I'm a libertarian who has always found the word anarchy repugnant in relation to a free society, i.e., one without territorial monopolies on the use of force, aka the state.
Why? Because anarchy is, in a word, unmarketable.
Yes, I understand anarchy's original meaning, but look at what you get when you google the word:
an·ar·chy
noun
1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
2. absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Notice the first definition? There's a reason it's first, which is that this is what the vast majority of people think of when they hear the word:
That's right, when the people think absence of government, they think "lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil."
Which is to say that libertarians might as well be trying to bring back the Ayds lozenge ...
... in the aftermath of its infamous homonym.
Thus does the libertarian community need to rid itself of a word that long ago surrendered its original meaning to the one that prevails today, accept the fact that refusing to do so is self-defeating, and come up with a marketable alternative.
What would that alternative be? What is a marketable word for a rule of law based not on coercion but on cooperation?
I think the answer is obvious, but in the spirit of fun, I invite your suggestions.
Hi! I am a content-detection robot. This post is to help manual curators; I have NOT flagged you.
Here is similar content:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anarchy
Pretty sure people around here already decided on Voluntaryism...
If that were so, then one would at least expect the word to appear under "tags and topics," which it doesn't, whereas both anarchy and anarchism do.
Strange, there's plenty of topics tagged with it: https://steemit.com/trending/voluntaryism
Maybe it's because no one uses it first because everyone's more familiar with anarchy?
My point is that almost everyone is familiar with anarchy, and it's the last thing they ever want to have happen to them. So why dig a hole at the outset by trying to sell it to them as something they would want?
Right, which is why a lot of people here are using Voluntaryism...