Comments on: Anarchism FAQ

By: Nathan McKaskle

Nathan McKaskle — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:39:02 +0000

Well I agree, anarchism is just a conclusion reasoned from first principles. Philosophy is about the methodology we use to arrive at conclusions, not the conclusion itself because if I’m wrong I am always eager to have someone reason me out of my error. We certainly don’t want to pigeon hole ourselves into any one group or category based on a conclusion. That is why I call myself a philosopher, not an anarchist.

By: berlinero

berlinero — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:11:58 +0000

My question actually is if I should define myself as an anarchist with risking to be stopped in my individual growin by being categorized inside a box with people using anarchism like an ideology.Means that I question myself if I then/now use anarchism to project personal stuff I want to overcome in just ideas with no practical use for my life.
I don t like this family-styled boxes where people identify them first on the group/theory/ideology and not first to theirself their own feeling/opinion/emotions/history what for me would end up in anarchism: A free individual in social association with more free individuals, and free means for me the use of the opportunity to choose between different ways on a decision including the own experiences without selfcensoring some of them. Thats my daily FAQ

By: Nathan McKaskle

Nathan McKaskle — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:33:12 +0000

Sure I understand that, what questions do you have that you would like to suggest I add to this?

By: berlinero

berlinero — Fri, 08 May 2009 10:52:07 +0000

hey great blog, but for me as an non-ideological anarchists/individual a FAQ sounds stranges.
I am leaded by my questions, don t need general answers because what may be right right now- tomorrow could be wrong.

By: tzo

tzo — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:22:29 +0000

Q: What kind of anarchist uses the roads or attends government funded educational institutions like public schools or universities?

A: What kind of statist subscribes to the anarchy of choosing his/her own spouse?

By: Nathan McKaskle

Nathan McKaskle — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:53:55 +0000

Correction made, Colleen, let me know if you would like to clarify the part about Mises and/or add any new Q & A’s. This is a FAQ that I think will grow and change over time.

By: Colleen Cowgill

Colleen Cowgill — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:44:45 +0000

Thanks for the correction – many apologies for incorrectly representing your views. For clarification, I was not claiming that Mises was an anarchist, but rather naming economists closely associated with the market-anarchism movement.

I’ll change it to add the Chicago School of economics rather than just the Austrian school, and not suggest you are an Austrian.

As for the definition, it is true that many non-anarchists would support that claim. However, I would argue that they cannot legitimately support the NAP and argue for a minarchist government, which necessarily entails the initiation of the use of force on any competing entity.

By: David Friedman

David Friedman — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:01:14 +0000

“The most prominent economic theorists in the field are often described as Austrian economists and include Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and David Friedman.”

I’m not an Austrian and am only rarely and mistakenly described as one, and von Mises wasn’t an anarchist.

“Without getting into too much detail on the origins of the ethical theory, we believe society should be structured around something called the non-aggression principle, which states that no man has the moral right to initiate or threaten the use of force on another man, although self-defense is valid.”

That’s one reason one might be a market anarchist, but I don’t think it works as a definition. Lots of non-anarchist libertarians would agree with it, and one could support the conclusion that market anarchy represented the best possible society for other reasons.