Market Anarchism, not Anarcho-Capitalism?

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

Market anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism are generally held as concepts that are one in the same, much like voluntarism, to many, is an Anarcho-capitalist based philosophy as well. However, when examined from a broader viewpoint, market anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism are not mutually exclusive concepts. Anarcho capitalists and market anarchists can support each other and work to develop a voluntary society based on specific ideas, but being a market anarchist does mean that you NEED to have undying support for an cap. You can be market an and be a mutalist, for example. With this in mind, I'm curious: how many of you identify more as neutral market anarchists that strict Anarcho-capitalists? Do you believe in simplying using markets, and leaving the rest to people to decide what society should arise?

[ff42]

I don't label myself as either.  The only thing I subscribe to is "Do not initiate harm". 

[Rothbardian]

Strict political Anarcho-Capitalist here, in the original Rothbardian conception of the term.

[Mark Stoval]

Strict political Anarcho-Capitalist here, in the original Rothbardian conception of the term.

Then your screen name is well chosen. Accident of fate?

[Mark Stoval]

I don't label myself as either.  The only thing I subscribe to is "Do not initiate harm". 

I loved your answer.

"First do no harm" is a phrase that I have typed a million time in my life I bet. My pagan ancestors used to say "as you harm no one, do as you please".

If we ever reach anarchy were there is no armed gang of thugs called 'The State' and we leave force and coercion behind us, then I don't care what we call the natural society that arises. Hell, let us call it "the dictatorship of the individual" for all that it would matter at that point.

"Free-markets" just means let everyone engage in voluntary, peaceful trade and cooperation. How can anyone be against that?? (but I know most are even if they don't realize it)

[Argus]

I don't label myself as either.  The only thing I subscribe to is "Do not initiate harm". 

I loved your answer.

"First do no harm" is a phrase that I have typed a million time in my life I bet. My pagan ancestors used to say "as you harm no one, do as you please".

If we ever reach anarchy were there is no armed gang of thugs called 'The State' and we leave force and coercion behind us, then I don't care what we call the natural society that arises. Hell, let us call it "the dictatorship of the individual" for all that it would matter at that point.

"Free-markets" just means let everyone engage in voluntary, peaceful trade and cooperation. How can anyone be against that?? (but I know most are even if they don't realize it)

I agree.  I'm terrible with labels. Labels allow people to pigeon-hole you into their particular worldview without seeking to discover what you actually believe (another weakness of the partisan system).  That's why when I have conversations about religion, I never say I'm an atheist. I answer specific question about my beliefs surrounding the god concepts but once you are labeled as an atheist you may as well be equated with a serial killer and eater of babies.

In fact, I am too lazy or unwilling to try to figure out the many labels I see bandied about on these fora (ancap, agorist, minarchist, voluntaryist, et. al.) I'm with Mark: I don't have a label. I have a set of beliefs centered around non-harm.  On occasion, I have told people I'm a Taoist since most can't compute what that even entails.

@ Black&Gray:  Leave it all up to individuals. They can figure it out on their own.

Peace: Argus the Unlabel-able

[Freya]

I don't think theres any label that would put me in with a group of people that I would feel accepted in. I'm distancing myself from the label anarcho-capitalism/libertarian precisly for the reason that among people who label themselves such there are many many people that I have to defend my existance from and that would rather deny or have I not exist at all.

That may sound pessimistic but it's the truth in my case. Theres so much that is supposedly "wrong" with me that I do not really fit into any label. To hell with labels, I'm just me.

[Argus]

To hell with labels, I'm just me.

Oh I see...so you're one of those "Me-ists!"   Also, judging by your nickname, I am assuming we can label you as a Norse goddess?

Kidding. 

In our current society that has consigned the art of critical thinking to the dustbin of "Whatever, Dude," you don't have to worry about labeling yourself...the state will do the job for you ... like it or not. 

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if forum users here are not automatically on some govt. label list as potential subversives (whoa, I forgot my anti-paranoia pills).

Peace,
Argus

[Freya]

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if forum users here are not automatically on some govt. label list as potential subversives (whoa, I forgot my anti-paranoia pills).

It's not paranoia when its the reality. The fact remains that the chance discrimination or violence against me is much greater then your avarage Joe. I do not often feel safe. At least not safe enough to truly be myself.

Also, judging by your nickname, I am assuming we can label you as a Norse goddess?

I guess so, considering its my real life name as well . Or at the very least wannabe norse goddess.

[bastiat]

I belief in the nonaggression principle combined with a very weak form of utilitarianism; that being said I strongly suspect the results would be very similar to the current one but generally better and without the abuses of statism.  companies would look rather similar to how they look now and despite the possibility of radical inovations I suspect much of what the state does now would be done privately in a similar but probably better and certainly more ethical way. For example while home schooling would probably be more common I suspect most children would be taught in a similar way to how they are now.

[LegesNullae]

I use a variety of labels depending on the situation, but the one with which I am most comfortable is Market Anarchist. I accept the Austrian school and the Subjective Theory of Value as being the most valid economic positions, but I could be perfectly happy living in any free market anarchist variant. Because of this, I associate/collaborate with Capitalists as well as Mutualists.

(On that note, I recently joined the Agorist-Mutualist Alliance group on Facebook; it should be an interesting group to check out if you're into Facebook.)

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Obviously no label is perfect, but when push comes to shove, I choose market anarchist (I have used Austro-anarcho-libertarian in the past just to confuse people and keep them from judging me, but I don't consider myself Austrian anymore).

Also, I didn't understand the explanation for how it differs from anarcho-capitalist...

Anyways, I don't think of myself as a capitalist, because it's a misnomer. I don't own a large amount of capital, and I don't believe in placing capital on any sort of privileged pedestal. I support free markets, with no specific attachment to any factor of production.

"Modern" society is more productive not just because capital became more available. It complements labor. Capital just happened to be the limiting reagent up to the start of the industrial revolution. Likewise if their was some sort of disease that went around and wiped out 90% of the population, labor would be the limiting reagent, since we'd have machinery and goods lying all about. What we would need is people to operate them and maintain them.

[Seth King]

"Modern" society is more productive not just because capital became more available. It complements labor. Capital just happened to be the limiting reagent up to the start of the industrial revolution. Likewise if their was some sort of disease that went around and wiped out 90% of the population, labor would be the limiting reagent, since we'd have machinery and goods lying all about. What we would need is people to operate them and maintain them.

Interesting.

Anarcho-Laborism. 

[JustSayNoToStatism]

"Modern" society is more productive not just because capital became more available. It complements labor. Capital just happened to be the limiting reagent up to the start of the industrial revolution. Likewise if their was some sort of disease that went around and wiped out 90% of the population, labor would be the limiting reagent, since we'd have machinery and goods lying all about. What we would need is people to operate them and maintain them.

Interesting.

Anarcho-Laborism. 

Hell yeah. We can use that term to pander to the leftists and get their attention.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 From an idealistic point of view, I do identify as an anarcho-capitalist. I simply use the term market anarchist because, in the end, not only are markets the most effective way of bringing about change, the position gives me the ability to be more open with other anarchist ideals.