Well, yeah, kind of there is. For one thing “capitalism” doesn’t fully express the details. It doesn’t necessarily suggest anarchism. And this is to say nothing to the hundred different ways people define it today. Just listen to Michael Moore. “Capitalism” not only doesn’t do a very good job of fully expressing your political philosophy, plenty of people already assume it means something that it doesn’t even say in the dictionary.
I talk a bit about “capitalism” and relaying the concept to ignoramuses here.
My question is, why is having a label so important in the first place?
If your goal is really educating people, I don’t really see labels doing much to help that process. In fact I don’t see them doing much more than potentially harming it. The way you describe this scenario is very romanticized and unrealistic. If these people were such truth seekers, and were so easily able to be reached through logical appeal and reason, why are they advocating for the return of Stalin and Che?
Just who are these “average American[s] who believe that capitalism works”? Even people who would say they are “pro-capitalism” or “pro-free market” will openly advocate bailout, subsidies, regulations, drug laws, drone strikes, militarism…this is so far against what someone who subscribes to “voluntarism” believes in, it’s utterly foreign. When you say “There is someone in every family that has a relative who KNOWS that they were able to provide an opportunity and a chance of a better future for their children because of CAPITALISM”…I think that is really stretching it.
We have a President preaching “you didn’t build that”, and you think people are walking around crediting “capitalism” for their relative prosperity? I’m not sure you really appreciate what we’re dealing with here.
Some say the same thing about the minarchists you seem to think are allies.
I’m not completely positive what you mean by this, but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong.
I think Gary Johnson is kind of shooting for the same thing with his whole “you’re libertarian, we’re libertarians, be libertarian with me” campaign…trying to convince people that they already agree with him. I mean it kind of has an appeal, as on the surface it would seem that convincing people to change their minds is quite a bit harder than simply convincing them they’re already on your side and are just using the wrong words.
But I’m not sure how effective that is…especially when, again, people are literally outright saying “I’m pro-intervention”.
I’m not sure exactly how you think you’re simply going to “trick” people into being anarchists by the cunning use of definitions.
I say again, why are labels so important? Why can’t you just relay the ideas? People will come to terms with terms on their own.
From The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread: