Anarchism = Libertarianism

Anarchism is a political philosophy that is centered on the rejection of a compulsory state or government. The state as classified by anarchists is a person or institution that uses force and coercion to dominate others, ultimatley leading to heirarchy. Anarchism is derivided from Greek to mean "without archons or without rulers". Everyone being free and equal under Natural Law would be the essence of anarchism.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that every individual is the absolute owner of themselves and their lives and should be free to do whatever they want with themselves and their property/possessions, as long as they do not infringe upon the same rights of others. Libertarianism is principly opposed to the individual being subject to anyone other person, authority, or collective.

I think we can all see how similar anarchism and libertarianism are. There are however people within both the anarchists and libertarian movement that claim to be anarchists or libertarians but hold beliefs that violates both philosophies.

Within anarchism, an example would be the collectivist anarchists of AI (Anarchist International);

http://www.anarchy.no/

If you read the philosophy of this organization claiming to be "anarchists", you will find that they do not oppose all forms of compulsory rulership. They maintain no coercion is impossible, and instead strive for "as little possible coercion" to protect the enviroment and provide services. They even advocate prohibition of drugs in their so called "anarchist" society. These type of people are of course not anarchists. To support any amount of force and coercion is un-anarchistic.

Of course, within libertarianism there are many unprincipled libertarians as well. An example of these would be minarchist libertarians (such as many objectivists);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Minarchists aren't in essence true libertarians because supporting the state is un-libertarian. Libertarianism is opposed to all force and coercion against the persons and property of individuals. Some minarchists believe that the state is a "necessary evil", but this is bullshite. Either you are oppose to all forms of coercion and force and libertarian, or you are not and not libertarian. There is no way around this.

If you think about it, anarchism is the highest expression of libertarianism, and libertarianism is the highest expression of anarchism.

This is why I call myself an anarcho-libertarian or a libertarian anarchist. "anarcho-communism", "anarcho-capitalism", "anarcha-feminism", "anarcho-primitivism", ect. only describe a certain arrangement once the state is abolished. But anarcho-libertarian includes any libertarian or anarchist philosophy opposed to all forms of force and coercion in order to create a free and equal society.

Thoughts?

 

Anarchism and Libertarianism can be very similar, and to many Libertarians Anarchism is the highest expression of Libertarianism. But each has different degrees and philosophies within them. To isolate all "non-purists" only hurts the philosophies especially in the political arena. It is unrealistic to think that a Libertarian who wants anarchy here and now will ever be elected, especially to high political offices. Is it not better to have those elected that atleast lean towards Libertarianism and Anarchism and little by little bring us closer to making these a reality?

I would not say that Libertarians oppose all force. If others initiate force against you or your property force is acceptable in defending these.

 

Libertarianism is opposed to the initiation of force......I don't see how this would conflict with anarchism.

 

I believe anarchism is just a more extreme from of libertarianism

 

Suppose this was implemented tomorrow in America. How would this not immediately turn into a tribal power grab for those who have the most "property/possessions"; for those who "own" the most resources?

Would this not lead to those who have not, being virtual (or even actual) SLAVES to those who do, not necessarily by physical coercion, but by survival? or worse...manipulation?

How could privatization be any better considering the limited resources being centralized into many feuding mini-oligarchies or, worse, a CORPORATE state?

I consider myself a socialist/anarchist, in the sense of believing in individual freedom, but also SOCIAL responsibility for my fellow human beings. I believe you have to have a good measure of both.

Oh, and sometimes "force" is for the benefit of the individual and/or humanity as a whole. Let's not be selfish. Only a fool would deny that we need each other. Human beings are SOCIAL ANIMALS, but are also selfish and greedy. With power that becomes dangerous.

This is why I support a Constitutional democracy with a mixture of social liberty and economic justice for all.

"Freedom" does not mean (and should not mean) you can do anything, nor does "force" always mean the greater harm. Both should be used wisely.

 

Well there could not be true slavery because everyone would be free, so no one could enter into a situation unless of their own free will. If one has nothing then they may have to do things they would rather not do to get ahead, but don't we at some point have to do this now?

Do you not think we are already pretty much living in a corporate state? Corporations spend lots of money buying politicians to make laws that favor them while hurting others from entering the market to give them competition. Would they still have such a strong advantage if others did not have to jump through all kinds of hoops and pay lots of fees and taxes to enter the market?

Privatization is better because it allows for competition. The government has no competition so it has no motivation for improvement or even good costumer service. If you have choices then companies will compete for your business. If there is no competition then privatization is no better really.

Libertarians believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility as well, but individual responsibility also entails some social responsibility. They don't believe that one should be forced to be socially responsible if one does not wish to be, though, as that is not freedom. Once you are forced to do something then you are no longer free. Libertarians believe in private charity and usually give it support in some way. Private charities are better as more money goes to the cause and less to bureaucracy. If not, then you can stop supporting that charity and support another, or start your own. What do you do if the government "charity" program is wasting its money?

Also, when there is no government to take care of people they will have to relie more on friends, family, and community. This will encourage people to be more socially responsible.

Libertarians are not pacifists. They do believe that force is sometimes necessary if someone uses force against you or your property. Libertarians would agree with what you have said, but they also believe that humans not purely greedy and uncare, but also compassionate and generous. They are willing to help others in need and I think this strongly shows when disasters hit.

This is the core of Libertarianism. Because people can be selfish and greedy and those people that are most selfish and greedy tend to strive for power. So where would these people most be concentrated? The government of coarse! The government is not some divine entity. It is made up of people.

Of coarse freedom does not mean doing anything, but shouldn't people be able to do anything they want with their own property as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's property?

