Correct me if I’m wrong : I think that the idea of the abolition of the state - that is, introducing competition in the business of security production, was proposed by de Molinari in 1849 :
And de Molinari was a liberal - or a ‘classical’ liberal…So that’s what we are - liberals - in the original sense of the word.
It’s naive to think that it’s our label that is holding us back. I’d be willing to bet a good chunk of gold that if we walk around describing ourselves as ‘multiarcho-capitalists’ (multicaps? brrr…) we’ll not achieve an iota more adherents or respect. Possibly less.
Liberty means responsibility - that is why most men dread it. -Shaw
It’s not our label - it’s our ideas and principles that scares the bejesus out of most who actually understand what we’re saying, who are only too happy to buy the false association of anarchism with bomb throwing mayhem they’ve been taught to make by the State.
Point well made. Simply, voluntaryists, or anti-coercionists would serve the purpose well since neither drags in ‘archy’, ‘market’, or ‘capitalist’, if it’s an entirely new term we’re seeking. But as noted, it ain’t the label that’s the problem.
Market anarchism = Classical Liberalism, based upon the vews of ONE man?!
Well said. I’ve lived in several countries that crushed any civil dialog that resulted in government criticism. As for America… we’re watching the chipping away of our liberies on a daily basis. But there is yet hope…
Nathyn, How am I supposed to find out what classical liberalism is ?
By democratic polling and statistics ? Now that’s indeed a fallacy.
By reading what all the Classical Liberals had to say, not just Molinari.
I’m not sure I see your point Nathyn.
Are you saying that de Molinari was not a classical liberal ?
That so-called anarcho-capitalism is not classical liberalism ?
Or else ? Did you read Molinari ?
Then I’m afraid I cannot help you because this is pretty simple logic.
If it helps, here is an analogy:
Is that argument logical? No, you’re just one man, so it’s a hasty generalization.
It’s one thing to object to positivism, but you can’t object to the fallacy of hasty generalization!
Anarcho-capitalism is classical liberalism taken to its most radical conclusion. It is indeed a form of it. I have no problem with the label ‘classical liberal’. If one, however, wants a specific label to describe market anarchism I still think Hayek’s catallarchy is best, even if it is colourless for the time being.
Inquisitor, it is amazing that you would defend such a clear and obvious hasty generalization.
First, Juan did not say that Market Anarchism was a “form” of Classical Liberalism. He said that it was Classical Liberalism. Get it straight.
Second, Market Anarchism is Classical Liberalism taken to its most radical conclusion, according to you.
There are quite a few classical liberals who may have actually rejected market anarchism. Who are you or I to say what they would have believed? After all, were these men to have believed in anarchism, they would have said so. While it is possible they simply never considered it, it is also entirely possible they had rejected anarchism for reasons which they never disclosed. And it is entirely possible they may reject anarchism even if they were to consider it, possibly even for the same reasons that many Liberals today reject Anarchism.
Because individual human thought is so complex and subjective, for you to say that the beliefs of hundreds of very different men will all lead to the same conclusion is rather presumptuous. There’s no way you could be sure without asking them. And it’s important to point out that “Liberalism” is a broad generalization, not an absolute definition that all men who called themselves Liberals believed in X.
Generalizations about beliefs can only be made when the thinkers themselves accept the generalization, because only they, the ones which have direct access to their full worldview, can be fully certain as to what the contents of their views are. When a man calls himself “Liberal,” we can be certain that he sees himself as a Liberal, as he understands it.
But the reverse is not true: Because our perceptions of others are subjective. And so, whereas you may see President Bush as a villain, others may see him as a hero, while still, another person may see him as simply an idiot. You can say that one of us may be right if we are more rational, but every man inherently regards his own judgment as infallible.
Furthermore, words, themselves, are nothing more than a faint echo of the consciousness that once was, filtered through the biases of the reader, and cannot be sufficient to judge a dead man’s thoughts. Because to under words, one must grasp a whole man’s life’s worth of understanding as to what those words actually meant, to the man. Two men may write the same sentence, yet draw totally different conclusions as to what they’re actually saying.
