For as long as there has been libertarianism, there have been petty divisions and splinter groups and we have been much less effective because of them. If you believe in the core philosophical foundations of libertarianism, (self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, voluntaryism) then all of this is just silly noise. I'm sick of it. It's time to unite around freedom and end the trash-talking and divisiveness. It's time to unite everyone who genuinely cares about freedom enough to understand it properly.
Let's start with the word "anarchist." In its most direct definition, the root word "anarchy" means no rulers. So an "anarchist" is someone who believes that people should not rule others or be ruled by others. Simple, right? Through centuries of deliberate propaganda by those who want to rule us, this word has come to be associated with chaos. The suggestion is that without the violent control of rulers, society would be chaotic. Obviously, the opposite is the case. More importantly, to the idea of libertarianism: I have not heard a single definition of libertarian that means someone who believes we should have rulers. So yes, if you're a libertarian who believes we shouldn't be ruled, that humans should be free ... you're an anarchist. The terms are synonymous!
Of course the issue is a bit more complex than this. Some people define anarchism to mean the believe in a stateless society, or a society without government. This is where this turns into a silly semantic argument that we will put an end to right here and now. There is not a single genuine, thoughtful anarchist in the world who would claim to own the word "government" and say that you cannot form a voluntary coalition of peaceful people and create an organization and call it "government." So when an anarchist says they want a world without government, they specifically mean what we commonly use the word to describe, not "organizational government," "corporate government," or "voluntary government."
So when a "minarchist" says that they want government to perform certain social functions, but to do so voluntarily rather than coercively, they are technically, (gasp!) advocating for anarchy. Conversely, if you define minarchist to mean that government should do only what it can achieve voluntarily, every anarchist is also a minarchist. Of course this DOES NOT include minarchists who advocate that government perform functions that require violating individual rights by coercion.
Which gets us to the more critical divide. It is not between those who embrace one set of definitions vs another. It is between those who embrace a universal standard of ethics and those who believe that "government" should be allowed to exempt itself from basic standards of morality that we all live by. "Don't hit, don't steal, don't kill," does not mean, "unless you have a badge, a law, or a politician's orders to excuse your immoral acts."
This is why philosophically, I identify as a voluntaryist in order to be precise, but really, the word "libertarian" should be sufficient. In any conversation, there needs to be a clear definition of terms used. Often doing so ends the potential for debate. We have allowed ourselves to be needlessly divided by semantics for decades. To me, the clearest explanation of the principles of freedom come from the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles: We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
We can all agree that communities of people coming together voluntarily should have the right to organize and self-govern as they see fit. The way to make this possible is not to argue over ideals, but to create practical policy that immediately improves everyone's lives. This is why politically, I am a localist. Governments should be dismantled from the top down until we achieve the ideal of a voluntary society in which communities and individuals are free to have as much government as they want (as long as it's voluntary!) or as little as they want.
Let's stop identifying as anarchists and minarchists completely. Let's stop indulging and supporting those who tear others down over semantic issues. Let those of us who stand on principle unite against those who do not. Let us stand firm in our convictions and achieve the victory we all seek. There is no divide between the true pragmatists and the truly principled because principles ARE pragmatic. The point of having principles is to show us the pragmatic way forward. Let us unite under the word "libertarian."
I am the author of FREEDOM!, a book endorsed (I mean banned) by the US Department of “Justice.” You can get a copy here. I’m running for Not-President in 2020 on the platform of the peaceful, orderly, and responsible dissolution of the United States federal government. You can find out more here. Whoever has the top comment on this post after 24 hours can claim a free signed copy of FREEDOM! by sending me an email at [email protected] with their address.
The point of having principles is not to be “pragmatic,” necessarily. This is just a claim. Principle literally means foundation.
The point of principles is to have a foundation on which to build all other actions/ideas/thought. Holding principles can require many actions that many would deem as the farthest thing from “pragmatic” (though, I would say, and maybe this is what you are getting at, that principles are the most pragmatic thing there is, as they are the only way to stay consistent in one’s life/philosophy/action). Principles can make a man stand up for one individual against the violent threats of the thousands of “pragmatists” screaming for “the greater good.”
