Why anarcho-capitalists need to change labels

by Liberty and Power

Because the Newspaper of Record thinks this bozo is the leading intellectual theorist of anarchism.

More Comments:

Aeon J. Skoble - 8/30/2004

Actually I thought that NYT piece was worse than usual: the lefty-anarchsists sometimes will pay lip service to non-violence, but this moron said he would _not_ disavow violence. Leon Czoglosz call your press agent!

Otto M. Kerner - 8/30/2004

I agree that, in most cases, "anarchist" is terrible PR. Simply "libertarian" will almost always suffice. But, if you feel the urge to be more specific, what's a boy to do?

PS - The Times article is still an improvement over what I learned in school, though.

Aeon J. Skoble - 8/30/2004

Well, some of the Rothbardians embrace the term, but I'm sympathetic to those who think it's bad PR. What kills me though, is the slack-jawed credulity shown by the NYT, and the media generally. We saw this during the various anti-globalization protests a few years back, e.g., in Seattle and DC. At no point was anyone like Roderick consulted, or for that matter, _any_ philosopher. These guys say they're anarchists, they don't eschew violence, they're actually supporters of the worst sort of coercion, they're philosphically incoherent, and the Times just says "ok, here's anarchism."

Otto M. Kerner - 8/30/2004

Yeah, I know what you mean. Part of the problem is that only the left-wing anarchists are crazy enough to be enthusiastic about people calling them anarchists, despite its being one of the most despised words in political vocabulary. They can be very proprietary about it. See, for reference, the long-winded debates about the relevant Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism. But, on the other hand, what else should one call oneself? I've been considering maybe "abolitionist libertarian".