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

[cerpntaxt]

The US! 

[Zhwazi]

The US! 

What does US stand for?

[mrapplecastle]

Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.
Jacob Halbrooks

[cerpntaxt]

The US! 

What does US stand for?

The United States, you know, consent of the governed, that stuff.

[Zhwazi]

The US! 

What does US stand for?

The United States, you know, consent of the governed, that stuff.

Rhetoric does not nullify action. The United States is not voluntary.

[markuzick]

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.

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

The only reason that people use the definition of government as an aggressive organization when referring to institutions of societal organization is because we don't live in a pure anarchy and we tend to focus on the dangerous and scary component of the social structure, which is the State. In so focusing our attention the tendency is to think of organizations that compete with the State as either merely for profit or non-profit businesses, forgetting that they are in the same business as the State, which is government.

There is no need to remind me of the uphill battle that selling the concept of anarchy represents, but I think it should be obvious to anyone that selling the concept of voluntary government, while also an uphill struggle, faces a far shallower gradient, as anarchy is a word with much unfortunate baggage. People hate the concept of anarchy, because they see it as a rejection of government and the chaos and violence that would ensue from this rejection. "Voluntary government" solves this problem and it is a more accurate description of the meaning of libertarian anarchism.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your on.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

[wtfk]

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

I never said such a thing.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

It is not.  Force can be used in self-defense, and when it is, it is not coercive.  You're not a linguist.  Don't pretend to be.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your[sic] on.

The thread was not titled "Bring up old claims that have been refuted while being sarcastic."  You were fine until you made the ad hominem attack involving a pedantic argument you had previously used to misrepresent my position, which you knew would require a response.

BTW, the "church lady" picture in your avatar only makes people feel like smacking you.  In a way, it fits with your irritating rhetorical.

[markuzick]

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

I never said such a thing.

That was the implication.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

It is not.  Force can be used in self-defense, and when it is, it is not coercive.  You're not a linguist.  Don't pretend to be.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? Coercion=force.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·er·cion      /koʊˈɜrʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.   force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your[sic] on.

The thread was not titled "Bring up old claims that have been refuted while being sarcastic."  You were fine until you made the ad hominem attack involving a pedantic argument you had previously used to misrepresent my position, which you knew would require a response.

I'm not making any claims. I'm just stating facts about the concept of "no state, free market" and explaining why believe "voluntary government" is the most logical and self explanatory name for this idea. I didn't invent this idea. It comes from the intuitive reply of nearly every anarchist to the minarchists who claim that the government (meaning the State) can be, theoretically, operated in a non-aggressive fashion, that this would imply that the State would be reformed into a free market, non-monopolistic agency and that this society would be, in effect, an anarchy. I only take the tiny step further, to say that this agency would, in fact, still be a government, but but a privately owned and voluntary government and no longer in the particular class of government known as the State.

BTW, the "church lady" picture in your avatar only makes people feel like smacking you.  In a way, it fits with your irritating rhetorical.

I've been sincere and respectful. You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it, using old material from previous threads that have been thoroughly refuted and, getting no traction with your arguments, have resorted to childish name calling.

[wtfk]

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

I never said such a thing.

That was the implication.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

It is not.  Force can be used in self-defense, and when it is, it is not coercive.  You're not a linguist.  Don't pretend to be.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? Coercion=force.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·er·cion      /ko???r??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.   force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your[sic] on.

The thread was not titled "Bring up old claims that have been refuted while being sarcastic."  You were fine until you made the ad hominem attack involving a pedantic argument you had previously used to misrepresent my position, which you knew would require a response.

I'm not making any claims. I'm just stating facts about the concept of "no state, free market" and explaining why believe "voluntary government" is the most logical and self explanatory name for this idea. I didn't invent this idea. It comes from the intuitive reply of nearly every anarchist to the minarchists who claim that the government (meaning the State) can be, theoretically, operated in a non-aggressive fashion, that this would imply that the State would be reformed into a free market, non-monopolistic agency and that this society would be, in effect, an anarchy. I only take the tiny step further, to say that this agency would, in fact, still be a government, but but a privately owned and voluntary government and no longer in the particular class of government known as the State.

