Should minarchists and anarchists unite?

[dalebert]

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

That's actually been my approach for some time now.  When there are tactics we can agree on, we can work together.  When they're doing something I don't believe in, I'll just stay out of that.  I will likely express my opinion about said tactics but I won't badger or troll them about it.  I expect no different in return.  If I'm doing something you believe in, help out.  If not, don't.  Problem solved.

[Chaz Munro]

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

That's actually been my approach for some time now.  When there are tactics we can agree on, we can work together.  When they're doing something I don't believe in, I'll just stay out of that.  I will likely express my opinion about said tactics but I won't badger or troll them about it.  I expect no different in return.  If I'm doing something you believe in, help out.  If not, don't.  Problem solved.

It seemed kinda vague what "unite" meant to me. North & South Korea want to unite but to the North it would mean that they all go commie, and the not-so-glorious leader Mr. Kim gets to boss around and impoverish while enslaving the south.

I wonder what our friend meant by "unite".

[Cognitive Dissident]

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

That's actually been my approach for some time now.  When there are tactics we can agree on, we can work together.  When they're doing something I don't believe in, I'll just stay out of that.  I will likely express my opinion about said tactics but I won't badger or troll them about it.  I expect no different in return.  If I'm doing something you believe in, help out.  If not, don't.  Problem solved.

It seemed kinda vague what "unite" meant to me. North & South Korea want to unite but to the North it would mean that they all go commie, and the not-so-glorious leader Mr. Kim gets to boss around and impoverish while enslaving the south.

I wonder what our friend meant by "unite".

yup

[LTKoblinsky]

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

That's actually been my approach for some time now.  When there are tactics we can agree on, we can work together.  When they're doing something I don't believe in, I'll just stay out of that.  I will likely express my opinion about said tactics but I won't badger or troll them about it.  I expect no different in return.  If I'm doing something you believe in, help out.  If not, don't.  Problem solved.

It seemed kinda vague what "unite" meant to me. North & South Korea want to unite but to the North it would mean that they all go commie, and the not-so-glorious leader Mr. Kim gets to boss around and impoverish while enslaving the south.

I wonder what our friend meant by "unite".

You are purposely distorting the context of this conversation. This isn't about Minarchists ruling over Anarchists till kingdom come. Its about both parties being on the wrong side of the current mess. Remember my tug-o-war analogy?

[Chaz Munro]

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

That's actually been my approach for some time now.  When there are tactics we can agree on, we can work together.  When they're doing something I don't believe in, I'll just stay out of that.  I will likely express my opinion about said tactics but I won't badger or troll them about it.  I expect no different in return.  If I'm doing something you believe in, help out.  If not, don't.  Problem solved.

It seemed kinda vague what "unite" meant to me. North & South Korea want to unite but to the North it would mean that they all go commie, and the not-so-glorious leader Mr. Kim gets to boss around and impoverish while enslaving the south.

I wonder what our friend meant by "unite".

You are purposely distorting the context of this conversation. This isn't about Minarchists ruling over Anarchists till kingdom come. Its about both parties being on the wrong side of the current mess. Remember my tug-o-war analogy?

Were you referring to my post? If so please understand that I really didn't know what the original poster meant by "unite". I only could state my take on it based on what I know about unity. I am unaware of your "tug-o-war analogy" and have not posted to this BBS often enough to have an understanding of it or even to have read and remembered your post.

 

[alaric89]

Dude, it's because of your cartoon that I use the term "minarchist" at all.

Bad habit I picked up from others.  I'm trying to break myself of it though.

I just think it's a more accurate term.  Does it bother you?

Its just that I use "statist" as a insult a lot. Putting a "mini" in front of it doesn't sound so good like calling yourself a "mini dusjbag".
But it would be easier to explain to a layman....
Tell you what, we can start calling ourselves "mini statist" and anarchist start using Drifter's new word.

[gibson042]

I just think [mini-statist] [is] a more accurate term.  Does it bother you?

I figured out my issue with the term: it's not more accurate. The "min" prefix in "minarchist" is short for "minimum" (cf. Latin minimus, "smallest"—mixed roots FTL), while the "mini" prefix in "mini-statist" is short for "miniature" (ultimately from Latin minium, "Pb₃O₄ red lead"). So your average non-politician Republican would be a mini-statist, but not a minarchist.

[Cognitive Dissident]

To me it matters what is meant when the term "unite" is used. Do I have to compromise my (anarchist/voluntaryist) beliefs to stand next to a minarchist at a protest or outreach? Of course not. So why not unite if I don't have to go against my principles?

