Anarchism and Libertarianism, finding common ground

Namely in the form of Anarcho-Capitalist (otherwise known as free market anarchism, which isn't actually recognized as anarchist by most anarchists though) and Individualist anarchism.

Though classical anarchism and libertarianism diverge on several issues (namely property and capitalism), we can all agree that the State needs to go, yes?

If the one that governs the least governs the best, what governs less than no government at all?

Certainly there's common ground to be found in the works of Benjamin Tucker and Murray Rothbard.

So how about, it?

truce?

 

yes i like the idea of stripping government of most of its accumulated power to meddle, however I still believe we need the police and courts for law enforcement, things have gone way too far in this country for any of us to be safe if there was no one to enforce some kinda law or guidelines for not being a jerk LOL I still think we need a military for national defense. If we didn't have some things that the government provides there would be all sorts of private police forces and such acting like asses..........

 

What are the disagreements on property and capitalism?

I do think we need some government, just a lot less than we have now. I think we need a government to protect our rights and property as well as courts to settle civil disputes. That is about all. I certainly don't need it tell me how to live my life, what I can and cannot consume, or what my pursuit of happiness should be.

 

Libertarianism is opposed to all forms of force and coercion. Therefore supporting even a minimal amount of government is un-libertarian.

On the other hand, if you support a government without any compulsory taxation, then it does go with libertarian philosophy. However whether this can really be considered a state then is open to question. It wouldn't really be a government then, it would just be a voluntary organization that people have entrusted to arbitrate disputes.

 

Libertarians are not opposed to all forms of force. It is acceptable when it comes to defending one's self and property if another initiates actions against these. A government that does just this is not un-libertarian.

 

But the government cannot initiate force to fund itself. That would be theft....or forcing other people to support an institution they don't want to support. This would be un-libertarian.

But if this "government" is voluntarily funded, then it is okay. But is it really a government then? Depends on how you define "government".

 

Yes, I agree. A government should not use force to fund itself. A voluntary government could still be called government, or whatever you want to call it. What is in a name? It might seem different, but so was the original US government which was a lot different than it exists today.

A government that just protects our rights and property would require A LOT less funds than what it uses now. I think it would be easy to do voluntarily, be it volunteering time or money.

 

once you take away the money and run it on volunteers and donations, you find out who really cares about the country and who cared about the money =)

 

The late dictators and mass murders General Pinochet and Surharto loved there Neo Liberal, free-market, Chicargo school advises. Strange bed fellows, you would think. Then again right wing ideolists and revolutionaries have always known how to get down and dirty, like the Neo-con's in Iraq.

There's no such thing as Anarcho-capitalism, there never has been and never will be. The anarchists of the left would be right not to include the modern free-market ideologies in there thinking.

 

what do you mean there is no such things as anarcho-capitalism? sure there is. its a theory stating that individual rights are supreme.

almost all libertarians denounce pinochet. a leader who oppresses and murders people, regardless of his economic policies can never be "libertarian".

 

mstob

Just in thoery.

No no capitalism is highly organized socially and politically, just like the well funded think tanks of the Neo-liberal right. Needless to say the self same Neo liberals free marketeers have there snouts in the troph when ever a chance beckons, afler all Its only others that have to suffer the consequence of there policies.

Neo classical economics is neo classical economics, really is reality. Many conservatives will always be class assholes and many neo liberals will be probably always be there willing falls.

 

when anarcho-capitalists, speak of capitalism they mean a system based off voluntary consent. but they also mean more than this. a system where the state is abolished. all privileges originating from the state such as: monopoly, the power to control the currency, the ability to have standing armies for the most part, as well as abolishment of the conglomeration of private industry that exists right now under current conditions, are all abolished

furthermore, any communal system, such as syndicalist society, or anarcho-communism could function in a anarcho-capitalist society, simply because these societies fit under the criteria of an anarcho-capitalist society. they are voluntary and there is no state.