts money for a job, then they decide they don’t want to do it, this doesn’t mean they can keep the money. But they can’t be forced to do the work. No employer can force continued provision of labor from anyone.
I would much rather have someone assume that I’m an anti-slavery activist than have them assume that I’m a “bomb thrower” or whatever garbage most people relate to their idea of “anarchism.”
There’s a great article about this here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html
So would I! I have great respect for those people. I have met some of them - they are wonderful people. My larger point is that using that term could be a bit confusing. There are already some people who are confused by the term “Austrian Economist” (really, you are, when did you come over to this country?). Calling oneself an abolitionist is, to many people, like calling yourself a suffragette. It is a nice benevolent term but to most people it will not mean what you want it to mean for them.
I don’t really care what people think of what I choose to call myself. If renaming ourselves was the key to freedom, I might buy it.
But as long as you cede control of definitions to people who would twist them, they will exercise this power over whatever term you use.
99% of people think the government is legitimate, democracy is good, killing Iraqis is good, Jesus was an American and such. Do we really give a flying fart what any of them think about what we call ourselves? These are the lost, the damaged, the stupid and the confused.
Anarchism-libertarianism doesn’t have an image problem IMO. That’s a cop out. They have an action problem.
That’s a good point. What type of action are anarcho-capitalists involved with these days? I’m not saying an-caps don’t do anything (I’m not trying to insult anyone), I’m just ignorant as to what this side of the anarchist movement does in the real world (aka, offline stuff). Are there any big groups practicing agorism? I know about the Free State Project and the whole Ron Paul movement, but that’s mostly minarchism isn’t it?
I was recently talking to an anarchist friend of mine, and I asked him what he thinks of anarcho-capitalists, he said the following:
“Oh! The anarcho-capitalists! Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m very suspicious of a movement without any movement. Know what I mean? The power structure has a funny way of co-opting a legitimate movement’s language and symbols. I’ve seen these AC’s all over YouTube…but nowhere else in the universe!”
We don’t have a central planning area.
It’s ok, AnCaps have action issues for sure.
I hope so, but I doubt it. We wouldn’t know if they were, because Agorism is illegal.
A legitimate movment. rotflmao.
Ancaps are everywhere. They are the ones selling the molotovs to the bomb throwers. They are small business owners, private contractors. Consultants. Educators. They print magazines. Write articles. Get law degrees. Drive cabs. Operate brothels. If you are for capitalism, but no state, then you’re an ancap. That is a lot more people than anarcho-socialists (of various stripes).
Doesn’t Craig’s List Count?
I wouldn’t know to be honest. I don’t ever use that site.
No, I just can’t be bothered. You’ll find out sooner or later though.
Right, in which case, by your logic libertarianism is “false”.
In a free market church and family orientated cultural conservative orientated lifestyles would outcompete the rest, yes.
No, egalitarianism is the doctrine that we are essentially all equal. We’re not.
No, it isn’t. In fact, anarchism in a broader sense is a system that is considerably less “tolerant” than today’s society. No matter if they say the oppose the state, anarcho socialists’s egalitarian rhetoric is perfectly compatible with that of the state’s forced equality. Whereas a stateless sociey defined by private property is distinctly unequal they advocate equality. Moveover, there will be irreconcilable disputes between different conceptions of property. Both sides thinking their correct, the truth is they must be eliminate or stripped of their power. Anti statism goes far further that simply disagreeing with today’s state.
No, we don’t. We both have different conceptions of the state. Hence we oppose it for different reasons, any resemblance is superficial. All we share is the same name, unfortunately. As we oppose the state for different reasons upon abolishing it we will have different views as to how a free society should proceed. Violence will be the only way to settle many of these conflicts. Fortunately we have the system that maximizes wealth, thus we will outcompete them economically and conquer them militarily if necessary.
Yes, and this is what we have an issue with. Socialists? No.
