I’ve never been inclined to use the anarcho-capitalist flag (the yellow and black thing). This is not because I think there’s anything really wrong—morally or philosophically—with using symbols to represent ideas, but only because it seems a bit weird to me to display a symbol that means a lack of a belief in a particular thing. (Before anyone gets riled up, this isn’t a criticism or complaint; just a personal preference.)
“Anarchism” means being opposed to the existence of a ruling class. And “capitalism,” once upon a time, just meant human economic interaction without interference by the state. (If you ask me, that makes the term “anarcho-capitalism” redundant, but that’s another issue.)
The word “anarchism,” in and of itself, does not describe a complete philosophy. Instead, it merely describes one thing that a person opposes: having a ruling class. It really just expresses one negative belief—the idea that one certain thing shouldn’t exist—while not saying anything about anything else. (The term “voluntaryist,” in contrast, has a more specific and positive meaning: the idea that all human interaction should be voluntary, and by consent.)
By analogy, suppose there was a term for someone who didn’t believe in Santa Claus. Let’s call such people “anti-Santa-ists.” And suppose the anti-Santa-ists made a flag with an image representing this belief. How weird would it be for them to proudly display that? Why would someone primarily define themselves by pointing out one thing that they don’t believe in?
Granted, since the vast majority of people today do believe that violent aggression is justified, even necessary, if and when it is carried out via “government,” it is quite significant when someone doesn’t. And if millions of people were being oppressed or murdered in the name of Santa Claus, maybe an anti-Santa flag would be understandable. Nonetheless, usually a flag or similar symbol represents some positive belief, or set of beliefs, or some overall agenda or master plan shared by all those who display that flag or symbol. A flag more or less means, “This is what I stand for!”
But how does one zealously and actively engage in non-statism? Some will answer, by trading privately, doing the agorism thing, using alternative currencies, using private defense or dispute resolution methods, and so on. But really that's just doing a bunch of things that aren't statist. Again, by analogy, imagine that someone made an “anti-murder” flag, and proudly displayed it. Obviously I’m all in favor of not committing murder, but what would the point of such a flag be? What would an anti-murder organization or “movement” look like? Would they proudly list and advertise all the things they do which aren’t murder?
A: “Hey, buddy, I noticed your flag. What are you guys all about?”
B: “We’re about not murdering people.”
A: “Um, okay. That sounds good. But what does your movement do?”
B: “We go around not murdering people.”
A: “Is that all? I mean, I’m glad to hear it, but is that all you do?”
B: “Well, individually we each do lots and lots of things that aren’t murder.”
A: “Do you go out and try to stop murderers?”
B: “Some of us do, but it’s not a requirement. Want to join our organization?”
A: “Well, I already don’t murder people. What would I gain by joining?”
B: “A cool flag.”
Okay, so maybe I’m being overly flippant and nitpicky here, but to me a flag tends to represent a movement, or an organization, or an agenda, or some master plan. And for the most part, I don’t really have any use for any of those. I have no desire to rally under a flag, whether it be anti-Santa, anti-murder, or anti-statism. Maybe this is partly because once something seems like a “movement,” I expect it to be hijacked and corrupted, after which it turns into a self-serving drama spectacle, with different people trying to be “leader,” before in-fighting and personality conflicts crash it into the ground.
I suppose the yellow and black might at least sometimes be a good conversation starter. If someone asks what the heck it means, the person might have a chance to explain a bit about voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism. But to me, a flag still implies some club or gang to join, or some banner to march under while screaming vague slogans into a bullhorn. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t associate the whole concept of a flag with “exercise peaceful coexistence, don’t be an aggressive douchebag, and don’t vote for someone else to be an aggressive douchebag on your behalf.”
Again, I’m not saying that other people shouldn’t use it, or saying there’s anything actually wrong about it. I just suddenly felt compelled to fling out this relatively pointless blurb about why I’m instinctively “anti-flag.” Hmmm, maybe I need a flag that represents those of use who don’t like to use flags to represent our beliefs. Then we can start a movement, become militant, and move to forcibly eradicate all flags from society! (Or not.)
