I hate it when the opposition hijacks language such as when collectivists decided to call themselves “liberals” co-opting the term from classical liberals akin to our founders or when the left calls corruption and privilege “capitalism” instead of cronyism. Eventually if there’s no word for something it will cease to exist so I don’t want to keep giving up words! That’s why I was skeptical when I started to read this proposal by one of my favorite Atlanta libertarians, Rich Clarke. As I read through the proposal, however, I had to open my mind to it–I like the implications of consentism–it doesn’t presuppose any economic structure, just implies arms’ length transactions; it doesn’t evoke images of chaos, but of civility–it has many great points going for it…Here it is, tell me what you think…

One thing I and fellow Anarchists struggle with in conversations with any other modern day human is the tremendous social inertia that comes with the term “Anarchy.” While its simplicity is beautiful and its true definition is hidden in plain sight: “An”, “Archos” it’s simply a battle which isn’t worth fighting every time you engage in conversation in my opinion. Especially when it is a fight which is unnecessary and only happens due to either a romantic attachment to or a failing of useful alternative to the term “Anarchy.” I would like boldly to attempt to solve the latter problem. The first step to solving a problem is first to define it so let us start there.

When ensconced in one’s circle of Anarchist friends, the term can be thrown around handily and everyone understands and relishes its true meaning. It is a jarring interruption to this euphoria to engage in use of this term in just about any other circumstance. It is easy to forget how the world reacts to the word “Anarchy,” and I have many times been snapped out of my reality coma with haste and realized that the person looking at me is no longer listening to anything I am saying and backing away slowly because I prematurely threw out the “A” word.

This experience is likely familiar to every Anarchist. Despite the remarkable simplicity of the Anarchist argument in most cases, it can easily be unraveled by just calling it by its own name. continue reading»

Comments (3)

Kinda goes with my observation that the messenger is more important than the message. Referring to an attractive candidate as oppose to one that is not. By attractive, I mean all the accouchements that go with it; visual, verbal, demeanor, etc. Obviously, it worked in the last election, however I left out weather. Bundled, Obama had Mitt’s lunch. I like the word “consentism.” I would also like a more attractive candidate than Johnson. The name Johnson just doesn’t make for a good president. Could I turn people on to be “Consentists?”

I like it– not because of associations with rape or because we need to replace the word Anarcho-Capitalism. It could bring light to policies that have gone unquestioned because they are unpopular, like illegal gambling or the choices people make with their own money.
I don’t care for new words, but it’s a new word for our side. Might as well play by the same set of rules.
The video using cell phones to represent sex was cute, but I disagree with the premise that it is only consensual if a person doesn’t “appear” to be intimidated. The guy still gave his consent with his cell phone. Determining why he did is subjective and not that relevant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.