I couldn’t agree with the original poster more. I propose renaming capitalism to free-market cooperation. we can call it a co-op market for short. hippies will associate it with the positive connotations of farmer’s markets and co-op living arrangements. if you call yourself a anarcho-capitalist progressives dismiss you out of hand. If you describe yourself as a co-op market advocate they will be intrigued and probe further.
they are now wide open to hearing logical ideas. since a lot of austrian economics is obviously true when listened to by the unbiased mind, you can slowly ease them into it with seemingly innocent statements. Only gradually will they come to realize what the implications actually are. And by that time they’ll realize that a free-market is actually a good thing.
Remind them that it doesn’t get more free market than their neighborhood farmers market. remind them that their co-op work ideas are really a form of decentralized currency. I think there’s a big potential for progressives to respond to austrian ideas that the Ron Paul campaign only hinted at.
The term “anarcho capitalism” is horrible, it’s just clumsy. Market anarchism, private property anarchism etc. are hardly better.
In any case I really don’t think the word anarchism correctly captures the essence of extreme classic liberalism. Furthermore I don’t want to have to associate with a bunch of lefitst thugs, they can have their word.
Agreed. And we should also seperate ourselves from anarchist by renaming ourselves voluntaryists. I mean let’s face we really don’t have much in common with anarchist besides wanting an end to the state. We’re basically a whole new school of thought.
I know me too…but we really have nothing in common with anarchist. Let’s face it we’re an entirely new school of thought…we’re anarchist no more. [:'(]
The problem with government is not that the currently existing ones are a plague or better/worse than previous variants of the same institution. The issue is that govt as govt is conceptually/definitionally based on a hijacking of people’s right to self-defence, a monopolisation of the use of coercion, and a misguided claim to rightfully exercise it discretionarily… all traits which are making it impossible to accept under any form and, hence, to amend.
The only govt which could be re-introduced in anarchism would be one unanimously and expressly agreed to by the entire population it governs!
You can have both personal sovereignty and protection at the same time; ie trough contracting with private protective agencies… and it’s not a SF scenario, but already an increasing reality today… Or getting your self well-armed, or organising a neightbouring watch, or whichever alternative non-coercively grounded means of defence.
Besides, “a society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserves neither” -that is, you cannot have adequate protection from the very institution which is enslaving you at gun-point.
Finally, competing rulers is no better than a single ruler as long as they rule (aka enslave you), and statists might be tempted to use your argument to claim that we have a competition of rulers both internationally, in a multi-states world, and internally, in multi-party democracies.
Apart from Proudhon, who was very close to libertarianism, at least towards the end of his life, you’ve got Stirner; who was a completely individualist anarchist and an egoist (in the philosophical sense of the term). So, i don’t see any contradiction in the terms, on the contrary… and there was no stealing in the first place.
Anarchism has roots dating back to the Antiquity; for example, Diogene Laertes was a proto-anarchist, beside being a cynic and a comopolitan.
The abolition of the state as such was first advocated during the French revolution by a faction called Les Enragés, and which was opposing Jacobinism from the left… not exactly on the basis of the current right-libertarian platform though.
This being said, i agree with you that anarchists are liberals; actually, consistent liberals can only be anarchists -
The term “anarcho-liberal” would be a tautology; “anarcho-” standing for (a form of) “liberal”, while “capitalist” isn’t necessarily free-market or liberal.
Actually, more a characteristic of govt and maybe a self-appointed function; but surely not a function it was entrusted with by the people over which it rules, and even less so a necessary one.
Yes but left wing thugs have sully the name. Besides, we have nothing in common with these other anarchist idealogies besides our dissent for the state, otherwise they despise captialism or even basic property! Do you really want to associated with crackpots like that. I say lets rename ourselves voluntaryist, start anew with our Agorist brotheryn.
I personally think Voluntaryist is the best term regarding my political & philosophical stances, & market-anarchism as decent (but not perfect) regarding my economic stances.
I find it cuts right to the point when I explain I’m only anti-state/government because I realized it is an involuntary & coercive institution, & that I’m in favor of self-government via the market & with other individuals, which would replace the mechanics of daily life maintenance that people currently have no choice but to leave the state as responsible for.
I further clarify that government itself would occur naturally among self-governing individuals, and that groups of individuals, as long as they respect such (or the NAP if the person I’m talking to isn’t very ignorant), the ignorant vision of chaos via anarchism would never occur, as we all as individuals have an interest in protecting ourselves, & the market would provide a means to protect other individuals as a business (which would ensure quality service & competition as well as honesty), as the opposite of such virtues would prove utterly profitless.
I tend to end my exposition by commenting that I would never force them to listen to me if they don’t want, & slip in a self-depreciating joke concerning the wordiness of my explanation.
This approach has worked well among liberals & conservatives (both have commented the detail of the explanation saves me from sounding like an ignorant bottle throwing teen, more or less), & some have admitted that our “democracy” may require something different when it comes to a head (referring to collapse of the economy, which seems to be a universal topic that people tend to agree on, sans the ignorant liberal or conservative who either think nationalizing everything stabilize the economy, or that an erratic stock market somehow signifies stability).
I am however in favor of entertaining alternatives for the political & economic stances that is normally associated with market-anarchists / anarcho-capitalists/ libertarians.
I think we need to gather all the suggested names into a stickied thread somewhere, & take the debate there (or make this thread that stickied thread & continue).
Really, how so? I mean besides our shared want for the dissolution of the state, I can’t think of thing we have in common with other anarchist. Face it we’re not anarchist, we’re voluntaryist! It’s really not that bad, I mean the anarchist movement can’t see that it’s a relic of the past and honestly believe that thier more important than they are.
What the OP said with regard to the psychology of “framing,” is true.
On the other hand, don’t forget the “repetition principle,” and “familiarity effect,” (I think those are the terms) also well known to psychologists. The more something is repeated and the more one is familiar with it, the more likely it is to be perceived as valid.
I’m in favor of exposing people to definitions of anarchy they are unfamiliar with and they (hopefully) will gradually start to think of it as valid after repeated exposure. If we try to jettison it, I bet it will come flying back in our face; ie others will use it as a perjorative and since we have not defended it we’ll be stuck in an awkward situation.
I also think libertarian is a good term to keep; it’s a hot commodity now! This is purely anecdotal but it seems to me that a lot of people who are the farthest thing from libertarian are trying to say “oh, I’m a bit of a libertarian at heart…” This is an indication that the word is has a lot of positive associations; else why would people try to hijack it? Now would be the worst time possible to give it up.
