I'm becoming more radical with time

[benny215]

I started out growing up a religious conservative but as time goes on I find myself shifting. From Neocon to Libertarian and now teetering on the Libertarian/Anarchist edge. At this point I just don't know if I trust any amount of government or authority not to manipulate their power to benefit themselves.

I hate calling myself an anarchist because there's that high school angst rebellion stigma to it, but I think that's what I honestly am at this point. Anyone else find themselves going through this?

 

[tod evans]

Anyone else find themselves going through this?

Yeah about 35yrs ago.....now I'm a skeptic.

 

[squirekyle]

I started out growing up a religious conservative but as time goes on I find myself shifting. From Neocon to Libertarian and now teetering on the Libertarian/Anarchist edge. At this point I just don't know if I trust any amount of government or authority not to manipulate their power to benefit themselves.

I hate calling myself an anarchist because there's that high school angst rebellion stigma to it, but I think that's what I honestly am at this point. Anyone else find themselves going through this?

Benny, this video really helps explain the different types of Government, no matter what your beliefs are on each of them, but it goes into detail as to why the Republic has been the best form, everyone feel free to check it out... very informative:

 

[dannno]

The word anarchist does have a lot of negative stigma. You can call yourself a voluntarist or voluntaryist, alternatively.

That's sorta what I consider myself, though I have no problem preaching and striving for minarchism as well.

Sort of like if I have a favorite fishing lure, but also really like power bait.

 

[green73]

Congrats. Anarchy is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

anarchy is non-radical.

believing that government solves problems is very radical.

 

[paulpwns]

http://www.livescience.com/17246-radical-extreme-political-labels.html

 

[LibXist]

I went through a similar shift. I went from thinking of myself as a Reagan Republican to an anarchist. I'm still on that edge but the wind is getting stronger and stronger.

 

[Demigod]

Anarchism can never exist cause always people will tend to organize into groups so they can fulfill their hopes and dreams.There has never been an society without hierarchy in human history.

 

[acptulsa]

The more fascist they get, the more minarchist you get? Well, congratulations. I now pronounce you aware, sentient and sane.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Congrats. Anarchy is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

I couldn't have said it better myself, so I'm not even gonna try.

 

[Xenophage]

I've developed the opinion that the form of government is irrelevant. All that matters is the prevailing moral attitude of the individuals within a society. Neither minarchy nor anarchy can exist for long if 90% of the population believes in slavery, servitude and collectivism.

I do, however, believe that capitalism is impossible without a standard set of objective laws protecting contracts and property. Compare it to IEEE standards in computing devices that allow many manufacturers to work together and develop compatible hardware, and it's all voluntary, but it's a rational agreement. Once such a legal framework exists, mitigating force and fraud, capitalism can flourish. Also, such a legal framework is comparable to minarchism.

I've never believed 'minarchism' or 'anarcho-capitalism' were ever terribly at odds philosophically.

 

[affa]

i'm effectively an anarcho-syndicalist here. (simplified -- create tempory authoritative structure to accomplish complex tasks, then disband... also a bit more focus on community and labor issues than your standard anarcho-capitalist). i also end up disagreeing (in some ways) with standard libertarian thought in regards to property... but I also recognize that our end goal is very similiar, and we simply differ a bit on how that's accomplished. more importantly, i recoginize Ron Paul is the practical real-world solution, theory be damned.

but i've been radicalized for a very long time... a couple decades, really. if anything, Ron Paul has opened my eyes in regards to the merits of something more along the lines of anarcho-capitalism, though, ultimately, i still lean left on that. but again, that's splitting theoretical hairs when our actual liberty is at stake, as it is today in every way imaginable today.

however, i agree with one thing -- once you truly understand liberty, you will find yourself shifting ever closer to an anarchist position on every issue. This is not a bad thing; government agents have spent many eons misrepresenting anarchy as something to avoid at all cost (a police state is even promoted as preferable!) rather than something to strive for.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

I've developed the opinion that the form of government is irrelevant. All that matters is the prevailing moral attitude of the individuals within a society. Neither minarchy nor anarchy can exist for long if 90% of the population believes in slavery, servitude and collectivism.

this is true. although i personally think it takes less than 90%

 

[Demigod]

i'm effectively an anarcho-syndicalist here. (simplified -- create tempory authoritative structure to accomplish complex tasks, then disband... also a bit more focus on community and labor issues than your standard anarcho-capitalist). i also end up disagreeing (in some ways) with standard libertarian thought in regards to property... but I also recognize that our end goal is very similiar, and we simply differ a bit on how that's accomplished. more importantly, i recoginize Ron Paul is the practical real-world solution, theory be damned.

but i've been radicalized for a very long time... a couple decades, really. if anything, Ron Paul has opened my eyes in regards to the merits of something more along the lines of anarcho-capitalism, though, ultimately, i still lean left on that. but again, that's splitting theoretical hairs when our actual liberty is at stake, as it is today in every way imaginable today.

however, i agree with one thing -- once you truly understand liberty, you will find yourself shifting ever closer to an anarchist position on every issue. This is not a bad thing; government agents have spent many eons misrepresenting anarchy as something to avoid at all cost (a police state is even promoted as preferable!) rather than something to strive for.

This means you are a communist cause that is the communist idea

 

[Jingles]

Yeah, I did the same thing. I went from NeoCon, to traditional conservative, to libertarian, and finally to AnCap in this recent year. Reading more Rothbard, Walter Block, Stefan Molyneux, and listening to more Mises.org lectures eventually just brought to that point.

Once you really fully accept the Non-aggression principle its really hard not to be. I'm just unable to justify any initiation of force anymore especially if it is conducted by the state.

If you are like me and are heavily influenced by Rothbard you can always just call your a Rothbardian if you don't like the anarchist term. I don't mind using Anarcho-Capitalist though. Actually I prefer to use it compared to saying I'm just an anarchist because of how many different flavors of anarchism there are. People typically associate Anarchist with AnSyn's or AnCommies from my experience, so I like to specify. Or you could use the term Austro-Libertarian (I tend to use this quite a bit actually as well).

 

[Revolution9]

I am from the leave-me-the-frak-alone and get yer hand out of my pocket sector of the political spectrum. I like tradition, just not the tradition of corruption and compression or this age of total compliance crap.

Rv9

 

[ryanmkeisling]

Anarchism can never exist cause always people will tend to organize into groups so they can fulfill their hopes and dreams.There has never been an society without hierarchy in human history.

It seems to be a bad idea to try and define what can exist or is possible by looking to the past. The past is not a blueprint for the future.

 

[Southron]

Be careful it doesn't lead you back to apathy.

I would like to think my views are always being shaped. I don't believe I will ever arrive at the point that I have everything figured out.

 

[Demigod]

It seems to be a bad idea to try and define what can exist or is possible by looking to the past. The past is not a blueprint for the future.

Its in our nature to organize into groups and then compete with other groups this can not be changed unless humanity evolves into some creature who does not know the meaning of greed, jealousy and hate.

The most we can do i make the system as small as possible so when corrupt and evil man get the position they would not be able to do much damage.