Monday, April 16, 2012

Mob of 'Anarchists' Attack Starbucks

FoxNews is reporting on what it dubs a mob of "anarchists" attacking a Starbucks.




This is the problem with libertarians identifying themselves as anarchists, the term is legitimately used by those identifying attacks on private property, since dictionaries across the board list one definition of anarchists as those who advocate disorder in society.

Any libertarian, who is anti-state, would accomplish much more by identifying himself as being an "advocate of a private property society" or "property person" for short.

20 comments:

  1. Hoppe calls it a "Private Law Society".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anarcho-Capitalist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I prefer Autarchist or Voluntaryist better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was bad enough when socialists started calling themselves "liberals," and now this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even if we did that, the left and right wings try to paint us as anarchists meant as a pejorative to associate us with the socialist variety of anarchist. I get that all the time from my socialist-leaning friends on facebook. My experience is that it's best to go with the improv concept of "yes, and" (yes, I'm an anarchist in the sense that I think people are best served by no, or almost no government, and I believe the functions of government can best be done privately and voluntarily), rather than "no, but."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am also not a big fan of the term anarchist, because it assumes no governance at all. I don't think that libertarians are against governance, rather they are against the monopoly governance of a state, preferring instead the governance emergent from the market itself. This being the only just system.

    In an article written by Murray when he was working for the Volker Fund, he mentioned that he preferred the term "non-archist". However, this still doesn't quite catch it. And, he obviously changed his opinion on the matter.

    To those who are familiar with libertarianism, I tell them that I am a Rothbardian. For those who have no knowledge of political philosophy (which is just about everybody), I simply state that I am an anti-statist, a libertarian, or that I prefer an emergent governance, or a private law system. Most of the time this will at least make them interested in an explanation. However, if you tell them you're an anarchist right off the bat, they will automatically assume that you're an idiot no matter what you say from that point forth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hoppe does indeed refer to it as a "Private-Law Society", and with good reason. For one, as Wenzel notes, the common conception of "anarchy" is the absence of law, and ensuing chaos. The label "private-law society" is much less likely to repel those unacquainted with libertarianism, specifically anarcho-capitalism. And secondly, it addresses the root problem of the state: it's monopolization of security (i.e. law and order). That's the root from which the government weed grows - ripping it out is the only lasting solution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An "advocate of a private property society" or "property person" is still too long to say. Anarchist is fun to say, and it IS correct to say if you consider this:

    Disorder from what is considered "normal" in a society that is not.

    For instance, WE do not live in the same society that our forefathers lived in. Therefore:

    Disagreeing with, or dissenting from that which is "perceived" as normal, from a government and society that has in fact gone quite mad, would indeed be considered an Anarchist. Everyone sees it as Anarchy because of the proverbial Frog in the boiling pot scenario. It's all what you are used to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However, you must ask whether or not archons are still present in a stateless society. I say that they are, the only difference being that the archons are chosen by the market process. I mean, in a private law system you can still be jailed or forced to pay a fine, so it isn't exactly voluntary (at least not for everybody) and it certainly is not without archons.

      Now, you may get a kick out of being rebellious or different from those around you, but that certainly isn't my aim. My aim is to get more people on-board, plain and simple.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I don't think you anyone could be legitimately imprisoned in a private-law system. Putting someone in a cage would constitute a new tort in itself.

      You could be ordered to pay restitution, but even that can be denied, likely resulting in the outlawry of the criminal.

      Delete
    3. The objective history of private law systems says that you're wrong. People have indeed been jailed and/or forced to pay restitution in private law systems.

      Delete
  9. +1 for voluntaryist (voluntarist?)
    To most people the word carries no pre-concieved notion with it. Property person would lead most to assume 'capitalist' which most people think the US economy is already.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anarcho-capitalist. Because it piques the curiosity of the anti-authoritarian leftists, and it scares the Romney Repugnocrats.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Calling yourself an anarchist is a great way to get attention. But only because others will think you're completely psychotic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap) or Rothbardian for me. I was raised a democrat, turned into a republican (in college of all places), after school I became a minarchist/Libertarian and have settled quite nicely into the AnCap or Rothbardian designation. Without a doubt, it fits best.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Every anarcho-capitalist is also an anarchist. But not every anarchist is an anarcho-capitalist. Anyone who doesn't understand that, needs a dictionary and possibly a course in logic. I, for one, refuse to compromise clear and truthful speech for political correctness.

    ReplyDelete