I’ve struggled for a long time to figure out what to call my current political position — or whether I have have a political position anymore. It depends on what you mean by “political,” I guess.
As the word is normally understood, I’m apolitical, almost to the point of indifference. If you’re talking about the bigger question of how power is organized and distributed, that’s a different matter entirely. I’m certainly not a statist. I’m also no longer what you’d consider a minarchist. But I’m finding that none of the variations of “anarchist” really work for me anymore, either. (All of the labels just seem to confuse the issue.) I’d like to take a look at why I think the debate between anarchists and minarchists is going to cease to matter soon.
Let’s say the debate is among plantation slaves about whether to co-operate with plantation owners for better treatment or to openly revolt. You could quibble about how good the analogy is, but I’d say it’s reasonable.
You could make good arguments on both sides of that argument. The ones arguing for co-operating and working for better treatment and better working conditions would be the pragmatic ones. That position would especially appeal to the slaves who might have built up a bit of status or privilege with the owners. For them, it could seem foolish to risk everything, especially when the chances of success seemed low and they weren’t sure what would come next. The ones arguing for open revolt would take the position that being a slave of any sort was immoral, demeaning and unacceptable. I can understand how each would feel. I’d like to think I would opt for open revolt, but if the danger were really great, I might not. I might play it safe.