Name this idea: No state, free market

Anarchism

4 (15.4%)

Anarchocapitalism

9 (34.6%)

Free-marketeerism

2 (7.7%)

Acracy

1 (3.8%)

Panarchy

1 (3.8%)

FOCJ

0 (0%)

Mutualism

0 (0%)

Market Anarchism

5 (19.2%)

Self-government

2 (7.7%)

Agorism

0 (0%)

Anarchocommunism

0 (0%)

Anarchosyndicalism

0 (0%)

Voluntary Government

2 (7.7%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Zhwazi]

I didn't bitchslap you. But now that I think about it you totally deserve it.

[BKO]

Bastard.

I TOTALLY ate your fucking eyes, though. I applauded you after humiliating you in such an emote fashion.

/brokor poops.
/I say poops.
/emote poopies.

Dammit. Ian, Lindsey, I forget how the emote shit works on this forum after just remembering it should work. After a year or so of never using it more than that one time I did.

[markuzick]

The most common definition of anarchy is the absence or failure of government, resulting in a state of chaos, confusion and disorder, so unless one is addressing libertarians who are familiar with the non-aggression principle, it's important to be clear that anarchism is based on the idea of voluntary, non-monopolistic, competitive governments. The purest expression of this idea, one that is also intuitively understandable to people who are not well versed in abstract concepts, is "voluntary government", which should be contrasted with the State which represents the principle of "aggressive government". Self government is too confusing, as it gives the impression that it only applies to individuals, not organized groups.

I vote for "voluntary government".

[wtfk]

Wrong and right at the same time.  It does not apply to groups.  Groups don't have rights.  Individuals do.  Thus, groups only have rights in the sense that the individuals in them do.  The idea that groups have rights is, in large part, the reason we're in this gigantic socialist mess.

Self Government, thus, is not confusing at all.  What's more, it prompts the person hearing the term to ask himself why it sounds novel--the answer, of course, is that it is a rare form of (something you're on record as liking) government without coercion.

[mrapplecastle]

Anarchism
I've changed my mind, but have already voted 

I would name that idea, Liberty.

[voodoo]

ANCAP - easy, universally hated, don't care.

[markuzick]

Wrong and right at the same time.  It does not apply to groups.  Groups don't have rights.  Individuals do.  Thus, groups only have rights in the sense that the individuals in them do.  The idea that groups have rights is, in large part, the reason we're in this gigantic socialist mess.

Self Government, thus, is not confusing at all.  What's more, it prompts the person hearing the term to ask himself why it sounds novel--the answer, of course, is that it is a rare form of (something you're on record as liking) government without coercion.

Individuals certainly do have the right to free association with others in the form of organized groups. Self government, in the wider context of all forms of voluntary government, is a fine thing, but self government, out of this context sounds too much like the leftist or anti capitalist form of anarchism where any form of rules or organization is rejected as evil. It fits in well with the popular definition of anarchy as a lack of or failure of government, resulting in chaos, violence, confusion and disorder.

[wtfk]

Wrong and right at the same time.  It does not apply to groups.  Groups don't have rights.  Individuals do.  Thus, groups only have rights in the sense that the individuals in them do.  The idea that groups have rights is, in large part, the reason we're in this gigantic socialist mess.

Self Government, thus, is not confusing at all.  What's more, it prompts the person hearing the term to ask himself why it sounds novel--the answer, of course, is that it is a rare form of (something you're on record as liking) government without coercion.

Individuals certainly do have the right to free association with others in the form of organized groups. Self government, in the wider context of all forms of voluntary government, is a fine thing, but self government, out of this context sounds too much like the leftist or anti capitalist form of anarchism where any form of rules or organization is rejected as evil. It fits in well with the popular definition of anarchy as a lack of or failure of government, resulting in chaos, violence, confusion and disorder.

Did I say individuals lack the individual right of freedom of association?

I don't read into "self-government" any of the confusion you do, and I don't see where you get "leftist" or "anti capitalist."  Money and property aren't mentioned.

[freeAgent]

Anarchism. No modifiers needed.

Agreed.  I don't believe in specific forms of anarchy, but I do believe that specific systems could theoretically develop within anarchy.

[wtfk]

...anything except forms of government rule because then it wouldn't be anarchy.

[markuzick]

Wrong and right at the same time.  It does not apply to groups.  Groups don't have rights.  Individuals do.  Thus, groups only have rights in the sense that the individuals in them do.  The idea that groups have rights is, in large part, the reason we're in this gigantic socialist mess.

Self Government, thus, is not confusing at all.  What's more, it prompts the person hearing the term to ask himself why it sounds novel--the answer, of course, is that it is a rare form of (something you're on record as liking) government without coercion.

Individuals certainly do have the right to free association with others in the form of organized groups. Self government, in the wider context of all forms of voluntary government, is a fine thing, but self government, out of this context sounds too much like the leftist or anti capitalist form of anarchism where any form of rules or organization is rejected as evil. It fits in well with the popular definition of anarchy as a lack of or failure of government, resulting in chaos, violence, confusion and disorder.

Did I say individuals lack the individual right of freedom of association?

I don't read into "self-government" any of the confusion you do, and I don't see where you get "leftist" or "anti capitalist."  Money and property aren't mentioned.

It's your implied antipathy to the concept of organized forms of government, even though non-aggressive and your preference for limiting voluntary government to solitary individuals ( BTW: Congratulations on your commendable acknowledgement that government need not be aggressive.) that would indicate a bias against structured civilized order and businesses any larger than a sole proprietorship that is more characteristic of leftist anarchy than libertarian anarchy. I'm sure you didn't have that in mind, but your claim that organizations do not have rights, while conveniently ignoring the fact that these organizations are composed of individuals with the right to freely associate sure makes it seem that way. Your preference for the term "self government" as a means of avoiding the use of the more general "voluntary government" which already encompasses the category of "self government" further enhances that impression.

