Feeling comfortable with the word "anarchist".

[Dreamweaver]

So over many months I've felt my political views change gradually. From being a small-government libertarian to sympathizing with anarchist ideals and points. These include the whole idea behind the non-aggression principal and that the state is nothing more than a hazardous monopoly over force and the creation/enforcement of law. However, I must ask those who call themselves "Anarchists" (regardless of what kind of anarchist you are), what made you say with confidence and ease "I am an anarchist"? Remember that we were all raised with the notion that "anarchy" means "chaos", and that we should fear anarchy. Thus for me, I have a hard time saying "I'm an anarchist" (in my head at least) and feeling comfortable with it simply because of the stigma around it.

What made you decide with certainty to call yourself an "anarchist" or "anarcho-[insert word here]"?

Also, what made you get over this kind of discomfort with openly calling yourself an anarchist (assuming you had any discomfort to begin with)?

[1713487516]

1713487516

[1713487516]

1713487516

[1713487516]

1713487516

[1713487516]

1713487516

[1713487516]

1713487516

[Mike Christ]

It is a strange word, since its been beaten to death by these bastards:



You don't necessarily have to get comfortable with this word however; I think what is most uncomfortable is how others will perceive you for it, since you and I understand what anarchism really is and we're not worried about any strange looks between each other   Technically speaking, we're all statists, since statism isn't an option, even if we hate it.  If asked, I'd probably say I was an advocate of voluntaryism, since it can't be misconstrued as "confused republican" as libertarianism seems to somehow have adopted, and doesn't involve any strange looks as would entail with anarchist.  Otherwise, I can't say I'm put off by the word; it is often misunderstood as "chaos, violence, survival of the fittest", ironically enough for these are the qualities of totalitarianism, but at the same time, I wonder if it's necessary to point out the true meaning of anarchism to these people; since anarchism is the natural evolution of a rational society, there is no need to advocate for anarchy, since it happens by itself; you don't need to propagandize anarchists, as another way of putting it.

Anyhow, I believe I started considering myself an anarchist shortly after considering myself a libertarian; upon understanding the difference between authority and liberty in government, it was easy to see where I could have the greatest amount of liberty and how I could achieve such a goal, so I rolled with that.  So far I've only been attacked for being a "libtard", oddly enough; you'd figure anarchism would be the odd one out.

[xkeyscore89]

Well, I guess I'll put in my two cents...I am not an anarchist and I doubt you're going to find many people who self identify with that radical ideal.  Anarchy is not productive at all and is quite simply bad for business. A true anarchist would likely also be considered a domestic terrorist.

[Mike Christ]

Well, I guess I'll put in my two cents...I am not an anarchist and I doubt you're going to find many people who self identify with that radical ideal.  Anarchy is not productive at all and is quite simply bad for business. A true anarchist would likely also be considered a domestic terrorist.

Yes, this is the typical viewpoint of anarchism by the public

Is it safe to say you've also never studied any amount of anarchist theory?

[xkeyscore89]

Yeah, anarchist theory is not something I have indepently studied, mainly because it's more disorganized philosophy than theory and has little to no practical value in today's political climate.

[Mike Christ]

Yeah, anarchist theory is not something I have indepently studied, mainly because it's more disorganized philosophy than theory and has little to no practical value in today's political climate.

If you've never studied it, how would you know?  To compare, how accurate would your opinion of saltwater taffy be if you've never eaten it before?  You might think it has a terrible taste, or perhaps a good one, but it's impossible to tell without trying it; anarchism at the moment is the equivalent of reading the ingredient label of saltwater taffy and saying, "Yep, that sounds pretty good to me" or "No this is awful", but it's hard to really make this opinion without first giving yourself time to understand it, wouldn't you agree?  It's not as fast as just eating the taffy and quickly realizing how you'd like it, but we gotta get enough people to want to try it before we can know.

[xkeyscore89]

Yeah, anarchist theory is not something I have indepently studied, mainly because it's more disorganized philosophy than theory and has little to no practical value in today's political climate.

If you've never studied it, how would you know?  To compare, how accurate would your opinion of saltwater taffy be if you've never eaten it before?  You might think it has a terrible taste, or perhaps a good one, but it's impossible to tell without trying it; anarchism at the moment is the equivalent of reading the ingredient label of saltwater taffy and saying, "Yep, that sounds pretty good to me" or "No this is awful", but it's hard to really make this opinion without first giving yourself time to understand it, wouldn't you agree?  It's not as fast as just eating the taffy and quickly realizing how you'd like it, but we gotta get enough people to want to try it before we can know.

Maybe I should've clarified that the concept of anarchist theory is not completely alien to me. I am familiar with the general topic but have not yet decided to master all points of the theory. So you could say had a taste of it, but haven't made a meal out of it yet.

[Mike Christ]

Maybe I should've clarified that the concept of anarchist theory is not completely alien to me. I am familiar with the general topic but have not yet decided to master all points of the theory. So you could say had a taste of it, but haven't made a meal out of it yet.

Ha ha well, nobody's really had a taste of it, aside from that one time; what makes you believe anarchism is not productive and bad for business?