BTW, the "church lady" picture in your avatar only makes people feel like smacking you.  In a way, it fits with your irritating rhetorical.

I've been sincere and respectful. You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it, using old material from previous threads that have been thoroughly refuted and, getting no traction with your arguments, have resorted to childish name calling.

1) It was the implication of what?  You're telling me what I meant, and you aren't even telling me what I supposedly said?

2) Get your nose out of the dictionary and use the brain you suppose to have.  Force can obviously be used in self-defense--and that's not coercion.  Not how it said coercion is to obtain compliance.  Reading is fundamental.

3) Of course you're making claims--the same tired claims you made before that were false then and are now still false.  You used those false claims to attack me, and you're doing it again.

4) Oh sure.  You've been respectful.  You led started in with the attack:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13592.msg243821#msg243821

You say "You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it."  Last I checked we debate ideas here...which was fine until you started mind-reading and picking at the old scab from the previous attack you launched at me.  Now you want to claim the moral high ground--I call BS.  You dug up the material from the old threads, not I.  You made the attacks.

[markuzick]

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

I never said such a thing.

That was the implication.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

It is not.  Force can be used in self-defense, and when it is, it is not coercive.  You're not a linguist.  Don't pretend to be.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? Coercion=force.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·er·cion      /ko???r??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.   force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your[sic] on.

The thread was not titled "Bring up old claims that have been refuted while being sarcastic."  You were fine until you made the ad hominem attack involving a pedantic argument you had previously used to misrepresent my position, which you knew would require a response.

I'm not making any claims. I'm just stating facts about the concept of "no state, free market" and explaining why believe "voluntary government" is the most logical and self explanatory name for this idea. I didn't invent this idea. It comes from the intuitive reply of nearly every anarchist to the minarchists who claim that the government (meaning the State) can be, theoretically, operated in a non-aggressive fashion, that this would imply that the State would be reformed into a free market, non-monopolistic agency and that this society would be, in effect, an anarchy. I only take the tiny step further, to say that this agency would, in fact, still be a government, but but a privately owned and voluntary government and no longer in the particular class of government known as the State.

BTW, the "church lady" picture in your avatar only makes people feel like smacking you.  In a way, it fits with your irritating rhetorical.

I've been sincere and respectful. You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it, using old material from previous threads that have been thoroughly refuted and, getting no traction with your arguments, have resorted to childish name calling.

1) It was the implication of what?  You're telling me what I meant, and you aren't even telling me what I supposedly said?

What you said is there for everyone to read.

2) Get your nose out of the dictionary and use the brain you suppose to have.  Force can obviously be used in self-defense--and that's not coercion.  Not how it said coercion is to obtain compliance.  Reading is fundamental.

The definition of coercion is force, therefore coercion is used in self defence, as in enforcing compliance to your demand made to a mugger to drop his weapon and return his loot.

3) Of course you're making claims--the same tired claims you made before that were false then and are now still false.  You used those false claims to attack me, and you're doing it again.

You've attacked me repeatedly. Show me even one instance where I have initiated an attack on you.

4) Oh sure.  You've been respectful.  You led started in with the attack:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13592.msg243821#msg243821

You say "You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it."  Last I checked we debate ideas here...which was fine until you started mind-reading and picking at the old scab from the previous attack you launched at me.  Now you want to claim the moral high ground--I call BS.  You dug up the material from the old threads, not I.  You made the attacks.

You mean where I engaged you in debate and you, upon loosing, resorted to personal attacks, just as you've done here.

[wtfk]

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

I never said such a thing.

That was the implication.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

It is not.  Force can be used in self-defense, and when it is, it is not coercive.  You're not a linguist.  Don't pretend to be.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? Coercion=force.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·er·cion      /ko???r??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.   force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your[sic] on.

The thread was not titled "Bring up old claims that have been refuted while being sarcastic."  You were fine until you made the ad hominem attack involving a pedantic argument you had previously used to misrepresent my position, which you knew would require a response.