[wtfk]

Wrong and right at the same time.  It does not apply to groups.  Groups don't have rights.  Individuals do.  Thus, groups only have rights in the sense that the individuals in them do.  The idea that groups have rights is, in large part, the reason we're in this gigantic socialist mess.

Self Government, thus, is not confusing at all.  What's more, it prompts the person hearing the term to ask himself why it sounds novel--the answer, of course, is that it is a rare form of (something you're on record as liking) government without coercion.

Individuals certainly do have the right to free association with others in the form of organized groups. Self government, in the wider context of all forms of voluntary government, is a fine thing, but self government, out of this context sounds too much like the leftist or anti capitalist form of anarchism where any form of rules or organization is rejected as evil. It fits in well with the popular definition of anarchy as a lack of or failure of government, resulting in chaos, violence, confusion and disorder.

Did I say individuals lack the individual right of freedom of association?

I don't read into "self-government" any of the confusion you do, and I don't see where you get "leftist" or "anti capitalist."  Money and property aren't mentioned.

It's your implied antipathy to the concept of organized forms of government, even though non-aggressive and your preference for limiting voluntary government to solitary individuals ( BTW: Congratulations on your commendable acknowledgement that government need not be aggressive.) that would indicate a bias against structured civilized order and businesses any larger than a sole proprietorship that is more characteristic of leftist anarchy than libertarian anarchy. I'm sure you didn't have that in mind, but your claim that organizations do not have rights, while conveniently ignoring the fact that these organizations are composed of individuals with the right to freely associate sure makes it seem that way. Your preference for the term "self government" as a means of avoiding the use of the more general "voluntary government" which already encompasses the category of "self government" further enhances that impression.

I hesitated before even contributing because I figured you'd pick at the old scab.  Your claim that I indicated government had to be aggressive is just as false as the last time you made it.  That whole fiasco you caused was by castigating me for using government as it's used 99.997% of the time--in reference to coercive force.

You can falsely infer whatever you want about what "self-government" means, just as you made the false inference above.  That doesn't mean everyone else will.

[markuzick]

Wrong and right at the same time.  It does not apply to groups.  Groups don't have rights.  Individuals do.  Thus, groups only have rights in the sense that the individuals in them do.  The idea that groups have rights is, in large part, the reason we're in this gigantic socialist mess.

Self Government, thus, is not confusing at all.  What's more, it prompts the person hearing the term to ask himself why it sounds novel--the answer, of course, is that it is a rare form of (something you're on record as liking) government without coercion.

Individuals certainly do have the right to free association with others in the form of organized groups. Self government, in the wider context of all forms of voluntary government, is a fine thing, but self government, out of this context sounds too much like the leftist or anti capitalist form of anarchism where any form of rules or organization is rejected as evil. It fits in well with the popular definition of anarchy as a lack of or failure of government, resulting in chaos, violence, confusion and disorder.

Did I say individuals lack the individual right of freedom of association?

I don't read into "self-government" any of the confusion you do, and I don't see where you get "leftist" or "anti capitalist."  Money and property aren't mentioned.

It's your implied antipathy to the concept of organized forms of government, even though non-aggressive and your preference for limiting voluntary government to solitary individuals ( BTW: Congratulations on your commendable acknowledgement that government need not be aggressive.) that would indicate a bias against structured civilized order and businesses any larger than a sole proprietorship that is more characteristic of leftist anarchy than libertarian anarchy. I'm sure you didn't have that in mind, but your claim that organizations do not have rights, while conveniently ignoring the fact that these organizations are composed of individuals with the right to freely associate sure makes it seem that way. Your preference for the term "self government" as a means of avoiding the use of the more general "voluntary government" which already encompasses the category of "self government" further enhances that impression.

I hesitated before even contributing because I figured you'd pick at the old scab.  Your claim that I indicated government had to be aggressive is just as false as the last time you made it.  That whole fiasco you caused was by castigating me for using government as it's used 99.997% of the time--in reference to coercive force.

You can falsely infer whatever you want about what "self-government" means, just as you made the false inference above.  That doesn't mean everyone else will.

Government is either an aggressive organization or a voluntary one. You cannot escape that logic.   Once you accept the notion that government isn't necessarily aggressive, then you've accepted the concept of voluntary government.

[wtfk]

Stop being obstinate as you did before.  I'm not trying to escape any logic.  I'm resisting your characterizations:

• that government is frequently used to refer to something which lacks monopoly use of coercive force.  (It is not.  While that falls within the definition of the term, it's almost always used to refer to municipalities, states and federations.)
• that I claimed government only meant something which uses coercive force.  I made it very clear, before and now, that I'm aware the definition includes so-called self-governing bodies with voluntary membership.

Neither premise is true.  The trollish behavior in which you keep trying to assert these is completely asinine.  I specifically said, earlier in the thread, that the reason I believe self-government is a good term (created by the Advocates for Self Government, I suspect, not by me) is because people tend to use "government" to refer to monopoly coercive force, and the use of "self-government" causes people to think about what it implies (I.E., you don't need someone controlling you by force, and you don't need to control others by force.)

Congratulations!  You've managed to completely derail another thread with your pedantic, trollish behavior.

Addendum: It's time for you stop being obstinate and realize no matter how much people like you jump up and down, the masses aren't going to change the common uses of terms like "anarchy" and "government" simply because their etymological roots are different than the common usage.  You'll annoy far fewer people and make much more headway by choosing terms and behaviors which promote thought, not argument.

[Zhwazi]

The standard line "Show me a voluntary state and I will no longer call myself an anarchist" applies here.