Is the term "Anarchist" worth fighting for?
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 :)
In Liberty,
Ashe
Well liberals used to be the ones who could take a joke. Now they consider micro-aggression lethal. (Seriously, This was a claim made by a university professor in USSA)
Labels can change and gain many definitions. Original anarchists were an oxymoron (a bunch of commies who just wanted to overthrow the big G) What is loud and clear is the lifestyle. If somebody asks you what you are, present your principles and tell them to call you whatever the hell they want to call you.
At least that's what I do.
That is the very definition of a right. Breath is a right. Freedom is a right. Thinking is a right. UBI and Healthcare isn't.
That's great advise.
Exactly.
It's a wonderful time to be alive isn't it?
I'm not so sure we have to worry. Just living the dream and showing our friends how it's done will probably be enough to grow this ideal into reality. The smart people will come first... and imagine what can be done with them... I have and it's tremendous! Those works are what is going to speak for us!
I fluctuate between anarchist and voluntarist. Dropping the "Y" makes it easier to pronounce while maintaining the root word "voluntary."
Agorist is another good one too. Someone who operates outside government and coercion.
I think it depends on the crowd. Everyone is surprised when I mention anarchy and they find out that I don't shoot cops throw Molotov cocktails at businesses. It makes for a good conversation starter some times.
I will also say that I think the label "libertarian" is almost useless to most. Thanks a lot Gary Johnson.
Well said.
you breifly describe about anarchy ! Despite the fact that turmoil has for quite some time been viewed as an ideological framework difficult to actualize (if not inalienably opposing) and as an immediate reason for various demonstrations of fear based oppression all through history, its thoughts have still been compelling. Truth be told, amid the twentieth century, turmoil, similar to socialism, was viewed as another arrangement of administration that could possibly supplant free enterprise and make a more idealistic culture.
When an average man hear of Anarchist they see them as people with no regard for authority and rule of law, they see them as people who are after breakdown of order. You post has help to clarify that and put them in a better light than what the media portrays
I've loved this quote since I first read it.
"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)." - J.R.R. Tolkien.
I really respect your ideas here. But all these concepts are two sided. For example there can be a thorough opposition for "That I own my own body" where people are not allowed to do whatever the thing they want for their body such as committing suicides. There can be jurisdiction restrictions that can be posed on these ideas which most of the time come in for the betterment of the society we are living in.
Keep sharing your thoughts and to build a community that value freedom above everything else. Keep them coming.
Just some questions ;)
If I understand you correctly, you say that; you or another individual (or group of individuals) can scribble their opinion on paper that say; I may not kill myself? (law)
Do you think that the opinion of others can force me not to commit suicide?
What are you or the other individual(s) gonna do If I don't obey the scribbles.......send the hired mercenaries to make me obey and if I don't obey eventually, they will kill me?
If I don't own my body. (owning meaning having the last word, the highest say)
Then who does own it? You? some other individual(s)?
I think we should throw away any labels, for no matter how we want to call it there will always be the likelihood of people distorting the image. The root issue lies in a consciousness split. It is like ego against Heart. The ego comes from Doing/thinking, while the Heart comes from Being/feeling. So no matter which label we come up with, the ego will find a way to throw mud at it. If not by word then by noisy aggression, for the ego hates losing.
"Hearticists" might be a term, but again, even when it looks crystal clear, the ego's natural propensity towards Separation will find the fly in the ointment.
A label can only be understood when we resonate with its energetic foundations. If we don't we denigrate it.
That is my take on it! You addressed a really interesting question! :)
Karl Max defines politics as the dominant idea of the elites, many people are in support of his view while some antagonised him. My own sentiment is this any state where laws are made to satisfy a few anarchy must surely come into play, because others will feel deprived and this will lead to anarchism, and if we look at most government they are the of the aristocrat they only us it to disarm the people so they could be in control .
You have analyzed anarchy very nicely. There is very little to think about these things in society. I liked this point very well that the time was valued on the property