Any fellow Anarchists/Voluntaryists here on the Hype?

[BrlntDsgse]

Just out of curiosity...are any of you anarchists/anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists or of any similar political bent? Extreme libertarians if you will?

 

[CConn]

I wouldn't quite classify myself as a Anarchist, but the philosophy definitely has a lot of merits to it.

I'd at most, I'd identify myself as a minarchist

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Not quite an anarchist...more constitutional libertarian. Defiantly anarcho-capitalist though.

 

[BrlntDsgse]

Not quite an anarchist...more constitutional libertarian. Defiantly anarcho-capitalist though.

Being a CONSTITUTIONAL Libertarian is mutually exclusive with anarcho-capitalism. As an anarcho-capitalist you COULD support a move back towards strict Constitutional law as a means to the end of abolishing government altogether(I do), a stop along the road to anarchy if you will, but you can't really be a strict Constitutionalist AND an anarcho-capitalist as the Constitution is the framework for a government, a state, which is the antithesis of anarchism.(not that I mind...I still have MUCH MORE common ground with Constitutional Libertarians/minarchists than any other political group) As far as the word anarchism itself goes, granted the definitions are a bit fuzzy, with some people claiming to be anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryists while others call themselves anarcho-communists/anarcho-syndicalists. The word anarchy, in its most basic definition means "no rulers"...essentially meaning "no state", and ONLY anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism truly fits that definition. Under an anarcho-communist or -syndicalist system there would still be a group enforcing "no ownership of private property" and "no ownership of the means of production/capital", and any such group enforcing such a thing on others against their will would BE a state, a government, regardless of whether they call themselves just a "worker's union" or anything like that, they'd still be a government claiming the "legal" right to initiate the use of force against others. This is why I feel they don't really qualify as anarchists, so when I use the word anarchist, I tend to mean it synonymous with anarcho-capitalist.

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Being a CONSTITUTIONAL Libertarian is mutually exclusive with anarcho-capitalism. As an anarcho-capitalist you COULD support a move back towards strict Constitutional law as a means to the end of abolishing government altogether(I do), a stop along the road to anarchy if you will, but you can't really be a strict Constitutionalist AND an anarcho-capitalist as the Constitution is the framework for a government, a state, which is the antithesis of anarchism.(not that I mind...I still have MUCH MORE common ground with Constitutional Libertarians/minarchists than any other political group) As far as the word anarchism itself goes, granted the definitions are a bit fuzzy, with some people claiming to be anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryists while others call themselves anarcho-communists/anarcho-syndicalists. The word anarchy, in its most basic definition means "no rulers"...essentially meaning "no state", and ONLY anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism truly fits that definition. Under an anarcho-communist or -syndicalist system there would still be a group enforcing "no ownership of private property" and "no ownership of the means of production/capital", and any such group enforcing such a thing on others against their will would BE a state, a government, regardless of whether they call themselves just a "worker's union" or anything like that, they'd still be a government claiming the "legal" right to initiate the use of force against others. This is why I feel they don't really qualify as anarchists, so when I use the word anarchist, I tend to mean it synonymous with anarcho-capitalist.

That's mainly why I stated the libertarian stance first. I strongly believe in the rights of an individual to be protected, thus my stance for a strict constitutional libertarian government entity. While I don't withhold the merits of anarchy, I still subscribe that a libertarian society would be more just. There will always be aggressors in a society. As I acknowledge that the majority of government historically acts in this manner, I maintain that a libertarian society, complete with competing currencies and police forces, can coexist with a government institution without negatively impacting the free market.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Personally I am just a human being who opposes wars, oppression and injustice that take place in every corner of the world. Be it from the government or other groups of people. I don't like associating with any group though or philosophy or putting a tag on myself.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

I am a Libertarian Socialist (in other words, a real Libertarian) which is at least a cousin to anarchy!

I believe in a very limited government but don't believe in the state!

 

[Comics N' Toons]

Not quite an anarchist...more constitutional libertarian. Defiantly anarcho-capitalist though.

Real Libertarianism has nothing to do with the Constitution. Libertarians are anti-state and the Constitution establishes the state (FORCE & COERCIVE organizations like police, IRS, military, government agencies with guns etc.)