Exactly, they have the state abolishing private property already. Now, when we abolish the state and private property rights become secured and a hierarchical society comes into place with greater inequality, I would hazard a guess that they won’t look too kindly upon it. Especially not when their system is proven untenable. They have their day dreams now of an equal society without the state, but that’s fairly easy, they don’t have to put their money where their mouth is and they don’t have to live with the reality of the system. Once entertaining these fantasies becomes more difficult as a result of economic laws, it’s only natural that they would turn to violence to enforce a weaker system.
And their question is nonsensical because capitalism and statism are antonyms.
They’d be outcompeted, moreover anybody showing sympathy towards democracy and equality would have to be removed from the private property orientated communities. If they respected our property rights, wonderful. They’d simply have to be outcompeted and their egalitarian nonsense refuted. I doubt that is the case, they clearly view certain forms of property, if not all, as illegitimate, which means there would be conflict that would need to be resolved through violence more often than not. In addition, it is unlikely that many will subscribe to ethical systems that are the same as ours, as I understand it many adhere to utilitarianism, which would not be compatible with our society.
In any case, I fail to see how some silly superficial opposition to the state can be the basis of any sound alliance. Especially when we advocate competing governments and a strict hierarchical society whereas they don’t. Moreover we defend capitalism whereas they don’t.
You missed the point. Yes, you can build a car with nothing but a screwdriver and wood. You’d be outcompeted on the market place though, just like communities built around certain lifestyles would be outcompeted by others. You could choose to live in one of those communities practising heavy drug use and ignoring the family and the church. It wouldn’t last long though and I doubt such lifestyles would truly bring anybody happiness.
It’s a shame that most self decribed anarcho capitalists don’t fit under the term anarchism. We’re not anarchists, we’re multiarchists.
Its simple really, the state relies on consent, the consent of the poor is bought by welfare. As they make up the majority of the population it’s clear that without their support the state would crumble. So yes, they do oppress us and themselves also.
Only, slavery implies that one does not own their own body, on the other hand, in order to sign a contract, one must own their own body.
Abolishing the state is a difficult idea to swallow. Buying your protection from a competing provider of defense? That’s far easier to come to terms with. As such it makes no sense to call ourselves anarchists, multiarchists is more accurate and more sensible.
Multiarchy is non-specific.
I think I am just an anarcho-capitalist. I’m for voluntaryism (no archy without consent) and I’m a capitalist.
I think this is important because it (1) separates me from statists, and (2) separates me from left anarchists.
Right, but it’s not just the poor. It’s the thousands of state employees. It’s the millions of union members. These are the bulk of the people voting, once you get outside of pensioners, which is another organized special interest demographic.
Unfortunately, Wombie is still caught up in believing these people are somehow more innocent than businessmen who may receive state privileges. If you know anything about how Unions or Associations work with government, they are just as bad as GE or Exxon.
Translation : I’m lying and I know it.
What ? A miracle ? Will the gods turn me into a frog ? Or maybe I’ll burn in hell ? I’d so love to be enlightened by your divine knowledge…
Lovely. Here’s another unfounded assertion, as valid as yours : In a free market pigs will fly.
I don’t think I’ve ever supported statist unions here. Anytime I talk about unions, I’m talking about them like they were before they were co-opted by the state (not intended towards you, LS, but: right-libertarians can whine about “militancy” all they want; company bosses engaged in as just as much or more violence than unions did, and that is just as bad an argument against them as it is against unions). Also, it can be argued that most of the privileges given to unions go to the organizers and bosses, rather than the rank-and-file members.
And besides all that, receiving state privileges isn’t necessarily immoral. It won’t exist in a free market by definition, though, so it is something that must enter the economic analysis of free markets.
If only you weren’t so predictable you might by less boring.
So add capitalism as a suffix. You’re not an anarchist, you just advocate voluntary rulers, not a complete lack of.
I view the poor and the other groups you mentioned in very much the same light as I do big buisness, it’s just that, it makes no sense to whine about their poverty when one consides that they bring it upon themselves through a lack of moral and intellectual strength.