If you’re a libertarian of any kind who’s been on the Internet, you’ve no doubt either seen or participated in a long and frustrating debate between the merits of two traditions which have been categorised under the L-word: social anarchism (or just anarchism) and voluntaryism (or anarcho-capitalism).
The former root themselves intellectually in the traditions of the wider anti-authoritarian left, in figures such as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman, rejecting both the state and capitalism as domineering barriers to personal autonomy and social freedom. The latter root themselves in the traditions of the so-called old right, classical liberalism, and Austrian economics, looking to Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises as founding fathers.
99% of the time, at least in my experience, these debates achieve nothing, entail both parties talking past one another, leave everybody fuming at the cornucopia of bad feeling and petty insults, and later make anyone…
View original post 4,034 more words
In defense of anagorism 
In your comment in the blog you’ve said that you disagreed with the explanation that was given. I guess you disagreed on that author’s point of view of what would be a better world for human being and his reasoning for it.
I’m struggling to grasp this topic and I’m wondering if you could write an article refuting his points of view that you find wrong. You have already said that it seems to be delusional to have “people take away things for free”. I don’t see that as delusional, by the way. It seems to me something just like some sort of ideal outcome. A regular guy from any developed country would find even suggesting that there could be less government or more equal distribution of wealth something delusional.
Anyway, I’m just trying to learn and would like to read more about it.
“Anarchists use the word capitalism to describe the economic system we have now, the one we’ve had for roughly the last two centuries, and which had its genesis in the slavery, genocide, colonialism, and exploitation of large swathes of the world by European imperial powers from the 1500s to 1800s.”
Would this include the capitalism of the yeoman farmer and the village smithy, or is it limited to the imperialism of the Mom and Pop candy store?
Is there any hope for those who use standard English rather than any ideological vernacular to discuss these esoteric doctrines with those in the know?