[xkeyscore89]

Maybe I should've clarified that the concept of anarchist theory is not completely alien to me. I am familiar with the general topic but have not yet decided to master all points of the theory. So you could say had a taste of it, but haven't made a meal out of it yet.

Ha ha well, nobody's really had a taste of it, aside from that one time; what makes you believe anarchism is not productive and bad for business?

I guess it would have to do with my seeing the onset of anarchism as a faction-based society, causing general interruptions to the delicate balance of supply and demand among other systems.  Goods and services would not be as accessible as they are now I think. This is just a theory, however.

[deisik]

If you've never studied it, how would you know?  To compare, how accurate would your opinion of saltwater taffy be if you've never eaten it before?  You might think it has a terrible taste, or perhaps a good one, but it's impossible to tell without trying it; anarchism at the moment is the equivalent of reading the ingredient label of saltwater taffy and saying, "Yep, that sounds pretty good to me" or "No this is awful", but it's hard to really make this opinion without first giving yourself time to understand it, wouldn't you agree?  It's not as fast as just eating the taffy and quickly realizing how you'd like it, but we gotta get enough people to want to try it before we can know.

You don't need to taste shit to say it's bad...
Also you don't need to be a cow to say how good milk is

[hawkeye]

So over many months I've felt my political views change gradually. From being a small-government libertarian to sympathizing with anarchist ideals and points. These include the whole idea behind the non-aggression principal and that the state is nothing more than a hazardous monopoly over force and the creation/enforcement of law. However, I must ask those who call themselves "Anarchists" (regardless of what kind of anarchist you are), what made you say with confidence and ease "I am an anarchist"? Remember that we were all raised with the notion that "anarchy" means "chaos", and that we should fear anarchy. Thus for me, I have a hard time saying "I'm an anarchist" (in my head at least) and feeling comfortable with it simply because of the stigma around it.

What made you decide with certainty to call yourself an "anarchist" or "anarcho-[insert word here]"?

Also, what made you get over this kind of discomfort with openly calling yourself an anarchist (assuming you had any discomfort to begin with)?

Yes, for a significant amount of time I had a certain amount of discomfort using the word anarchist.

I think I just reached a point where I stopped caring.  Labels are just labels at the end of the day and are there for convenience in conversation.  It's the ideas we have that matters, not so much the label.   But anarchist was the label used initially for this idea so I'll stick with that one for now.  If it turns out that one of the other labels ends up catching on more, a rebranding essentially, I will be fine with calling myself that as well.   A lot of the most prominent anarchists out there who I like and respect use the anarchist label to describe themselves so I figured there was no reason why I shouldn't either.

EDIT:  I also think it helps having a firm grasp of the ideas and ways to talk to people.  Nobody likes getting the question "but how would x work?" and not being able to answer it.  That creates discomfort and people can then imply that you really haven't thought your position through.  It takes a bit of this and talking to other anarchists and reading things before you feel like you won't get caught out by this line of questioning.

[hawkeye]

Maybe I should've clarified that the concept of anarchist theory is not completely alien to me. I am familiar with the general topic but have not yet decided to master all points of the theory. So you could say had a taste of it, but haven't made a meal out of it yet.

Ha ha well, nobody's really had a taste of it, aside from that one time; what makes you believe anarchism is not productive and bad for business?

I guess it would have to do with my seeing the onset of anarchism as a faction-based society, causing general interruptions to the delicate balance of supply and demand among other systems.  Goods and services would not be as accessible as they are now I think. This is just a theory, however.

I would encourage you to do some research on it.  Would you class yourself as a big or small government person?

Much of the market is anarchy in action.  There is no government required to get us the goods and services that we need.  In fact, the more government interferes the worse these services usually become.  Look how bad banking is for example where the government is heavily involved.

Anarchy is saying you can't use force to get people to do what you want.  It is saying that people trading voluntarily in a free market system provide goods and services to others.

[xkeyscore89]

Maybe I should've clarified that the concept of anarchist theory is not completely alien to me. I am familiar with the general topic but have not yet decided to master all points of the theory. So you could say had a taste of it, but haven't made a meal out of it yet.

Ha ha well, nobody's really had a taste of it, aside from that one time; what makes you believe anarchism is not productive and bad for business?

I guess it would have to do with my seeing the onset of anarchism as a faction-based society, causing general interruptions to the delicate balance of supply and demand among other systems.  Goods and services would not be as accessible as they are now I think. This is just a theory, however.

I would encourage you to do some research on it.  Would you class yourself as a big or small government person?

Much of the market is anarchy in action.  There is no government required to get us the goods and services that we need.  In fact, the more government interferes the worse these services usually become.  Look how bad banking is for example where the government is heavily involved.

Anarchy is saying you can't use force to get people to do what you want.  It is saying that people trading voluntarily in a free market system provide goods and services to others.

I would consider myself a small government person.  I think I might do a little research on the subject, good talking to you.

[ErisDiscordia]

I don't mind calling myself an anarchist, because I look, think and act very differently from how popular culture describes anarchists. This might cause people to stop and think again

At that point I'm ready to explain the etymology of the word, how it means the idea of not having a single ruler/governor and doesn't have anything to do with chaos.