 

no Libertarianism is not anarchism, Libertarians are for less govt. involvment, not no govt. at all...

 

I think if you take things to theoretical extremes, then of course no society can measure up.

I also think the key thing that divides anarchy from libertarianism, and which proves libertarianism is vastly superior, is property rights. Anarchists have to accept collectivism, except they claim its is somehow voluntary and consensual and therefore not part of a coercive state structure. Libertarians oppose collectivism and accept a coercive state to enforce property rights.

 

i think that libertarianism has a different meaning now

[post-ayn rand]

then it did 100+ years ago

and has simply become the label for those

who wish to practice unrestrained selfishness

 

"...has simply become the label for those who wish to practice unrestrained selfishness."

That's my impression also. At least half the time, a libertrarian's (misspelling intentional, btw) first complaint is that they don't want "their" money and resources going to elderly or disabled people (as if they ever turned down a benefit of living in our society). The "personal freedom" thing gets mentioned eventually, but is really just part of the sales pitch.

For instance, lines like "don't expect me to pay for your medical care, take some responsibility for yourself." Typically the guy saying it will be someone who ditched his wife when she became sick and thus too much of a financial burden. Meanwhile, the poor schmuck who quit his job to take care of a sick family member is chided for being "irresponsible." The argument that friends and family will help out in a pinch is fine, but libertrarians seem to think that everyone has relatives who can hand over a hundred grand or so for years of cancer treatments (after all, a significant percentage of our population really is that wealthy).

I almost wish I could buy the libertrarian arguments (how can one immediately reject a perspective that first emphasizes personal greed!), and in fact I'll be attending a talk done by a well-known libertrarian in a few weeks, and so I've not closed my mind entirely to the concept. It's not a really bad concept except that it doesn't seem to take into account human nature, and is seemingly designed for a species many millennia more advanced, and much more compassionate, than humans are at present (I would say the same for communism).

 

i think anarchism is essentially a socialist construct

and that libertarianism is essentially a capitalist construct

funny, your misspelling of 'libertrarian'

i like to call the ayn randies 'objectionists'

 

They are NOT the same. Although politically, anarchism and libertarianism are both leftist (although anarchism is more), economically anarchism is far leftist, while libertarianism is far-rightist. Libertarianism is wants all power to the corporations! I don't see how that's progressive in any way. Also, one of the only people to implement economically libertarian policies was Augusto Pinochet, Chile's Hitler.

 

Libertarianism is Anarchism for rich people.

Like simon said, libertarians are supporting a total free market economy(unregulated corporations, privatization, ect.) while the majority of anarchists(though you can hardly hope to group their ideas) are opposed to corporate rule in favor of individual and community rule.

 

Eh? Chile wasn't that radically free market. The most radically free market countries is probably Hong Kong, although I guess it isn't really a country. Also, while Pinochet was a brutal dictator, he was no Hitler.

 

Isn't privatization the same thing has individuals being able to rule over their own property? And aren't corporations just individuals cooperating voluntarily using their resources?

Isn't this what most theories of anarchism argue for?

 

Libertarians want to replace as much government as they practically can with private, voluntary alternatives. About 3/4 are "minarchists" who favor stripping government of most of its accumulated power to meddle, leaving only the police and courts for law enforcement and a sharply reduced military for national defense (nowadays some might also leave special powers for environmental enforcement). The other 1/4 are anarcho-capitalists who believe that "limited government" is a contradiction and the free market can even provide better law, order, and security than any government monopoly.

Even a completely libertarian society would still have a lot of structures that look like a modern-day government. The problem here is one of competing definitions: if by government you mean "that set of institutions in society on which we rely to defend our rights and aid us in the peaceful adjudication of disputes," then libertarians want lots of government, probably more and better government than we have now. On the other hand, if by "government" you mean "an organization which has a monopoly on initiation of force (coercion) and which is regarded as legitimate when it exercises that right," then libertarians want little or no "government." This ambiguity is inherent in the language, and results in a lot of misunderstandings on the net.

 

Wrong. Libertarians are opposed to the state taking money by force and pretending a charitable use. The poor, indigent, elderly, etc. were much better cared for before government got in the charity business. Local churches, shelters, and private charities did a much better job of caring for the needy than the bureaucratic state.

Firstly, much more is available to the needy individual if it needn't pass through the many channels of government, each filled with bureaucrats paid for their "service." Also, control of the funds at the local level often weeded out con artists, liars, cheats, and the lazy. Social programs run by the state are rife with fraud and deceit.

To state that those who object to government taking care of the elderly are merely selfish is to completely ignore the nature of the complaint and the philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarians are no more or less charitable than any other group. Objecting to the government doing a thing is not even close to opposing the thing itself. To suggest otherwise is intellectually lazy and deliberately deceptive.

If you have an axe to grind with libertarianism, at least try to understand it before making ignorant blanket statements.

 

A while back a friend asked me "If I don't personally have a right to tax you, or to prevent you from smoking marihuana, for example, how can I logically delegate this right that I don't possess to a legislator or representative? " He didn't know who first asked this question, and asking at various anarchist, individualist, and libertarian sites around the web I haven't been able to find out. Anybody know? I think I'll also post this under philosophy.

 

Who is going to enforce laws ensuring everyone is indeed "free"?

Good luck with that, libertarians....

 

Laws restrict freedom of action, they do not ensure freedom, as the First Amendment implies- "Congress shall make no law respecting...religion.. speech... press...", but the US Constitution has been almost entirely abandoned, as Jefferson thought would happen. He suggested that a revolution would probably be necessary every generation or so.