You’re right that when people hear the word anarchy, they mean chaos. We then clarify that we do not support all possible anarchies, and they conceivably counter that they do not support all possible states. As such, neither ‘anarchist’ nor ‘statist’ really captures anyone’s position. Indeed, most statists have the common sense to identify as social democrats or some other relatively well defined ideology.
So, I liked ‘post statist’, because it emphasizes that governments can be relics of the past, like organized religion. Also that there is this group of people called “statists” who all share a common set of beliefs. Define and conquer. It still suffers from the lack of clarity (what TYPE of post-statism are you arguing for?) but you have a much better chance of making it this far in the conversation since, in their ignorance of the term, you will be asked to clarify what post statism is.
Plus people basically adhere to the whig theory of history. So, post statism = newer = better! Though its kind of an underhanded trick.
At the end of the day, I still go out for voluntarist. When asked to clarify I’ll run it on prudential grounds first, deontology later.
Abandoning the label “anarchist” also allows us to make use of terms like “Hobbesian State Anarchy” found in this illuminating article. It incorporates RT Long’s take on Lockean justifications for government and throws in game theory. It would be the best political philosophy paper ever, except that it starts rambling about objective ethics. The prudential side is very good though.
If your goal is conversation with the individuals who wants you to indentify your political affiliation, you may want to use a couple of those terms given by the OP. Nevertheless, all of them will probably carry different meanings as you travel in and out of different circles, that is, if they even understand the word ( I doubt very many individuals will know what you mean by ‘humanitarian consequentialist’) .
Spreading libertarianism seems to do well in small doses at a time, but this may simply be due to my own inadequacies.
When a person says “no,” that means the way you’re attempting to ‘use’ him is ‘incorrect.’ That’s one important difference between a person and a mineral deposit. Isn’t that ‘objective’ enough?
You pretend to tell us something about ‘ourselves,’ when all you really do is tell us something about yourself.
Translated into less pompous and more truthful language, it becomes:
“Human beings, like everything else, are objects and when I use them for my purposes I exploit them just as I do a mineral deposit.”
For some odd reason Mark, I don’t think resorting to an emotional plea & attempting to guilt morality into Liberte is going to an effective strategy at countering her arguments.
That’s not what I was trying to do, actually, nor do I really think what Liberté said constitutes an ‘argument.’
Notice my emphasis of Liberté’s wording: “we” and “our.” This is just a pompous and pretentious way of talking about oneself.
Using “we” and “our” lends the statement a patina of plausibility, whereas the more truthful form is plainly seen for the boring triviality that it is.
Hope that doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings, but that’s the way I see it.
@OP: I think you generally have good points but I would note that it is important to ask why anarchism has so many negative connotations? You could say it’s the bad behavior of self-labeled anarchists but what of the bad behavior of Marxists who have killed many millions of innocent souls? Why does “Marxism” not conjure the same knee-jerk negative reaction among academics or other groups that “anarchism” does?
I think there are two reasons. First, most people who identify themselves as anarchists or “anti-government” are not… they’re not anti-government, they’re just anti-this-government and only because they’re out of power. Once they regain power, they will be as pro-government as anybody else. The rhetoric of Democrats and Republicans during elections is hilarious, each decrying the other as “totally corrupt” while their constituents stop their ears at the “slander” of the other party. Would that the public only understood the simple fact that both parties are telling the absolute truth about the other during election mud-slinging campaigns! It’s the only time anybody ever says the truth in politics.
Second, consistent, philosophical anarchism - that is, a well-grounded, well-thought-out, principled objection to government as a corruption of law and security resulting in unspeakable human suffering - is really antagonistic to the interests of all those groups who speak negatively of anarchism. There is nothing more terrifying to parasites than the thought of the means by which they feed off the labor of others ceasing to exist. Almost all individuals who rely on state subsidy would be begging in the streets but for that subsidy, that is, they have little or no marketable skills and would be destitute in a society where, as a rule, the produce of the productive accrues to themselves alone. So, even the objective contemplation of the idea of absolute abolition of the State apparatus by such individuals is not possible. They have a vested interest in the State and they incapable of reasoning about the State in an unmotivated manner.
More important than whether people get negative or positive impressions from liberalism based on the names it flies under is the process by which liberty is brought about. Liberty never was the result of political action or even academic evangelism. Liberty is the result of human action under the constraint of scarcity and the pursuit of self-interest. Liberty has been oppressed to one degree or another throughout all history but liberty is inherently unstoppable because it fighting it is fighting nature itself. People are born with free will and no machinations of self-appointed elites can ever change that fact. No amount of “brainwashing” or “propaganda” will change it. Nothing can stop it. If you manage to wipe out freedom in one place, it just flourishes all the more somewhere else. Liberty will be furthered most by the simple pursuit of self-interest. People need no special education or philosophical basis for this.
