Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

[ProIndividual]

Look, I know anarchism isn't the most popular idea in the world, but I tend to think we are rather disdained on this forum. Maybe it's just me...I am rather new (first impressions can be deceiving).

For any of you who consider yourselves anarchists (you can use any label you want, but you know who you are), do you feel like you are disliked by a lot of other folks here?

Anytime we talk about immigration, borders, free trade, monopolies on money, monopolies on social contracts, etc., etc., certain things are said. Usually we are called "internationalists" (contradictory; how can an anarchist be a nationalist of any kind?), or accused of holding unAmerican views, or not being patriotic (as if nationalism is patriotism, which it isn't), etc.

Then the generalizations...

(paraphrase) ' There are a lot of anarchists on this site, no border, free trade until we die, half-liberals on here. They want one world government and don't know it.'

or

'They aren't here to help Ron Paul, they are here to advance their own agenda.'


I mean, I thought this whole "Revolution" thing was about ideas...maybe it's just me.

And the word LOVE is highlighted in that word "Revolution"...so where's the love?

All you minarchists (paleocons too, neocons not so much; to me neocons are liberals), I want you to remember: you are anti-State too! You don't take it as far as we do, but compared to neocons and other assorted liberals, we are nearly genetically indistinguishable!

All I'm asking of anarchists is to say whether or not they feel disliked (not that this is unusual...lol).

All I'm asking of minarchists is to give us a break...we DO support Ron Paul, we do work to spread the message, we do agree with you on like 80-99% of issues (depending on how minarchist you are, or are not), and we do love our country (to us, that means the people and excludes government).

I think we spend way too much time arguing with each other based on labels (he's a paleocon/anarchist so he can't know anything of worth), rather than debating real tangible facts. The debates are awesome, don't get me wrong, and I want all the passion in the world in that....but the labels are shutting out reason (on both sides).

This is why libertarians never win elections and can't organize. We seem to have fixed the organize part, now let's fix the WIN part. This can't hurt that cause, right?

Anyway, I'm just as guilty as anyone, so I'll try my best to stop being closed minded to others based on their beliefs overall, instead of taking them an issue at a time and paying attention to hard facts only.

Or maybe I'm just completely batshit...that's always possible too...lol.

 

[1836]

I can only speak for myself and not for anyone else who wouldn't consider themselves an anarchist as I do not.

However, I think a state is necessary to enforce contracts, provide for the common defense, and ensure the redress/control of externalities.

In the present time, I think all of us would be considered fairly "anti-state" and I would embrace that term too. However, if we did happen to live in a time when the big issue of the day was how small government should be and not how large, I know that I would be on the front lines advocating for a minimalist, but strong, government with a well-worded constitution that was adhered to as law. A government that would have a lot of trouble passing much of anything that would increase its size.

In other words, a government much like that which our founders set up is about right; the Constitution isn't perfect, but it is the best governing document the world over.

The fundamental problem with anarchy is that it leaves the very protection of our rights up to voluntary associations; that leaves far too much room for abuse and tyranny by some over others. If you believe our rights are inherent, and I do, then I think it is absolutely necessary to have a state to protect them.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system

 

[freshjiva]

Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia, and the people of Somalia aren't exactly thriving despite a completely free market in currency and trade, no taxes, and no regulations.

Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.

That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I'm a minarchist(I think) who likes anarchists. Who knows how many books I have that were written by anarchists(Woods, Murphy, Rothbard, ect...). Most of them are actually principled, and don't have their pet issues(tariffs, immigration, marriage, ect...). This place would be untolerable at times without them.

Still though, I think that whoever originally invented the ideology could have picked a more attractive name. It's also bothersome(to me) when some have 10,000 posts on this board and still refuse to vote in a private primary for Paul.

The arrogance on both sides frequently seen is quite annoying as well.

 

[Johncjackson]

Because the closest example of true anarchy currently exists in the geographic region known as Somalia, and the people of Somalia aren't exactly thriving despite a completely free market in currency and trade, no taxes, and no regulations.