When you judge a man’s thoughts, you do not judge a man’s thoughts, but rather, you judge what he has said and done about his thoughts, through your own flawed human perception. And, of course, it is the nature of every man to believe his own judgments are infallible. You can say my judgment is wrong because it’s irrational and I will say your judgment is wrong because it’s irrational. Which of us is right?
I find your attempt (and that of many Libertarians) at monopolizing Liberalism to be both perverse and extremist. It is very much like when religious extremists say that their small, fringe group is the only legitimate form of their religion. It also shares the same similarity in that it is reactionary, appealing to fundamentalist values of an allegedly golden age of intellectual thought.
I don’t deny that you are legitimately influenced by Liberalism and believe in freedom, as you understand it. Do you extend me the same courtesy? Somehow, I doubt it.
Correct. The only use for it will be as a bad example.
Nathyn, was the long post really necessary? You read far too much into what I said. I wasn’t even defending Juan’s generalization, I was stating my own opinion. For the Lockean classical liberal, market anarchism is indeed the natural conclusion. Individuals are, of course, free under Locke to set up a minarchy or anything else they so wish, but not to impose it upon others. And that is the essence of the liberal, to recognize that the individual ultimately has the right to determine what sort of system they want to live in.
Nathyn,
I extend you no courtesy. I’m willing to respect your natural rights to life, liberty and property…because I’m a liberal. As to your assertions, I think they are fallacious..
Let’s take your premise to its logical consequence. According to you nothing can be known about what other people think - radical subjectivism. Also, language is not a tool that enables comunication because
etc, etc. If that’s the case, then you should stop posting. Or else you’re contradicting yourself. IF language barely works AND we can’t know each other’s mind THEN there’s no point in posting messages here. So don’t do it.
I said it and I say it. Liberalism is the unconditional respect for life, liberty and property. Any idea wich doesn’t fit that definition does not belong to liberalism.
Well, I could say that I find your attempt at hijacking the meaning of words to be perverse and extremist…
I
I prefer the term “anarcho-liberal” over “anarcho-capitalist,” since I believe the term “capitalist” is extremely misleading to some and because I believe anarcho-capitalism is the pinacle of left-wing radicalism. But, regardless of my preference in the matter, I understand that “anarcho-capitalist” is the most used and most widely understood label we have. We’ve already invested a lot in it, and to simply change our label (hell, why not just call ourselves “progressives”?) would lead to more public confusion and suspicion.
II
Multiarcho-capitalism, in addition to being an absolutely ugly word to look at and say, is just going to confuse the vast majority of people.
People might still incorrectly associate anarchy with chaos rather than order (and incorrectly associate government with order rather than chaos), but what do you think they’re going to associate with a term like “multiarchy”? Hell, I could see people interpreting that in many ways. Multiple leaders; oligarchy under a new label; confusion as to which dictator to follow; warring governments; federalism.
III
You may have heard certain “left” anarchists claim that we are not actually anarchists. They base this assumption on the assumption that we do not oppose hierarchy. But what is hierarchy? Is it hierarchy if I trade my wheat for your meat? Certainly not. I therefore differentiate between coercive hierarchy (real hierarchy) and voluntary hierarchy (apparent hierarchy).
If I force you to trade your meat for my wheat, then I am creating a hierarchy, and this is unjust. (I am creating, essentially, a government, one which you have every right to smash with defensive force.) If you and I agree voluntarily that you will trade your labour for my wheat, however, this is only an apparent hierarchy, not a true hierarchy, because A) I did nothing to force you into my employment and B) you are free to leave my employment at any time. This voluntary “hierachy” is, in fact, not a hierarchy at all, and only appears to be so!
The same is true with regards to the hiring of private protection agencies or private arbitors.
In fact, we are more opposed to hierarchy than many of the supposed “left” anarchists! Wherefore they (not all of them, but some) would like to use prevent you from falling under someone else’s voluntary “hierarchy,” they create a coercive hierarchy wherein they (the supposed anarchists) are above you. (Disclaimer: this is not meant to imply that there aren’t “left”-anarchists out there who truly are dedicated to voluntaryism, nor that we would not ally ourselves with these persons in our shared opposition to coercion.)
