Self-Identifying as an anarchist

[Seth King]

I know there are a lot of people that don't like the word "anarchist." And I wouldn't blame anybody for calling themselves an agorist or voluntaryist or whatever. But here is one more good reason why I love using the word anarchist that I had never thought of before.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/68945.html

[helio]

Very good point!

Although I think autarchist is technically more satisfying for me.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I've recently started using Free Market Anarchist since I tend to get bludgeoned over the head with all kinds of ad hominem attacks when I say Anarcho-Capitalist.

[Veritas Justitia]

I for one proudly identify as an Anarchist. I use other labels such as Libertarian, Capitalist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Agorist to help specify my views, worldview, ideology, whatever. I think a great way to look at it, as Roy Childs put it in his letter to Ayn Rand, an archist is one who believes they can initiate violence/coercion/force and an anarchist is someone who believes initiation of force is immoral, therefore illegal. So I'd say I definitely self-identify as an Anarchist.

[helio]

The Anarcho-communists/syndicalists might disagree with you on the meaning of anarchist =)

Of course, nobody has a monopoly on language so I prefer to not use a label because it can mean any number of things to different people.  Around an-caps I know, I am fine with anarchist.  I prefer to just be known as somebody who is for Absolute Individual Ownership of Body, Mind, and Posessions.  Hmm maybe that makes me a AIOBMP.  Ok, counting the minutes before some other group takes over MY 'AIOBMP' word... tick.. tock..tick.. 


Can you imagine, being forced to get a license to be able to use a word or phrase or combination of letters?
Copyright, Trademark  you say?

Man, those statists are just too quick.

[MetallicaFan]

I always like to call myself a nonarchist because I think I differ with most anarchist anyways and this is the kind of title I think my beliefs should be given - that being giving complete power to the individual.

[helio]

Welcome to the forum MetallicaFan! (I am also fan of said band).

I differ with most anarchist anyways

How so? I'm always interested in hearing about new flavors of anarchy.

[MetallicaFan]

Welcome to the forum MetallicaFan! (I am also fan of said band).

I differ with most anarchist anyways

How so? I'm always interested in hearing about new flavors of anarchy.

Thanks for the welcome. LOL New flavors.

Well I've always held, based on the teachings of people like Buddha, Gandhi, and Jesus of Nazareth (no he is not God) that human justice is highly corruptible and incomplete. Inevitably, for absolute freedom, people should be left to their own devices - compeltely devoid of law. But then the problem arises; this would lead to chaos eventually. Hence I beleive people should in fact use the state at hand in order to destroy it - not in any Bolshevik sense, but in a democratic diffusive sense - ie people utilize the state and pull it apart with the will of people as they develop greater understanding of justice.
Eventually, with the pursuit of greater education and the pursuit of general well being of society (hence I take a mostly individualist utilitarian approach to most issues). Thus people would retain only what is deemed absolutely necessary and hopefully disband justice systems that impose forms of power and domination altogether. That being said, I think any economic system that creates the most good for society but is most fundamentally based on the freedom of the individual should be pursued.
I haven't quite made up my mind to what extent capitalism is that system one should pursue. I find myself almost always in agreement with libertarian philosophy, but quite often libertarians seem to contradict themselves, as well as anarcho-capitalists, in so far as freedom for the individual is impinged. I dont think self-interest should be the cornerstone idea of society but rather the pursuit of happiness.

So to summarize (sorry for the long personal treatise) I call myself a nonarchist because I beleive any establishment should be compeltely tuned for the freedom of the individual, which inevitably means the ultimate pursuit of every individual is complete anarchy for society. Establishing that anarchy, for me, is the only question that needs an answer.

[helio]

Thanks for sharing your views with me.  One statement made me curious.

often libertarians seem to contradict themselves, as well as anarcho-capitalists, in so far as freedom for the individual is impinged.

What kinds of contradictions?  I'm always interested in finding any contradictions in my thought process, and rooting them out.

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

I for one proudly identify as an Anarchist. I use other labels such as Libertarian, Capitalist, Anarcho-Capitalist, Agorist to help specify my views, worldview, ideology, whatever. I think a great way to look at it, as Roy Childs put it in his letter to Ayn Rand, an archist is one who believes they can initiate violence/coercion/force and an anarchist is someone who believes initiation of force is immoral, therefore illegal. So I'd say I definitely self-identify as an Anarchist.

Referenced letter to Rand: http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/racolar.html

[Seth King]

Welcome to the forum Metallica!

How do you feel about civil disobedience?

[MetallicaFan]

Welcome to the forum Metallica!

How do you feel about civil disobedience?

Could you define civil obedience?

[MetallicaFan]

Thanks for sharing your views with me.  One statement made me curious.

often libertarians seem to contradict themselves, as well as anarcho-capitalists, in so far as freedom for the individual is impinged.

What kinds of contradictions?  I'm always interested in finding any contradictions in my thought process, and rooting them out.

Well it depends what kind of libertarian you are. I've always felt capitalism can work fine, you just need complete government withdrawal, and instead legal structure that protects the individual for the reality of economic conditions. One point of the contradictions that emerge is the overpowering of business or of workers (through unions etc) economically in which either side has coercive ability to dictate in near absolutist terms what they want. For example, a worker should have the right to negotiate his terms of work, but should not be able to employ an organization, like a union, to bully his way to unfair means of employment. But on the flip side, business cannot be left unbounded in its success, as an economy dominated by powerful industry inevitably has all the power it needs to enforce the lowest conditions of employment that it chooses. I hope that makes sense.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

@ Formerly Brainwashed: That open letter you posted was a throw down!!! Thanks for sharing

@ MetallicaFan:

but should not be able to employ an organization, like a union, to bully his way to unfair means of employment. But on the flip side, business cannot be left unbounded in its success, as an economy dominated by powerful industry inevitably has all the power it needs to enforce the lowest conditions of employment that it chooses. I hope that makes sense.

Unions are not inherently coercive, and in a free-market would likely die anyways though. Powerful industry without gov't will not acquire the power to "enforce" the lowest conditions it chooses. Markets decide wages and conditions. It's all about markets. Suspicion of concentration of power is important, but don't forget the economic realities of what we can expect without a state. The "powerful big businesses" we see today would lose their power without the state. If there's anything we can be certain about, it's this.

[FormerlyBrainwashed]

Interestingly enough, Childs supposedly "changed his opinion" despite his rock solid "open letter to Rand." Though many ARI die hards would say this so-called change was certain, there is no recorded refutation, or, counter argument from him to his original argument in defense of anarchism.

In either case, it doesnt matter if Childs did or did not have a lapse of reason, his [original] argument was sound. Below is a good link that describes some of the story about his alleged change of opinion.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/eboa_preface_5.htm