Oh, and I think family is really important to liberty, as well, but it usually gets short shrift by the egoists and individualists within liberalism.
When a person says “no,” that means the way you’re attempting to ‘use’ him is ‘incorrect.’ That’s one important difference between a person and a mineral deposit. Isn’t that ‘objective’ enough?
Generate a logical proof that demonstrates that the preferences of other individuals can possibly be relevant for the action of other individuals? You can’t do it, another individual’s choosing to or not to continue with their conduct when another person objects (and possibly vocalizes it) would only be achieved by a change in the acting person’s value structure, and would have no direct relationship whatsoever to the person being ‘acted upon’, and there is no relationship of necessity whatsoever outside of general determinism. Basically, your ‘argument’ is non sequitur, and the statements I made follow necessarily and tautologically from the concept of subjective value.
“Human beings, like everything else, are objects and when I use them for my purposes I exploit them just as I do a mineral deposit.”
Yes, as an instance of a purposeful actor this is true, but its equally true of everyone who ever has, does or will exist. Pretending people are anything other than objects, and pretending there is any other kind of action other than that based on irreduceable value judgments based on personal satisfaction may be a common fiction, but it remains that - a fiction.
Another reason why people don’t like philospher’s.
“I think therefore I am”
Who is the I?
If its an object where is it?
People aren’t objects, their bodies may be. But the “I” in people are not.
Another reason why people don’t like philospher’s. “I think therefore I am” Who is the I? If its an object where is it? People aren’t objects, their bodies may be. But the “I” in people are not.
I agree with the OP. I live near and when I tell people that I’m an anarchist most go: “oh, the unemployed hippie junkies that burn cars and riot all day long in ?”, so all that you say its true. My own country too experienced statelessness for a couple of weeks back in ‘97 and the immediate result was far form cool, so people tend to associate a lot with ‘anarchy’.
Yet anarchy has a powerful sound, just the word itself captures the other guy’s attention, such that ‘individualist’ and other such terms will never do. Anarchy is just too interesting to drop.
And than again, people will friggin’ listen when you explain how do ‘your’ anarchy differ from some ‘other’ anarchy and that gives one a great opportunity to explain the basics of ancap. So, all told, going with “I’m an Anarchist!” is almost always the best solution.
For the instances when a drawn-out discussion is not very welcome, or the other party is too conservative (mostly 50-years olds an up) one could just go with ‘parachist’, and give to the term a Misesian secessionist meaning. It will do.
I think Liberté makes a good point in this thread. I find consequentialist arguments more convincing than moral ones usually, although I admit I am not very well read in philosophy (I’m going to read that Friedman article as soon as possible, its long but it looks like a good criticism). I think good evidence of the failure of moral arguments can be found in the common person’s rejection of the idea that “taxation is theft”.
Although I do disagree that “freedom” is a worthless fiction – even fiction provides utility to people. I suppose the question then becomes do we derive more net utility as a result of accepting the fiction or more utility from rejecting the fiction? That is, can common morals be justified from the positive consequences that result from them? I’m not trying to troll or anything, like I said I’m not very well read in philosophy so I’m sure a dozen philosophers have already proposed, shot down, and modified this idea before, so any reading recommendations are appreciated.
To get back on topic though, I’ve always been a fan of voluntaryist.
That is, can common morals be justified from the positive consequences that result from them
From a logical standpoint, this is circular unless one is a consequentialist to begin with. Consequentialism is, in its non-moral versions, totally coherent and I have no arguments against it. I would say there are problems with ‘morality justified by consequentialism’ in that it ignores the vast danger of cognitive dissonance and morality (that is, emotion replacing rather than directing reason) poses and has posed to human society.
I personally am liking Emergentism much more nowadays, as a possibly more accurate term. I think some sort of term that derives the definitions of panarchist, voluntaryist, & emergentism might yield something a bit better.
Curious, so you mean that an argument which says “x is good because it makes me feel good” is a contradictory moral argument because emotion replacing reason (consequentialism) is bad and the former “x is good because…etc.” is a consequentialist argument so it is bad on consequentialist grounds. But this is a contradiction, so where are we now, unless of course I completely misunderstood you.
ancapgeko wrote the following post at Mon, May 3 2010 2:06 AM:
Another reason why people don’t like philospher’s. “I think therefore I am” Who is the I? If its an object where is it? People aren’t objects, their bodies may be. But the “I” in people are not.