Anarchy works in theory but not in practice.

That being said, I'm very sympathetic to anarchism it is indeed the most principled and consistent, and because I do agree the State does more harm than any other entity in the world; but if peace and prosperity can be attained with a minimal invasion of personal liberty in the presence of a State, which is exactly what a Constitutional Republic achieves, anarchy is no longer needed nor desired.

Actually I've read positive coverage of Somalia on LvMI (mises.org). I don't know my point of bringing that up exactly, but I find a lot of anarchists as well as the more.. um, I guess social-conservative anti-immigration types ( sorry if I'm mislabeling anyone there) find something to support their viewpoint from LvMI and LRC, which have written both in favor of anarchism and statism ( and troubling police state authoritarianism) depending on... I don't know.

 

[BamaAla]

I've been a member here shy of a year and have been lurking since 2008. With that said, I haven't seen a great deal of anger or disdain thrown at the people that consider themselves anarchists. There have been robust and heated debates between anarchists and everyone else, but not to the point to get butt-hurt over.

 

[Carehn]

To me it seems the anarchist have an upper hand on this forum. Maybe we can organize into some entity in order to impose are beliefs on the rest of you seeing how we have the upper hand.. Er... hold on a sec.

 

[angelatc]

I mean, I thought this whole "Revolution" thing was about ideas...maybe it's just me.

A

The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours. People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy. But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected. It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war. They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it." I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

As a voluntaryist, I can generally get along with both minarchists and anarchists. In the long run, I don't think either will work for everyone. The minarchists should keep their government to themselves and the anarchists can take care of their own property and never the twain conflict. JMO

 

[AuH20]

The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours. People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy. But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected. It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war. They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."

I don't think you should be so hostile to our anarchist friends over a few differences, which I chalk up to as naivete as opposed to some subversive agenda. The anarchists in this forum bring coherent thought for the most part and boundless energy to the discussions here.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours. People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy. But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected. It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war. They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it."

Well, that's not entirely true. Some anarchists see voting as "defensive" and use elections/political debates to advance their ideas. Rothbard, for example. Walter Block also believes that voting can be justified if done for the right reasons. Also, some of the best Constitutional scholars are/were anarchists of some sort(like DiLorenzo and Woods), and the Ron Paul movement would be lacking quite a bit of intellectual ammunition without them.

 

[angelatc]

I don't care what the hell they believe. When it moves to Philosophy and out of General Politics, I won't post any more.

 

[BuddyRey]

But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected. It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war. They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

That may be true for some anarchists, but on the day that Ron Paul wins the Presidency, it will be one of the happiest days of my entire life (ranking up there with the birth of my baby sister, and my dad surviving leg vein surgery.) In fact, I'll have to strongly resist the urge to douse myself in Salisbury steak gravy and Truffle Shuffle my way down Central Avenue.

 

[AceNZ]

If you had to put a label on it, I'm a minarchist, I guess -- and yes, I have been consistently attacked for my beliefs.

The problem I have with anarchists is that anarchy has generally and successfully been used in the past as a tool of collectivists. It's viewed as a necessary step on the way to socialism, communism or some other collectivist utopia. I realize that's not what most anarchists here advocate, but the differentiation is not crystal clear to me, and I'm sure others have the same problem.

I also think the anarcho-capitalists really haven't thought the whole thing through in enough detail. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I see some problems that appear to be insurmountable if one's goal is to live in a peaceful, productive and civilized society.

 

[Sentient Void]

I don't feel hatred or anger towards me as an anarchist in this forum, though I definitely notice some marginalization (mostly from the admins). That said, it's hard to marginalize a group that not only brings some serious, logical, economic, consistent etc approach to the debates here, but it's also difficult to successfully marginalIze this group which has such a large and intellectual presence here as well.