I'm not making any claims. I'm just stating facts about the concept of "no state, free market" and explaining why believe "voluntary government" is the most logical and self explanatory name for this idea. I didn't invent this idea. It comes from the intuitive reply of nearly every anarchist to the minarchists who claim that the government (meaning the State) can be, theoretically, operated in a non-aggressive fashion, that this would imply that the State would be reformed into a free market, non-monopolistic agency and that this society would be, in effect, an anarchy. I only take the tiny step further, to say that this agency would, in fact, still be a government, but but a privately owned and voluntary government and no longer in the particular class of government known as the State.

BTW, the "church lady" picture in your avatar only makes people feel like smacking you.  In a way, it fits with your irritating rhetorical.

I've been sincere and respectful. You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it, using old material from previous threads that have been thoroughly refuted and, getting no traction with your arguments, have resorted to childish name calling.

1) It was the implication of what?  You're telling me what I meant, and you aren't even telling me what I supposedly said?

What you said is there for everyone to read.

2) Get your nose out of the dictionary and use the brain you suppose to have.  Force can obviously be used in self-defense--and that's not coercion.  Not how it said coercion is to obtain compliance.  Reading is fundamental.

The definition of coercion is force, therefore coercion is used in self defence, as in enforcing compliance to your demand made to a mugger to drop his weapon and return his loot.

3) Of course you're making claims--the same tired claims you made before that were false then and are now still false.  You used those false claims to attack me, and you're doing it again.

You've attacked me repeatedly. Show me even one instance where I have initiated an attack on you.

4) Oh sure.  You've been respectful.  You led started in with the attack:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13592.msg243821#msg243821

You say "You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it."  Last I checked we debate ideas here...which was fine until you started mind-reading and picking at the old scab from the previous attack you launched at me.  Now you want to claim the moral high ground--I call BS.  You dug up the material from the old threads, not I.  You made the attacks.

You mean where I engaged you in debate and you, upon loosing, resorted to personal attacks, just as you've done here.

1) You make a claim, you back it up.  You're still going with a baseless claim.

2) You left out the crucial part of the definition again, "to obtain compliance."  Why insist on being dishonest?

3) I provided a link.  Now you can't figure out how to use the internet?

4) I mean where you claimed I was calling self-government a special version of your "voluntary government" of a group of individuals so you could pick at the old scab of the argument you lost after accusing me of making the famous two claims I documented before.  That was an attack, because you knew it was a lie then and you know it's a lie now.  It's a trolling technique.  You proceeded to call me leftist.  This amounted to an ad hominem attack.  Yes you started it this time, just as you started it last time.

[markuzick]

Sorry, but you do not control yourself through aggression.

I never said such a thing.

That was the implication.

BTW: "Coercive force" is a redundancy. Don't use it, as it looks kind of silly. I assume you mean aggression.

It is not.  Force can be used in self-defense, and when it is, it is not coercive.  You're not a linguist.  Don't pretend to be.

Do you know how to use a dictionary? Coercion=force.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
co·er·cion      /ko???r??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-ur-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.   force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Contrary to your claim, my arguments, as put forth above, are on topic, as they are all about the subject of this thread. If you think I've derailed the thread, then I think you've forgotten which thread your[sic] on.

The thread was not titled "Bring up old claims that have been refuted while being sarcastic."  You were fine until you made the ad hominem attack involving a pedantic argument you had previously used to misrepresent my position, which you knew would require a response.

I'm not making any claims. I'm just stating facts about the concept of "no state, free market" and explaining why believe "voluntary government" is the most logical and self explanatory name for this idea. I didn't invent this idea. It comes from the intuitive reply of nearly every anarchist to the minarchists who claim that the government (meaning the State) can be, theoretically, operated in a non-aggressive fashion, that this would imply that the State would be reformed into a free market, non-monopolistic agency and that this society would be, in effect, an anarchy. I only take the tiny step further, to say that this agency would, in fact, still be a government, but but a privately owned and voluntary government and no longer in the particular class of government known as the State.

BTW, the "church lady" picture in your avatar only makes people feel like smacking you.  In a way, it fits with your irritating rhetorical.

I've been sincere and respectful. You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it, using old material from previous threads that have been thoroughly refuted and, getting no traction with your arguments, have resorted to childish name calling.

