“it was littered with this kind of irritating militancy.”
Oh the irony.
I mostly just call myself a “capitalist” because the truest form of capitalism occurs sans state.
I don’t use the word ‘capitalist’ to describe my position because, to me, it doesn’t seem to be a political persuasion. It’s an occupation and an economic function. I know of the reasons Mises gave for accepting the use of ‘capitalism’ to describe the free market, and they are reasonable, but I don’t think that transfers over to ‘capitalist’.
Spring/summer 2008. I stopped being a minarchist when I stopped trying to figure out how anarchy could work.
I tell people I am an anarchist. I usually follow up with some statement about how social relations are possible without violence, and that peaceful society cannot be created by force.
I’ve always been an anarchist at heart. Very early on I saw authority without limits as a problem. I first self identified in 2003, though that wasn’t the end of it. As for what I identify with in public, it ranges but if I’m pushed to be frank, I say I am an anarchist.
Oh the irony.
Did I say something wrong?
Militancy is aggression, which is how the state works. Anarchy is liberty and non aggression, the opposite of the state. So for anarchists to be militant…
Anarchy is liberty and non aggression, the opposite of the state.
Yes, strict liberalism and the state are utterly incompatible. No statist can be a libertarian, IMO.
Consistently, they can’t be. But humanity is plagued with inconsistent ideas, so I accept minarchists as libertarians, although inconsistent. We can’t reject what is so close to us. Anarchism was born out of anti state thinking which originated from minimal statists.
Call classical liberals statists, but without them, anarchist thinking would never exist. They just never got that far, as many minarchists do.
But humanity is plagued with inconsistent ideas, so I accept minarchists as libertarians, although inconsistent.
I do not accept them. I do accept that they have liberal ideas. Obviously I am not going to dismiss Mises because he believed in a Night Watchman State. I agree with them when they criticize the State, when they attack managerial meddling in people’s affairs, and so forth. However minarchism itself is the fundamental fantasy that took us from liberal revolution to a centralized North American empire. This is more important than arguments over land abandonment and the existence of interest; this is the most total and fundamentally anti-liberal premise being shoved into liberalism; it will corrupt liberalism to the core if allowed to persist.
We can’t reject what is so close to us. Anarchism was born out of anti state thinking which originated from minimal statists.
I don’t want to ban them from writing in the Freeman, but I would say it is a disservice not to constantly point out the fundamentally incompatible nature of their schemes with liberal polities.
Call classical liberals statists, but without them, anarchist thinking would never exist. They just never got that far, as many minarchists do.
- There were anarchists before the ascent of classical liberalism. Epicurus, for example. A market anarchist, I might add.
- It is true that statist-classical liberals added much to the liberal theoretical tradition: economic, sociological, legal and ethical arguments. But in doing so they contradicted their own statism with every word. Lamentable as it may have been, we can ascribe much of it to a lack of a clear view of alternatives and infatuation with republican humanism. This, however, is an excuse that minarchists do not have.
I will have to check this Epicurus guy out, sounds interesting.
I will have to check this Epicurus guy out, sounds interesting.
He has an ethical and social view that combines egoism, voluntaryism, utilitarianism, consequentialism and natural law by demonstrating that the logos of the world and humans do not generate contradictions between these. Though particular situations might generate tensions.
About 2004-2009.
“Militancy is aggression, which is how the state works. Anarchy is liberty and non aggression, the opposite of the state. So for anarchists to be militant…”
Non-state entities can be aggressive, no? That’s not really what I meant by “militant”. They were cloistered, ignorant and (sometimes) violent…and the anarchy appellation for them was mostly for fashion.
Plus, you can always make the argument that a politcal belief system that rejects private property outright is inherently militant, but there’s steps involved in that equation that I’m not smart enough to take.
Before I realised how many completely insane “anarchists” there were.
If there were less, would you stick around?
Have you picked a new label immune from insanity?
If there were less, would you stick around?
Absolutely.
Have you picked a new label immune from insanity?
Not immune, less marred though. Voluntaryist. Rothbard was right back in the 50’s in my opinion.
Will you change labels when all the crazies call themselves Voluntaryist?
Will you change labels when all the crazies call themselves Voluntaryist?
There already are crazies that call themselves that. Socialists and Sarte-types.
Will you change labels when all the crazies call themselves Voluntaryist?
I’m going to have to. I’m not going to waste much time defending terms over ideas.
I’m going to have to. I’m not going to waste much time defending terms over ideas.
Why not just define your terms and let those too lazy to investigate your substantive opinions wallow in their ignorance?