I’m hoping by “libertarian” you are differentiating between the “big L” political variety and the other “libertarian” variety. Whatever the LP may say in official statements, they’ve poured lots of money and effort over the years into supporting pro-violence politicians. That’s not a libertarian practice.
Anarchy just means “no rulers.” An Arkos
To suggest that people stop using the term is to become caught up in semantics.
I’m an anarchist and a libertarian. Not a “L”ibertarian. The first two words are inextricably connected. The third word deals with a traditionally violent-politician-supporting political party.
It’s silly to suggest people should stop using such a beautiful word as “anarchy.”
"principles are the most pragmatic thing there is"
Yup.
I am glad you are no longer using the "anarchist" label, though. That is progress.
I guess I should have expected a curt, non-reply like this.
The concept of, 'minarchist' always seemed funny to me.
It literally means, 'The government should only do those things which I believe are necessary', which is what everyone believes.
Everyone who's not an anarchist is a minarchist.
I don't know any 'maxarchists' who would claim that the government should do things they consider unnecessary.
Yeah, I've made this point before, even though it's also somewhat of a silly semantic one. Yes, even Donald Trump and Barrack Obama are "minarchists." The question is are you an ethical or unethical minarchist.
I've met "maxarchists" who think that people cannot be left to their devices and require a protocol for everything. Most are corporatist, others communist or ultra-nationalist, few are violent but all are control freaks. I've even met people that personally have a phobia of making their own decisions and insist someone else decide everything for them. The most extreme case of this was a man that got himself incarcerated so that he could be told when to eat, sleep etc.
The former would call themselves minarchists, since they believe the state needs to do those things, at a minimum.
The latter are nutcases, but they're not imposing that on others, which is nice.
Yeah I have to agree Matt. Minarchy is as relative a term as socialism and doesn't inherently identify if it is voluntary. Anarchy implies voluntaryism because it defines a society without rulers, therefore no coercive rulers.
Minarchist have their own war to fight amongst themselves to define themselves by more specific and more ethical terms not laid out in the current definition. That being said, I don't consider myself a minarchist in the same way that I don't consider myself a conservative, because both imply relative terms surrounding the existence of a possible / probable state.
Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear because Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; It must be demanded by the oppressed. After I read your post, I was reminded of the words of MAHATMA GANDHI there are 7 things that will destroy us:
Rich without working
Happiness without awareness
Find out without doing
Religion without sacrifice
Politics without principle
Science without humanitarian
and a business without ethics
I am very interested in reading the book you write. I am also praying for you and everyone in the world to have freedom
Thanks for sharing @adamkokesh
Thanks! If you write a good (thorough and thoughtful) review of FREEDOM! and email it to me, ([email protected]) I'll RS it for you.
I will try to review it properly and will send it to you. But I need a few days for this, because my English is less good and I need a manual book for reviewing his Thanks @adamkokesh
What's your first language? If it's not at thefreedomline.com/translations, can you help us get a translation?
My primary language is Indonesian, because I come from Indonesian
Can I help mentranslate into Indonesian
And I have sent a message in your email waiting for a copy of the book fredom
Thanks @adamkokesh
My primary language is Indonesian, because I come from Indonesian
Can I help mentranslate into Indonesian
And I have sent a message in your email waiting for a copy of the book fredom
Thanks @adamkokesh
Good discussion and thanks for your comments on it. They seem like different sets of beliefs to me. I have never heard of a liberatarian talking asbotu doing away with the government. How do you see this. Should there be a formal government in your view?
I don't want to "get rid of government" so much as localize it until it's voluntary. I don't particularly care if it's "formal" or not, only that it's voluntary.
Ok I understand. However voluntary does not really mean better. I mean we want the best people. Today in too many places the best do not want to get involved because the system is so corrupt. That will always be the issue I think. How to get rid of corruption in governments.
Words alone are NEVER going to settle this. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Both sides are going to have to build prototype areas, regions, districts, communties, villages, towns, cities, counties... or a private "disneyland" structure (like that place in Norway) to prove their point(s). AK's "Split 50!" prescription is leading in that direction. Start with 50 independent nations. Govern as each sees fit. Then break down into 3,141 counties... some of which will "secede" from their respective state-nation. We'll see which localized model protects liberty, and which will see it flow through their fingers like water.
