I seriously doubt whether half of the anarcho-capitalists I know have ever read Rothbard or Mises.
Because… they generally are just repeating “conversation” libertarianism. Like stuff that libertarians say on Facebook and Tumblr.
…and usually don’t understand the actual theory when we start talking.
What you are essentially saying is that people who aren’t Rothbard or Mises (who wasn’t an AnCap) can’t independently conceive the idea of anarchy or Anarcho-capitalism?
The beauty of anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is very logical. One can easily deduce the theories and ideas of anarchism single handedly, without ever having to be introduced to the great thinkers of libertarianism.
Anarchy is logic.
Even Anarchy should be voluntary.
I think that if you really think about and respect the idea of anarchism or voluntaryism then you are understanding of the idea that some people actually want government, despite the known downfalls and that if these people are willing and open to government then we have to accept that fact and allow them to have a government. Just like we accept that some people want to do drugs and do so much that they overdose. Their habit, their problem.
What I can’t accept, however, is when they try to push their love and dependence on government on to others who don’t want that coercive force in their life and try to force them to live under an unwanted system for the so-called “good of society”.
Likewise, the same theory can be applied to any and everything. For example, if people want public school or a Federal Reserve and they don’t mind a percentage of their income being taken for that purpose, we, as anarchists or voluntaryists shouldn’t have an adverse reaction to that. We should first ask if they know what the downfalls are, and if they do then we can only move on.
If we were to try and force them to give up their statism then we’d be no better than the statists who try and force people into government indoctrination. In other words, using force is wrong no matter what, even when trying to “free people”. They might have a completely different set of ideals and they might feel free in a system that we feel entrapped in.
This is why I don’t support violent revolution. This is why I don’t support Coup d’états. This is why I’m not a fan of “killing for freedom” or “bombing for peace”. If the idea of liberty and freedom is so good, the people will embrace it without force. If it’s not what they want, then we failed either as a philosophy or in our ability to teach it. We need an intellectual revolution, as Ron Paul says. We need an awakening of the minds and a warming of the hearts.
I guess at this point we can infer that if we aren’t able to teach or convey the message of liberty and voluntary interaction, free markets and statelessness that our only choice would be to pull a John Galt leave the system that isn’t for us and find a new territory, with like minded people and a system that we can believe in and live by.
I’m hoping for the prior.
This message brought to you by alcohol.
We’re supposedly shutting down ALL of government “due to sequestration.” Please don’t tease me with such marvelous possibilities.
I have to politely disagree. As nice as that would ultimately be, the short run implications of elimination of all government would be devastating. People are just too dependent.
It’s probably fair to say that most anarchists would agree with that, and think the same way. We don’t expect, or even want, a full and automatic shut down all at once. It has to be gradual, but inevitable.
To me sometimes, it seems the big fight isn’t the government itself. Rather it’s the people who have so blindly & consistently bought the propaganda as truth, voluntarily let themselves be led to social & financial slaughter, and became a cheerleader for coercion, violence, and murder who are the battle. It’s getting them to see the truth. The more that people wake up and realize we, as the people, far out number and can ultimately out think the state, the more change then begins to happen.
As Ernest said, anarchists with a the ability to logically reason know that a sudden closure of government would create chaos and probably lead to something worse than the current form of government and not toward a peaceful, anarchist society.
You can’t force people into anarchy just like you can’t force people to follow the orders of the state. Force is wrong regardless of the outcome and is always an unsustainable system.
The only sustainable revolution is a peaceful one. The only peaceful revolution is a intellectual one.
The path to a peaceful anarchist society is to teach people the benefits of a stateless society and also tell them of the negative aspects (yes, there are negative aspects). But it’s best to be honest. We have truth on our side and so long as people are willing to listen and understand, peace and liberty will eventually win out. Might not be this year, this decade or even in my lifetime, but it will happen. It must happen. Or the human race is doomed to wipe itself out of the universe.
Explain the appeal of anarchism without using the letter ‘e’.
“Individual autonomy is paramount to social stability and human dignity. Anarchism supports this goal, that’s had through a combination of voluntary association and working-class solidarity against all forms of involuntary subordination.”
What do I win?
“to be had”
Markets are nothing more than the collective action of society and ethics are the collective belief of that society, than there’s no one to blame for unethical behavior of the market than society as a whole.
Therefore, if one wishes to clean up the market of unethical behavior, one shouldn’t punish the market with regulations. Instead, one should try to teach society to embrace and practice better ethics.— We need ethical evolution, not market regulation.