Anarchists are Reds (libertarian refers to a type of socialism). Socialists don't believe the government should do everything. Socialists believe that the working class should control the fruits of their labor, not speculators and capitalists who mismanage society into the ground by their greed. Laissez faire capitalists (hypocrites who run for political office as libertarians) want a society owned by rich people and organized by businessmen. Kind of like the antebellum South.
Anarchism is the belief that governments should not exist.
Some people who call themselves anarchists have specific ideas about *what else* ought to happen when there is no government -- some of these plans, ironically, would likely require government-type coercion in order to take effect! -- but what all anarchists have in common is a desire to get rid of government.
Some Libertarian Party members are anarchists, while others feel that limited government is the best way to safeguard liberty.
Anarchy means life without RULERS. IT does not mean live life without RULES. True Anarchists understand that anyone (from the tax man to the armed street thug) who starts the use of force against a peaceful person is trying to be a ruler over that peaceful person. The rule is NO rulers.
@yinzjagoffs I could tell you were a right wing "libertarian" from the fact that you emphasized TAXES AND CRIME. Rush Limbaugh howls about the same things.
But anarchism is an actual political theory, and it has never advocated capitalism. Rather, anarchism developed against capitalism as a kind of rule.
@agapeiron Rush Limbaugh also howls about how the State should have control over your body and mind. He's for the War on drugs, against prostitution, wants the state involved in marriage and would still lock up anyone who didn't pay their fair share or taxes. Sounds more like socialism to me. Also, remember political theory is always under development . The sun used to orbit the earth at one time.
@yinzjagoffs I agree that political theory is always under development. But that doesn't mean that neo-fascist National "Anarchism" or "anarcho"-capitalism are developments of anarchism. Just means capitalists and fascists want to call themselves anarchists.
@agapeiron I agree that a fascist can never be an anarchist because fascism implies State control over capital. Anarchy is void of any sort of State control. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, but as soon as one advocates the initiation of force, that person becomes a Statist through and through.
@yinzjagoffs Indeed, anarchism is void of state control, but it has always also been more than that; opposiition to exploitation, to rule by capital. Anarchism is not simply an ambiguous anti-state mentality. It is actually a political theory with a broad array of constructive ideas that developed in tune with anti-authoritarian tendencies of the 19th century workers movement.
@agapeiron I agree and understand. I'm also interested in the nature of Anarchism in matters such as personal relationships and child rearing. I have studied Proudhon, Bakunin Kropotkin and the workers movement and can understand the passion about what there is to be said about it all, but at the end of the day all the classical anarchist would be nothing but happy to usher in more state control .
@yinzjagoffs And I did not merely say that, by your argument, that the classical anarchists would be in favor of state control. I also said that anarchists throughout history-- Whether the thousands of anarchists in Chicago, New York, Paris, Russia, Italy, Germany, China, Uruguay, Mexico, throughout rural and urban Spain (where it took form through the work of millions)-- All of these, by your definition, would not be anarchists.
When did the "true anarchists" begin? Murray Rothbard?
@yinzjagoffs Assuming your notion of force justifies and defends private property-- which was founded on force (correct me if I'm wrong)-- your assertion that the use of force (in dissolving private property) makes one a statist, would necessitate that Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin were statists, and therefore not anarchists. That would mean the main figures of classical anarchism were not anarchists, and that the majority of all anarchists throughout history were not anarchists. Agree?
@agapeiron My defense of private property only applies to property obtained though one's own labor or free trade. The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
@yinzjagoffs Where does the right come from to claim a section of the earth as permanent private property-- to be bequeathed, or sold?
If you defend private property obtained through free trade, does that mean you would defend private property taken arbitrarily by force just because it passed through the hands of people with wealth who did not actually use force in obtaining it?
Libertarianism and Anarchism are very different and I don't know why people keep trying to marry the ideologies. There are a few key differences. Libertarians still seek govt. and are very pro private property rights. They seek a much smaller govt. but still wish to have it as an authority. Anarchism is much more extreme. Anarchists wish to abolish the whole govt. on all levels, and despise authority. Most believe in collectivism. Anarchism is closer to liberalism without the state.
@drieey Right wing free marketeers took "libertarian" which used to mean anarchist. They started calling their new brand of conservatism "libertarianism."
They package it with "not quite right, not quite left" rhetoric to rope in impressionable middle class folks.
The idea of something like a libertarian "party" would have been absurd to all actual libertarians throughout history! For how can you bring about a libertarian society by entering the electoral circus and joining the State!
