It’s Really Simple.
Saturday, May 31st, 2008I consider myself a revolutionary individualist. Revolutionary means the desire to overturn political and cultural institutions by any acceptable means. As an individualist, my acceptable means can not initiate force upon another individual. Individualism does not mean atomization or the promotion of self above others. It is the recognition of each person as unique and possessing the right to do anything that does not violate the equal rights of another individual. It is the desire to see individuals empowered and liberated. The ties one makes to other individuals and groups are to be determined entirely by oneself and acted upon in a voluntary manner.
In strictly political terms, I am a libertarian, more specifically a market anarchist. My path to this was a matter of increasing consistency more than it was change of principles. I remember deciding I believed that “everyone has the right to do anything that does not harm another person” in middle school. Unfortunately it took several years for the more specific “initiate force upon” to define “harm.” In 1998 the online babble of conservatives attracted me, as they satisfied many of my psychological needs as an insecure and lonely 13 year old from a rural suburbanish area (I believe this to be the method by which most political allegiances are made). Fortunately, libertarians like Vin Suprynowicz and old HD Thoreau steered me in the right direction, and by the 2000 election I favored Harry Browne. For most of college I vacillated between minarchism and anarchism. My general feeling was “we do the right thing and see where it leads us,” i.e. when taxation is rightly regarded as theft, and secession is a protected right, government will either survive on a voluntary basis or perish if it is unable to adapt. Though I wasn’t really an anarchist (since advocating no-government was not something I did) I was closer to the anarchist position than I was to the wannabe-mainstream minarchist one. I did make sure that the market anarchist position was not ostracized when I was chair of the (small in number) Rutgers Libertarians.
I have since used logic to see where doing the right thing will lead us. Any organizations that can survive in an environment where the initiation of force is not tolerated must necessarily be voluntary market organizations. Since the central role of government is to claim authority over an area and authority does not permit disobedience, government can never be a voluntary market organization.
My realization that the legal system and the military, things minarchy always allows government to do, are the two most harmful arms of the state also helped get me here.
The M or A question does matter as it helps to define one’s position and clarify attitudes toward existing political problems. Market anarchism, a state of affairs in which people are free to do as they will with themselves and their justly acquired property is the label that best fits with the political goals of revolutionary individualism. “Free market,” “freed market,” or “liberated market” are better terms for its economics than “capitalism,” which allows for state involvement. I find agorism to be a very useful way to think about the problems we face today and the solutions to them.
And everything follows from that.