The issues of "cops, courts and clerks" are the things most Minarchists are concerned with. Without the force behind a warrant and a subpoena to the Witness stand (and perhaps the jury box, too), I fail to see how those accused of a crime can have a righteous trial. Are anarchos suggesting there is no need for a Justice System? Then there is the issue of "open borders". Can a "common defense" be provided without coercion? (if not via a draft, then forcing each to put something in to support the vols).
These are questions that will have to be addressed, now that we are on course to get Adam on that debate stage next to jackAss and elephant dung in 2020. Hopefully, he and his fellow AnCapVols will have at least some Agoras up and running at which they may direct America's attention by 2020. It's not that hard to create a libertarian agora flea market on a piece of private property in a rural setting somewhere. Time share real estate development will cover the cost of capitalization and provide lodging or residence. It's all been done before; we need not re-invent the wheel.
I sympathize with your message here. Misunderstanding of language absolutely inhibits progress on any movement like yours. I continually hear of people causing chaos at events, protests, etc whom the legacy media dub "anarchists". I'm sometimes dumbfounded as to how to get people to realize that anarchy does not mean chaos!
Near where I live in a place called Hamilton, Ontario a group of supposed anarchists vandalized a city neighborhood for no apparent reason and with no message of liberty or freedom. While some of the group's sympathizers (such as a group called The Tower) seemed to be advocating for the end of class warfare, they also seemed willing to take actions to coerce behaviors out of others, which doesn't seem very liberty-minded to me and they also did not seem to advocate for anything freedom-related. They made reference to a family being evicted from a rental property being worse than the damage their compatriots inflicted. Would these people they call anarchists actually believe that freedom is the freedom to continue to have use of someone else's property without properly compensating the owner?
Is there a specific term you use for these destructive people who seem more politically organized than individual-minded?
Fake anarchists? Destruction of someone else's property is not anarchist. Even if it is stolen property, it should be returned to the rightful owner, not damaged.
Those things seem like they are diametrically opposed. "top down" implies rulers exercising power.
It sure does. That's why I put "dismantle" in front of "from the top down."
that does not really solve the problem, a localist would want to dismantle them from the bottom up by definition I would think.
To govern is to control. If it's voluntary is not government. Precision in language is important. Also I havnt met a minarchist that wanted their night watchmen government to be voluntarily funded. If such a person exists then I agree with you that they aren't minarchists. But that doesn't mean that minarchists don't exist. And for the ones that do exist -- the distinction between them and libertarian principle is an important one to continue calling out.
Governance can be voluntarily. There is nothing unethical about it if it is.
I'm also a bit tired of seeing discussion about semantics popping up within the libertarian movement. If everybody keeps dividing the already small community into many different subsections, you're never going to have a big impact on society.
It's good to have discussion, but I do not see why you'd have to form a completely 'different' group for that. Sometimes it's just better to agree to disagree on some points.
Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy. As long as folks agree on ISO, there’s no problem, in my view. The whole point of anarchism is that we recognize people will never agree on everything, so have basic ground norms relating to property, and beyond that, nobody needs to be “united” or helping “the movement.”
this is a great debate, hopefully get a satisfactory result.
this is a legitimate comment from me not spam.
in fact I have not really understood anarchists.
what that real anarchic meaning is.
I've read all these postings, this post many say about society or government.
but I do not really understand the meaning of anarchism.
I like this analysis, but it's a bit beyond the immediate definition of anarchy. You can have hierarchy in anarchy as long as it's voluntary, but of course voluntaryism tends towards exactly what you're saying. So the the definition of anarchy isn't no hierarchy, you could say that it implies that.
Why did this comment get flagged?!
thank you, you have given a very good explanation for me,
and this will be an additional science for me.
geeze. Why so harsh, doodle? It seems like a legitimate desire.
it does not matter, I like the @doodlebear
I like you to rebuke me, because in this way, my experience will be wider,
good work in the article..good job
Everyone has an anarchic nature, but not an anarchist for everyone.
This debate seems to be taking so long. I wonder when it will "really" end.
Is this not what silly semantics is?
great writing...i support it...by the way, thanks for sharing..
tummare haiyene alahankirpoa...?
Really great post dear I like this post thanks for good information for all steemit user i am following all post thanks for sharing
Very nice post keep hard working
vary good post