I'm an anarcho-cap, not a "libertarian" in the usual sense of the term (that is, not a minarchist). But I sympathize with the libertarians, I was active in the LP myself for a time, and I would like to see them prosper.
One of the online journals of opinion that does some good toward that end is LewRockwell.com. It proudly describes itself as "anti-state, anti-war, pro-market." Bravo on all three counts.
But I do wish they would stop running pieces by wolves in sheep's clothing, by social conservatives like the imbecile Fred Reed.
Here's a further explanation of why.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteI have been aware for years that you consider yourself an anarcho-capitalist, but it only now occurred to me that the term is redundant, isn't it? An "anarcho-socialist" would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it? It seems that adding "capitalist" to "anarcho" conveys only that your belief in the free market is an important reason for your being an anarchist. An anarchist who was particularly concerned about freedom of speech might call himself an "anarcho-free speech advocate." And, just as an anarcho-capitalist would have to explain how to limit capitalism without government when necessary, an anarcho-free speech advocate would have to explain how to limit speech without government when necessary. (Preventing fraud would be an example of when it is necessary to limit both capitalism and speech.)
Henry,
ReplyDeleteWhat the "capitalist" adds on its side of the hyphen is my conviction that the disappearance of the state will not cause a disappearance of the institution of private property. If I believed that private property and the state necessarily fall together, and I wanted that end, I might well call myself an anarcho-communist. Think of Bakunin/Kropotkin.
You might say that since the difference between anarcho-cap and anarcho-comm is simply a matter of prediction, we should work together with our comrade anarchists and perhaps delete the right hand side of the hyphen in either case and just be anarchists. Then when we achieve our goal of zapping the state, it will be time enough to see whether property flourishes or disappears.
That is an appealing notion. But the two groups do have rather a different tempermental tone and each is inclined to claim that the other's anarchistic credentials are out of order. We are unlikely to be of much help to one another.