That's actually been my approach for some time now.  When there are tactics we can agree on, we can work together.  When they're doing something I don't believe in, I'll just stay out of that.  I will likely express my opinion about said tactics but I won't badger or troll them about it.  I expect no different in return.  If I'm doing something you believe in, help out.  If not, don't.  Problem solved.

It seemed kinda vague what "unite" meant to me. North & South Korea want to unite but to the North it would mean that they all go commie, and the not-so-glorious leader Mr. Kim gets to boss around and impoverish while enslaving the south.

I wonder what our friend meant by "unite".

You are purposely distorting the context of this conversation. This isn't about Minarchists ruling over Anarchists till kingdom come. Its about both parties being on the wrong side of the current mess. Remember my tug-o-war analogy?

Don't tell me what I'm purposely doing.  I know what I'm doing.  I'm telling you "unite" is the wrong fucking word.

[Pizzly]

Hey now, I didn't mean for semantics to get in the way here. I'm simply wondering if there is a point to finding common ground. I know there are anarchists in the Tea Party movement, but I have been thinking it is pointless as many of them believe in the existence of the state. Whether or not they desire a minimal state, they still believe in the legitimacy and desirability of some arbitrary state involvment.

It's like being an abolitionist, it's difficult to find common ground with someone who only wishes to provide better treatment for slaves but not recognizing their freedom in the first place.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Hey now, I didn't mean for semantics to get in the way here. I'm simply wondering if there is a point to finding common ground. I know there are anarchists in the Tea Party movement, but I have been thinking it is pointless as many of them believe in the existence of the state. Whether or not they desire a minimal state, they still believe in the legitimacy and desirability of some arbitrary state involvment.

It's like being an abolitionist, it's difficult to find common ground with someone who only wishes to provide better treatment for slaves but not recognizing their freedom in the first place.

Just to be clear, and I appreciate the clarification, my irate posts were not in response to you at all--the first question was, and I appreciate the response.  Your response seems sensitive to my point (probably your original point.) 

I'm not sure there's any real value in trying to find much common ground, except to realize if they're close enough to what we'd consider real liberty (and you'll learn this on a one-to-one basis, over time) they're probably worth at least keeping in contact with and bouncing ideas off of.  Some of them get calcified, as you'll see with various posters here.  However, some of us actually change over time, and for many of us, that means becoming more stateless.

My libertarian "mentor" became anarchist around the time I was coming around to only "essential services" (military, courts, cops, IP and that's about it.)  I think when I accepted that IP was silly, especially as a state function, it was easier to see that the overt violence wing of the state was unlikely to be the best way to get what I wanted, and a paper on free market justice and defense broke the camel's back.  Discussion with him about these issues (and reading what he sent) probably advanced me several years, in terms of struggling to "get where I am now."

Nevertheless, sending anarchist literature to minarchists and arguing with them about it may have the same negative effect that prosthelytizing full-on statists has, so treading lightly is probably advised (I mean--you know how their statism annoys you.)

Still, I don't want to make light of the value minarchists bring.  They probably communicate better with full-on statists, and there are benefits to a less abusive master, if and when they can manage it (insert MMJ message, etc., here.)  It's just that you and I tend to be jaded and we tend to see almost as much harm in appeasing the state as help.

[dalebert]

I don't have a problem with the goal.  A less powerful and less intrusive State is a wonderful thing, IMHO.  What it comes down to is a difference over tactics.  Sometimes I can agree and sometimes I think someone's being counter-productive.  AND, that's true of both mini-statists and anarchists.  There are anarchists who I believe sometimes engage in bad/counter-productive tactics.  I decide on a case-by-case basis what I will support or not.  Don't presume that every activist in Keene, for instance, is in agreement about everything.  We absolutely are not.  More and more, people are speaking up in dissent of certain activities and brainstorming ideas for potentially better ones.

The tug-of-war analogy is seriously flawed.  It's greatly over-simplified to say that we're are on the same side until States are really small and at that time we (mini-statists and anarchists) can decide whether to fight each other.  If I don't like your tactics, your goals are almost completely irrelevant.  It's not a rational argument to say "we want the same things so you must do things MY WAY".  I don't necessarily agree that the "way" is effective regardless of the extent to which our goals match.

[alaric89]

As a Representative of the mini-dusjbags... I mean mini-statists let me clarify that if we achieve a micro- administrative society I have no intention of going after morons for anything, ever. I agree we should work together for a commen goal.

[alaric89]

Here is a long but worthwhile debate on the OP subject, between Stefan Molyneux and Michael Badnarik. For anybody still interested. I am the first to admit Stefan would have killed me in a similar debate but I thought Michael won it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc
If any Morons, I mean Anarchist watch and feel depressed check out Gardner Goldsmith's Native American series on The Liberty Conspiracy. (link to the right there) That will cure any pro government thoughts for a while.