[TheRandomGuy]

I don't align myself with any political ideology, and I suggest that none of you people should either.
Take the good parts from each *-ism and mix it together.

[dank]

Once you learn it means freedom.

[Dreamweaver]

You don't necessarily have to get comfortable with this word however; I think what is most uncomfortable is how others will perceive you for it, since you and I understand what anarchism really is and we're not worried about any strange looks between each other   Technically speaking, we're all statists, since statism isn't an option, even if we hate it.  If asked, I'd probably say I was an advocate of voluntaryism, since it can't be misconstrued as "confused republican" as libertarianism seems to somehow have adopted, and doesn't involve any strange looks as would entail with anarchist.  Otherwise, I can't say I'm put off by the word; it is often misunderstood as "chaos, violence, survival of the fittest", ironically enough for these are the qualities of totalitarianism, but at the same time, I wonder if it's necessary to point out the true meaning of anarchism to these people; since anarchism is the natural evolution of a rational society, there is no need to advocate for anarchy, since it happens by itself; you don't need to propagandize anarchists, as another way of putting it.

Anyhow, I believe I started considering myself an anarchist shortly after considering myself a libertarian; upon understanding the difference between authority and liberty in government, it was easy to see where I could have the greatest amount of liberty and how I could achieve such a goal, so I rolled with that.  So far I've only been attacked for being a "libtard", oddly enough; you'd figure anarchism would be the odd one out.

Good points indeed. Whenever I think of the word "anarchist" I think of how others perceive it moreso than how I feel about it. Also I found myself aligning with anarchist ideals shortly after calling myself a libertarian (Ron Paul anyone?). Though with your last point..I dont really feel it's so "natural". If it were this way, then why do we have so many people, even today, advocating for strong, central rule? Even when the US was founded on tiny govt principals, there were people in the US who wanted a king. Sure we've come a long way from outright monarchies, but perhaps what we have now won't result in anything much better later on. Maybe its fairest to say that people inherently seek some sort of organization, and that the only way to achieve such organization is with a central authority with such massive scale and power?

You don't need to taste shit to say it's bad...
Also you don't need to be a cow to say how good milk is

Remember, though, that most little kids have this curiosity to at least touch their own poop but parents disallow that. I'm not saying they should allow their children to do that stuff, but what I am saying is that the only reason we "know" shit tastes bad is because we were told this by our parents and strictly prohibited from experimenting. That and well..shit stinks and you can smell it..you can't smell anarchy

I don't align myself with any political ideology, and I suggest that none of you people should either.
Take the good parts from each *-ism and mix it together.

Wouldn't most people create their own "-ism" to reflect this combination, though? lol

[deisik]

You don't need to taste shit to say it's bad...
Also you don't need to be a cow to say how good milk is

Remember, though, that most little kids have this curiosity to at least touch their own poop but parents disallow that. I'm not saying they should allow their children to do that stuff, but what I am saying is that the only reason we "know" shit tastes bad is because we were told this by our parents and strictly prohibited from experimenting. That and well..shit stinks and you can smell it..you can't smell anarchy

At least you don't deny the fact that if something stinks we should be very careful about touching it (remember, curiosity killed the cat ). To keep some form of true anarchy you would inevitably need to impose some rules over it, which in effect would make it just another form of order

[Dreamweaver]

You don't need to taste shit to say it's bad...
Also you don't need to be a cow to say how good milk is

Remember, though, that most little kids have this curiosity to at least touch their own poop but parents disallow that. I'm not saying they should allow their children to do that stuff, but what I am saying is that the only reason we "know" shit tastes bad is because we were told this by our parents and strictly prohibited from experimenting. That and well..shit stinks and you can smell it..you can't smell anarchy

At least you don't deny the fact that if something stinks we should be very careful about touching it (remember, curiosity killed the cat ). To keep some form of true anarchy you would inevitably need to impose some rules over it, which in effect would make it just another form of order

Indeed I don't. People should show skepticism and care when approaching something they don't know..though I don't like that saying "curiosity killed the cat". Curiosity can lead to experimentation, which can be very rewarding at times, though of course that depends on the context..clearly being curious about what your own poop tastes like isn't gonna turn out well for you.

As far as anarchy goes, though, I do see a new form of order coming from it in the sense of people being held accountable. I think that's what people think of when they say there should be rules, because if someone does something wrong, they must be held accountable somehow. The way I imagine anarchy would be a society that creates a form of accountability and order without the need of what we know as a government, which we know is a group of people who are placed in some moral echelon above everybody else (legal monopoly over force, etc, etc).

[deisik]

Indeed I don't. People should show skepticism and care when approaching something they don't know..though I don't like that saying "curiosity killed the cat". Curiosity can lead to experimentation, which can be very rewarding at times, though of course that depends on the context..clearly being curious about what your own poop tastes like isn't gonna turn out well for you.

For those who are not quite content with the proverb, there's an ending to it, i.e. "but satisfaction brought it back". Apparently, it is still a matter of much debate what this ending actually means for the cat in question...