I'm an Anarchist. That means I believe:
- That there are rules, but not rulers
- That all human interactions should be voluntary
- That the Free Market is the best method for organizing society
- That win/win scenarios are the best option
- That money represents the value asset of time
- That you don't own a claim on another's labor
- That property rights are the foundation of a peaceful soceity
- That I own my own body
- That aggression towards children is still aggression
- That monopolies are created by the government
- That rights have nothing to do with race, creed, color, religion where where you were born.
- ...and that rights are never granted, but only taken away.
But guess what? That's not how 99% of people view an anarchist. They see it like this, the way the media portrays it.
Now, my question is this. Knowing that "anarchy" (and more specifically Anarcho-capitalist) is the most logical, peaceful and ethically consistent framework for society...should we keep using the word to label ourselves?
Should we fight to re-define the work "anarchy" and "anarchist" or should we give it up? Has the government and mainstream media co-opted it to the point that we are doing ourselves a disservice by using it? Do too many people already associate (both mentally and emotionally) with the molotov cocktail throwing, cop car flippers?
Is it a fight worth fighting? If not, what is a better label? Voluntaryist? Pretty difficult to spell and pronounce.
What do you think? Where should we plant our flag? Who are we? Leave it in the comments :)