Right wingers who support gay marriage, drug legalization and abortion? Also, who oppose corporate welfare and most foreign wars? Get your facts straight before you say something. Quibbling over definitions of the word libertarian is one thing but characterizing them as right wing is absurd.
The word libertarian used to mean anarcho-communism. It is still widely used today to describe views that are anti-authority. In other words: libertarian does not have to mean capitalism or free markets, I would even say that in most cases it doesn't.
Well, I'm speaking more about the Libertarian party. After all the words Republican and Democrat had very different meanings hundreds of years ago. Does that mean these people who call themselves such abide 100% by the definitions and all variations there of, and if not they should call themselves something else?
In fact I could argue that Libertarians are more Republican than Republicans themselves.
In the US, words that describe ideologies tend to change definitions. If I think about libertarianism, I think about libertarianism that actually existed like in Spain. The Spanish anarchists called themselves libertarian communists.
@davitodude The problem with your assertion is that no actual anarchists believe in free markets and capitalism because, as such, anarchism excludes these oppressive ideas. Libertarian ideas have generally tended to do so also, though in the 1970s a whacky group of American right wingers began using "libertarian" to describe their free market ideology.
The issue here is the non-aggression principle and voluntary principle. Modern day Libertarians want a government to reduce human on human force (courts, police, military), all funded by voluntary taxes. The idea is that a "U.S. Brand" of these services will be enough to prevent anarcho-capitalism. Remember, pragmatic issues play second, as Libertarianism is a philosophy first.
Btw, anarchists do not advocate the absence of a government, but of a state. Which is quite different.
Libertarians remind me a mix between minarchists and collectivists. But always with a higher power that's in control. Not really anarchism ... just a "do whatever you want" inside a classed society. Which is the opposite of anarchism that gets rid of that same classed society first.
Anarchism is impossible nowadays. Many years perfecting mankind are needed before..
I'm a libertarian. The difference between me and an anarchist, is that I want a state for national defense. Something a state has proven itself very useful for.
Thomas Jefferson rejected the need for a standing military because he felt that all of a nation's citizens would be more than willing to voluntarily defend their sovereignty collectively in a society they held to be genuinely free & invaluable.
The more power you give the state to "defend",the more power you give it to subjugate.
@thirdshift47 I'd have people being allowed their own militias/militaries as well. That and the use of unions, will keep the government back. Its a huge deterrent. Nothing is perfect though. The reason for having a military, private or not, is to defend the country.
Also, the government exists as an arbitrar in disputes, and holds people to contracts.
As a libertarian on the left,though,I've always had this problem with the notion of a philosophy which doesn't advocate the state actually having a humane function,but only that it exists in the most coercive way,e.g.,armies,courts,police,etc.,being referred to as libertarian.
@thirdshift47 I'm a leftist libertarian as well. Though I think that communities and groups of communities should get together to help their own through noncoercive means.
@an50331 yeah thats why they support the constitution. hmmm what is in the constituion that portrays it to be a supporting article of anarchy?? absolutly nothing, because there are rules, and rights, and the rights prevent the possibility of " no order" or "no rules" or "no state".. way off buddy, this is propaganda,"black" to be technical
Nice try, but you are confused. All I'm saying is that Libertarianism is very different in the US than it is in the rest of the world. I addressed this because I could tell people were confused by reading the comments.
And I never said that Libertarians are Anarchist, I actually was explaining how the two are different. Reread my comment you seem to be arguing out of thin air.
@an50331 There is a reason Mao Zedong waited for a right wing politician to be in office before he could talk to the west. But then again Mao was a disgrace to Marxism just as Nixon became a shamed for democracy.
That's Marxism-Leninism the dictatorship of the proletariat remember? it was a total failure. Anarchism needs another chance to prove itself by not trying to be destroyed it by external forces.
Many libertarians would consider such a pro-government libertarian to be an intellectual midget, because government itself, politics, is not at all a legitimate means of the prosecution of human societal affairs, it evolves from Ancient Greeks meeting in halls to decide on arbitrary policies regarding slavery etc, it is not respectable and it does not forge social bonds and material welfare as does market action.
Thank god that they lack the understanding to which you refer of the term anarchism-because I would be truly appalled to count as anarchists in my understanding and 'co-opting' of the term those self-professed anarchists like Proudhon who deemed it legitimate to say that unequal material relations necessarily impel political tyranny i.e. initiation of coercion. Just because tyranny arises from inequality as by a tautology does NOT mean that freedom to exchange means of production is exploitative
Thank god that they lack the understanding to which you refer of the term anarchism-because I would be truly appalled to count as anarchists in my understanding and 'co-opting' of the term those self-professed anarchists like Proudhon who deemed it legitimate to say that unequal material relations necessarily impel political tyranny i.e. initiation of coercion. Just because tyranny arises from inequality as by a tautology does NOT mean that freedom to exchange means of production is exploitative
@Nintendomanwill if a man does not have the gold he does not make the rules, so why then does the man who has the gold make the rules? because he has the gold. how is that not tyranny?