1) It was the implication of what?  You're telling me what I meant, and you aren't even telling me what I supposedly said?

What you said is there for everyone to read.

2) Get your nose out of the dictionary and use the brain you suppose to have.  Force can obviously be used in self-defense--and that's not coercion.  Not how it said coercion is to obtain compliance.  Reading is fundamental.

The definition of coercion is force, therefore coercion is used in self defence, as in enforcing compliance to your demand made to a mugger to drop his weapon and return his loot.

3) Of course you're making claims--the same tired claims you made before that were false then and are now still false.  You used those false claims to attack me, and you're doing it again.

You've attacked me repeatedly. Show me even one instance where I have initiated an attack on you.

4) Oh sure.  You've been respectful.  You led started in with the attack:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13592.msg243821#msg243821

You say "You, on the other hand, didn't like my opinion and engaged me in a debate about it."  Last I checked we debate ideas here...which was fine until you started mind-reading and picking at the old scab from the previous attack you launched at me.  Now you want to claim the moral high ground--I call BS.  You dug up the material from the old threads, not I.  You made the attacks.

You mean where I engaged you in debate and you, upon loosing, resorted to personal attacks, just as you've done here.

1) You make a claim, you back it up.  You're still going with a baseless claim.

You claim that government is almost always referred to in the aggressive sense. So either you're claiming that the advocates for self government are using my preferred definition of government, in which case you should troll them as you troll me, or you are claiming that they believe that you control yourself through aggression. Which is it?

2) You left out the crucial part of the definition again, "to obtain compliance."  Why insist on being dishonest?

Does this mean that making a simple word substitution to bring my example into compliance with your exact wording is beyond your mental capabilities?

The definition of coercion is force, therefore coercion is used in self defence, as in enforcing obtaining compliance to your demand made to a mugger to drop his weapon and return his loot.

3) I provided a link.  Now you can't figure out how to use the internet?

It won't help. I already know that you'll claim that my disagreements with your beliefs or your logic are personal attacks. Your reply #4 is a typical example of your intolerance of disagreement and your paranoia.

4) I mean where you claimed I was calling self-government a special version of your "voluntary government" of a group of individuals so you could pick at the old scab of the argument you lost after accusing me of making the famous two claims I documented before.  That was an attack, because you knew it was a lie then and you know it's a lie now.  It's a trolling technique.  You proceeded to call me leftist.  This amounted to an ad hominem attack.  Yes you started it this time, just as you started it last time.

I know you're not a leftist. I didn't call you a leftist. I only said that your arguments for favoring the phrase "self government" over "voluntary government" could logically be interpreted as favoring leftist anarchism. If you're going to take every disagreement as a personal affront, then you'll never evolve as a person nor get along with other people.

[wtfk]

Just like the last time, I'll be the man and let live in your fantasy world.  Enjoy!

[lapafrax]

If you want another result, don't vote, ask for it, and I'll add it.

This deserves a fresh start.

My personal input on the topic:

Market anarchism is the best term because it includes all potential systems that could result.

Anarchy, while it doesn't mean chaos, certainly doesn't explicitly exclude it, and is too closely attatched to TV-friendly anarchists.
Anarchocapitalism implies a certain vision of the post-state world that are not necessarily results of a stateless free market.
Free-marketeerism isn't very well used, and as far as I know Ian invented it, and nobody outside FTL really uses it much.
Acracy and Panarchy are not self-explanatory like many of the other potential words are.
FOCJ (Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions) also implies a certain post-state vision that might not appear.
Mutualism's "anti-capitalism" rhetoric earns it a bad name. Avoid this term unless you want to be specific.
Market anarchism is self explanatory, implies no predictions of the structure of post-state society, so this is my pick even though I'm an agorist.
Self-government is also self-explanatory, implies no predictions of the structure of post-state society, another one I really like.
Agorism is too specific, once again, implies yet another vision of post-state society.
Ancom and ansyn included just because I've found ancoms and ansyms that advocate market anarchism in practice, if not in theory.

As a "market anarchist" I call myself a voluntaryist because it removes the popular stigma of the word anarchy in the layman's eyes and undermines the left anarchist argument that "market anarchist" is an oxymoronic term.