So, in reality, we are anarchists in every way imaginable. We do oppose hierarchy, and indeed archism in general.
The only archy we can be considered not in opposition to is autarchy. And, at least autarchism isn’t nearly as ugly or scary a word as multiarcho-capitalism.
IV
We have enough words floating around as it is–words with no or extremely little difference in definition. Why create a new word, which will just confuse people all the more.
Libertarian
A) I like the word, B) It’s really not that difficult of a word, C) most people with a strong interest in politics already know this word and generally what it means, and D) it’s a beautiful word.
It sure as tax isn’t. It’s just a heavy pneumonia compared to pulmonar plague.
Any government is a disease, some kill fast, some take their time, but there is no such thing as a “good” disease. Especially here in Germany, the state grows like a cancer, has already infiltrated the most intimate parts of everybody’s life and it is far beyond he point where we should have yelled “TOO MUCH OF THAT SHIT, STOP IT RFN!!!” but hey, it’s Germany. Most folks just shut up and obey.
That’s a great way to put it. Which is worse, dreading the knock on the door from the Gestapo, or spending one’s life increasingly on one’s knees in obeisance to the Mommy State? I really don’t know that - if you consider the long term impact - a ‘nice’ socialist state that kills you slowly is that much better than a ‘mean’ one that kills you quick. I suppose the former allows people to engage in self deception to the point of not even explicitly having to acknowledge their slavery, so perhaps that’s better. But slavery is slavery in the end.
Either way, I don’t think the knee jerk sentiment that Nathyn expresses is as self evident as he thinks.
You shouldn’t be worried about a slogan or label. That’s the problem in general. People are more into bumper sticker politics than actually rolling up their sleeves and getting dirty. I care not about society’s labels, slogan or God. If people don’t understand your intentions, it’s because you haven’t put enough work into making them known. It takes more than a chat room and casual parsing of philosophy. A movement takes muscle. Too many people don’t want to affect their level of comfort.
Who says you have to be classified?
The fact that there exists such a discipline as etymology, tracing words back to their root words, means that words do not come into existence empty of meaning. New words are built from existing words and differentiated. The word “anarchist” has a historical meaning as well as roots to its meaning. Before we’ve even explained anything, people have a prejudiced opinion of us. So before we can hope to achieve anything, we first have to repair the damage we caused to ourself by choosing words that are, at first look, nonsensical. Anarchy-Capitalism? Is this a joke?
Pluralism is good and it has a historical meaning. Archy, rule, is synonymous with order and security. Combining the two into the word plurarchy gives us a head start in argument. Plurarchy, how would that work?
Plurarchy has the positive frame and specificity that Hans Hermann Hoppe’s “Natural Order” doesn’t have.
To instead get into semantical fights over the true meaning of anarchy or hierarchy is in my opinion a waste of energy. The anarchists did not hesitate to invent the word libertarian when anarchists were banned, and it was a big success for them. I look at the list of the different forms of anarchy and in my opinion anarcho-capitalism is so distinct as to be entirely unrelated to other forms of anarchy. That means the word itself makes no sense. Instead of trying to conquer the vocabulary, let’s create something.
I say we call ourselves voluntarists. I mean thats what we want right? A non-coercive,voluntary, and free society right? Plus when people think of an anarchist, they think of those Black Bloc morons who are violent, vandilise property, and really have no idea of politics other than this: DEM EVIL FASCIST CAPITALIST PIGS EXPLOIT ME BECAUSE MY COLLEGE PROFESSOR TOLD ME SO!!! AND IF I THROW ROCKS AT THE RIOT POLICE I’LL BRING DOWN THE STATE FOR SURE, WHY ITS FOOLPROOF, IT’S INGE–(Then all of sudden get a shitload of teargas in their face.) I say we officially call ourselves voluntaryist. What do you guys think? [:^)]