"After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Proudhon from New Orleans. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861."
The LP talks about how evil the federal government is without any criticism of state government. State governments have all the same suppressive qualities of that of the federal government, except less accountability to the public at large. The smaller the gov (land wise) the narrower the views tend to be.
This would without a doubt cause another civil war. All the liberals and civil libertarians flocking to the north and the neocons and the conservatives to the south. Sounds like a recipe for tyranny and disaster. There would be no balance. It's best to just get rid of the state altogether.
Somali is a possible result of anarchy and fascism and communism are possible results of statism. I'll take Somalia over Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. You have the right to your opinion, but please don't call yourself a libertarian if you support terrorism.
I'm sorry, sir, are you alright? How come I support terrorism?
Somali is a very possible result of anarchy, true. Fascism and communism are very possible result of statism, true as well. Early United States and Hong Kong are results of minarchism. I'll take early USA and HK over Somali or Stalin/Hitler.
terrorism -noun: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
You are for forcing me to pay taxes because you support minarchy, correct?
Early United states led to fascist United States. Statism is a failed ideology. If you believe in the "free market" you should be for competing collectives instead of a single monopolized state.
I believe in the free market, that's right. But free market is only possible when there's no coercion, and transactions are voluntary. As you can see in anarchist Somali, there's too much coercion for free market to evolve and prosper.
The only reason d'etre of the government is to keep society free from the violence and protect us from the violence. I consider it a minimum necessary evil. And yeah, I'm not happy that it still has taxes, even the lowest possible.
Actually since the government fell in Somalia the life expectancy has gone up two years and 400 thousands refugees came back to Somalia. Every aspect of life has improved slightly, though the numbers are still awful. There was no Utopia in American "minarchist" history. There was a lot of slavery, Native American slaughtering (Ayn Rand loves that barbaric slaughter), gun duels, religion, and wife beating.
That's interesting what you say about Somali. If I see successful example of anarchism in the modern world, I'll become anarchist too. So far I only see the perfect example of almost minarchist economy in HK.
I don't believe in anarchy achieved through force. The majority has to accept the concept of anarchy and vote to demonopolize the government. And if HK were to become anarchist people can still participate in that successful collective. People should have the choice to opt out though.
I think we should gradually move towards to freedom and liberty by decreasing size of government, step by step, smooth transition. Let's get to the minarchism first, then we can also experiment with anarchism. We're still too far away from both minarchism and anarchism to argue what's better.
Somali is not even an anarchism. It is a decentralized statism. To give it credit living standards have increased since the central government fell (as you said) but that does not make it an anarchism. There is still ruler ship. A state collapse does not automatically equal an anarchism.
I dont believe there is a such thing as a free market anymore, I dont even think we live in a capitalist country anymore either. The individuals are over regulated to the point where they cannot freely produce and sell without being dominated with tough licenses and taxes, yet major corporations are allowed to stronghold without regulation the individual, the the corps rule through the fist of government, where us individuals are regulated against doing so.
funny, i hear neo cons going on n on bout the free mkt. free mkt for poor n mid class and socialism for rich corps. right? cant let them fail or the whole econ goes. whos bailin me out when my work dries up?
Right. This is definitely what neo-cons have endorsed. But Libertarians aren't neo-cons, and neo-cons, though they may pretend to be, certainly aren't libertarians. I'm not sure if I understood your comment correctly. Libertarians are anti-war and anti-corporatism. No special state favors for the wealthy or the poor.
It's too bad that the Libertarian Party is not nearly as anti-government as it was when this documentary was produced. Now they advocate replacing the income tax with the oxymoronic "fair tax" instead of arguing that taxation is theft. They shy away from discussing the insane war on drugs. They won't even entertain the notion that the Federal Reserve should be abolished or that the FBI is unconstitutional. The Libertarian Party is no longer the party of principle. It has become a waste of time.
Most Libertarians today are minarchists. They advocate the minimum government necessary to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. That means police, national defense and a judicial system, as well as most of the legislative and executive functions outlined in the Constitution.
I'd say about 20% of the LP members are anarcho-capitalists.
We are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, and do not advocate foreign military entanglements.
Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes I am an Anarchist.
Most anarchists are socialists. You may want to look up anarcho syndicalism if you are not aware of it. Market anarchists are a minority but are growing. The important point is anarchism (no rulers), not markets, voluntary socialism, or any other economic preference.. Anarchism without adjectives ftw.