As for the claims about all anarchists rejecting voting and electoral politics, that's not only flat out wrong of members here on the forum (such as myself, see my most recent blog post), but also wrong of some of the most prominent and influential libertarian anarchist thinkers that have already been mentioned.

The Rothbard article (posted by Wesker1982) in this philosophy forum ('Do you Hate the State') i feel covers this whole issue pretty well.

 

[Sentient Void]

If you had to put a label on it, I'm a minarchist, I guess -- and yes, I have been consistently attacked for my beliefs.

Really? Where? Here? I'm honestly surprise by this, as there are farrr more minarchist type libertarians on this board than any other.

The problem I have with anarchists is that anarchy has generally and successfully been used in the past as a tool of collectivists. It's viewed as a necessary step on the way to socialism, communism or some other collectivist utopia. I realize that's not what most anarchists here advocate, but the differentiation is not crystal clear to me, and I'm sure others have the same problem.

Anyone that is 'using Anarchy as a tool' to further *any* ends, particularly collectivist ones - aren't really anarchists, no matter how much they stamp their feet and claim to be so. Note any self-proclaimed 'anarchists' who get their panties all up in a bunch when government regulations are repealed or their welfare checks might stop coming.

'anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy.' - Murray Rothbard

Anarchocapitalism is a tautology. All other 'versions' of anarchy such as 'anarchocommunism', 'anarchosyndicalism', and 'anarchosocialism' are not anarchy, they are oxymorons based in crypto-statism. Economic theory shows this, as well as history and the legacy left by all attempts at such alleged versions of 'anarchy' - and no 'no true Scotsman fallacies' can save these philosophies from these facts.

I also think the anarcho-capitalists really haven't thought the whole thing through in enough detail. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I see some problems that appear to be insurmountable if one's goal is to live in a peaceful, productive and civilized society.

If you actually read any Rothbard, Block, Kinsella, et al - you wouldn't be saying that. There are tons of free books online in PDF format, so ultimately there is no excuse for believing such a thing.

If you are legitimately interested, we can recommend some stuff for you. Again - free and very easily accessible.

 

[playboymommy]

That may be true for some anarchists, but on the day that Ron Paul wins the Presidency, it will be one of the happiest days of my entire life (ranking up there with the birth of my baby sister, and my dad surviving leg vein surgery.) In fact, I'll have to strongly resist the urge to douse myself in Salisbury steak gravy and Truffle Shuffle my way down Central Avenue.

wish I could give you rep for this

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Actually I've read positive coverage of Somalia on LvMI (mises.org). I don't know my point of bringing that up exactly, but I find a lot of anarchists as well as the more.. um, I guess social-conservative anti-immigration types ( sorry if I'm mislabeling anyone there) find something to support their viewpoint from LvMI and LRC, which have written both in favor of anarchism and statism ( and troubling police state authoritarianism) depending on... I don't know.

h/t, Wesker

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Really? Where? Here? I'm honestly surprise by this, as there are farrr more minarchist type libertarians on this board than any other.



Anyone that is 'using Anarchy as a tool' to further *any* ends, particularly collectivist ones - aren't really anarchists, no matter how much they stamp their feet and claim to be so. Note any self-proclaimed 'anarchists' who get their panties all up in a bunch when government regulations are repealed or their welfare checks might stop coming.

'anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy.' - Murray Rothbard

Anarchocapitalism is a tautology. All other 'versions' of anarchy such as 'anarchocommunism', 'anarchosyndicalism', and 'anarchosocialism' are not anarchy, they are oxymorons based in crypto-statism. Economic theory shows this, as well as history and the legacy left by all attempts at such alleged versions of 'anarchy' - and no 'no true Scotsman fallacies' can save these philosophies from these facts.



If you actually read any Rothbard, Block, Kinsella, et al - you wouldn't be saying that. There are tons of free books online in PDF format, so ultimately there is no excuse for believing such a thing.

If you are legitimately interested, we can recommend some stuff for you. Again - free and very easily accessible.

Well said, again, SV.

Apparently, I must spread some rep around before giving it to you, again.