Did I discover the difference between anarchy and Libertarianism?

[CathKhan]

Given I have far too much free time to do things of little importance but can't seem to get my homework done, I have thought about this subject. What is the difference between the Anarchists and the Libertarians? Finally, I think I've got it. Libertarians are anti-government. They despise military, economic, and social intervention. However, while anarchists might agree with that whole-heartedly, they despise other forms of authority as well. They despise big businesses, big Churches, etc. and would prefer that they all be torn down by "the people". Thus, anarchy could be deemed as the left-wing of the anti-authority types while Libertarianism seems to be more about letting things succeed or fail as they will and in contrast to anarchy would be the more Conservative wing of the anti-authority types.

[Californian Tony]

Yeah, (American) libertarianism is a form of anarchism that misses the big picture. They consider government as the only existing limit to individual freedom and forget about religion, corporations, prejudices, private use of force, etc, etc etc...

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Libertarianism is a rather broad term, and some are anarchists while others are not. I'd say that most who identify that way are not, and are minarchists. (possibly to a level that is still not practical or realistic, but still thinking there's a need for a basic government)

[Free Palestine]

Anarchism tends to oppose all coercive hierarchy, yes.

But, there are anarcho-capitalists.  I think of it in terms of left-anarchism versus right-anarchism.

[dead0man]

Yeah, (American) libertarianism is a form of anarchism that misses the big picture. They consider government as the only existing limit to individual freedom and forget about religion, corporations, prejudices, private use of force, etc, etc etc...

You people keep saying that, but I don't know where you're getting it from.  Any libertarian that tells you it's ok to have their power limited by anybody that isn't the government isn't a libertarian.

[Californian Tony]

Yeah, (American) libertarianism is a form of anarchism that misses the big picture. They consider government as the only existing limit to individual freedom and forget about religion, corporations, prejudices, private use of force, etc, etc etc...

You people keep saying that, but I don't know where you're getting it from.  Any libertarian that tells you it's ok to have their power limited by anybody that isn't the government isn't a libertarian.

Of course, I'm describing the forum's libertarian core rather than the more moderate or atypical guys.

[dead0man]

Maybe, but has anybody ever actually said it in those words?

[white trash heroes]

Maybe, but has anybody ever actually said it in those words?

No, as usual certain people still don't get it. Libertarians reject the initiation of force for any reason. Even if it is just lipservice at this point it's in still in the US party's oath. Hence any sort of relationship between the individual and another institution whether it's work, paying taxes, church, whatever is supposed to be purely voluntary. Of course I see major problems with that sort of line of thinking but that's basically what they believe. So really, there is no conflict unless you're talking about "anarchists" that complain about government spending cuts..

[crypto-fascist superhero]

So really, there is no conflict unless you're talking about "anarchists" that complain about government spending cuts..

Ah yes, the ones who are all about "voluntary cooperation" where anyone who doesn't "voluntarily cooperate" is shot.

[Stardust]

Properly understood, there is no difference at all between the two. The word 'minarchism' was a product of the Cold War, and the old tension between the need to "accept for the duration" of the conflict the Rooseveltian war machine in order to realize the anti-Communist dreams of some on the Right. It is, essentially, a false and arbitrary line drawn in order to make libertarianism look more appealing to stolid middle-class conservatives who would run away in terror from anything approaching an honest discussion of the subject.

[dead0man]

Maybe, but has anybody ever actually said it in those words?

Anybody?  Said it....in those words?  A libertarian that tells you it's ok to have their power limited by anybody that isn't the government?  Or anything even sorta like that?

[Californian Tony]

Maybe, but has anybody ever actually said it in those words?

Anybody?  Said it....in those words?  A libertarian that tells you it's ok to have their power limited by anybody that isn't the government?  Or anything even sorta like that?

Oh come on. Of course they don't put it that way, it's just the natural consequence of all their policy views. Get it ?

[dead0man]

No, I guess I don't.

[Californian Tony]

Acting dumb isn't exactly the best way to make your point.

[dead0man]

Sir, this is no act!


As a libertarian it would be pretty stupid of me (or them) to think that our "policies" would lead to us having our freedoms limited by the Catholic church or Apple Corp.  Why would I have those policies then?  Unless you think we want to have our freedoms limited by them, but that really doesn't make any sense, we'd just be Republicans then.


(that was a joke, Republicans don't (generally) want to have their freedoms limited by church or corp either, but, as you know, it's always funny to poke fun of people and their silly beliefs they take as fact)

[Californian Tony]

Thanks God I took the precaution to distinguish between libertarian ideologues (wormyguy) and pragmatic people (you) 9 posts above.

BTW, who was this guy who made fun of me because I hadn't read a post ? Oh, right, that was you.

[dead0man]

My apologies, I may have been coming across more confrontational here than I wanted to.

[Californian Tony]

My apologies, I may have been coming across more confrontational here than I wanted to.

Apologies accepted.

[scoopa]

Maybe, but has anybody ever actually said it in those words?

Anybody?  Said it....in those words?  A libertarian that tells you it's ok to have their power limited by anybody that isn't the government?  Or anything even sorta like that?

Oh come on. Of course they don't put it that way, it's just the natural consequence of all their policy views. Get it ?

I honestly don't. Can you provide a couple of examples?

[dead0man]

On further thought, that is just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on.  I don't think the regular libertarian policy views, if implemented, would lead us to being controlled by a religious organization or some giant monopoly (in fact, it would be impossible).  Antonio feels differently.  He's making a logical step off of his (in my opinion missguided) assumptions of libertarian policies and there really is nothing worth arguing about to that end.  We could discuss which policies in particular he thinks would lead us to our freedoms being limited by the church or AT&T, but that should probably be it's own thread.