@00PBST00 Anarchist should all grow up an realize nowadays their needs to be a government when it comes to organizing a society.I don't know what you as an anarchist believe will happen to society with out government where I see a MadMax situation.Socialism on the other hand is a perfect form of government that can perfectly supplement both capitalism and a democracy if a capitalism and democracy is capable of a lenghtoftime,it will be because of socialism that restrains the extremes of the two.
Libertarian are not communist, black panthers or anarchists. Anarchy means no government, Libertarians stand for smaller government and more personal freedom, get the hint smaller government. Libertarians stand for the true meaning of the constitution and bill of rights. Can you tell me you like giving up more freedom to the government that doesn't represent you?
Most anarchist, if they had a true Libertarian government (like 1% of what we currently have, the way it was inthe begin for US so small government it was almost no government would be very happy and not even seek the more. I work with alot of anarchists and will right down till we have a very very very small government, at that point I will stop as a Libertarian, but will let the anarchists stand free :-) In Freedom for Liberty! We have the only option that will work, free the Llamas:-)
i have been an anarchist for a while (about two years), and i am now becoming a libertarian. to be honest, i think libertarians should support anarchists, because in the end, anarchism is voluntarism, and therefore can work together very well with libertarianism.
you quote: In reality, an "anarchist" is a savage anti-goverment 100%." If this be true all the more resason we need to work with them as Libertarians! :-) May Libertarians be blessed with more free radicals again :-) I much rather deal with an anarchist what his color then any statist closked in deception to control us one way or another. Anarcist need Libertarians as we need them, join and fight the statists together, and some day the Llamas will be free!
absolutely, i feel what you are talking about. i've been drawn very closely to the libertarian party since the Ron Paul Revolution. but i feel more and more as the U.S. govt. becomes bigger and more socialistic (i feel its always been socialistic since the days of Federal Reserve and govt. interfering in the market) the only way to bring the power back to the people, is through an anarchist revolution to break down the system, and install whatever system that works best for the people..
just like the russian revolution of 1917 and the american revolution of 1776. eventually the people resort to an anarchist (anti-state) philosophy after many years of injustice and corruption in the system, to combat it. and in that small window, it is important to reach to the people of the philosophies of economic and personal freedom. if that's what history has shown in sociology, then i say lets look towards anarcho-libertarianism. a system for the people and by the people...
I just wanted to say as an indepenent, I have come to realize who the democrats really are(socialist) and probably be supporting the conservitves more in the future. But as an independent who will no longer consider democrats as an opption I must look for another opption, and I must say the libertarian movement is looking good. Also if you ask me to choose between anarchy and socialism I choose anarchy.
Many Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. Famous anarchist libertarians include Murray Rothbard, the long-time head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Austrian Economics bastion.
But many more Libertarians are minarchists, or Constitutionalists.
They want to dramatically reduce the size and power of the government. They oppose the Iraq war, (war is the health of the state) the USA PATRIOT Act, and violations of free speech.
Libertarians want government to go in the right direction.
Not all libertarians are anarchists, however all anarchists are libertarians. You see "Anarchy" is a form of "Libertarianism" which is the antonym of "authoritarian". Interesting isn't it?
If you believe we can only survive with government, then you make low beasts of mankind, the consequence of which can only be Orwell's proverbial boot stomping on a human face forever.
Anarchism is a constant process or the rejection of hierarchical structures. This includes but is not limited to the boss-worker dynamic, gangs, mobs, and the State itself.
As the anarchists took up arms against the fascists, so too they would take up arms against gangs, thugs, or whoever you're thinking of.
The Black Panthers don't exist any more. They were ended by the FBI and local police.
The Black Panthers had a fairly positive platform for improving the conditions within the ghetto through privately funded free programs that served their communities.
They also policed their communities, and monitored the city police to alleviate racist police brutality.
Whatever groups call themselves "The Black Panther Party" today are not endorsed by founding members of the original Panthers.
Like the man in the video said, the Libertarian party doesn't advocate anarchy, it advocates small government and personal responsibility. It advocates a minimal and properly regulated free market rather than the profoundly over regulated and monopolistic mixed market that is favored by Republicans or the down right socialist market favored by contemporary Democrats.
Also, wouldn't anarchism destroy the constitution...unless you would propose that an amendment be added that the national government positions of power become purely ceremonial roles or that the national government be run by a private staffing organization!! lol...
Ha! no one will associate with you...more like the fact that you're a murderer will become like a calling card for groups that need hit men. How would you solve organized crime in an anarchist society??
A government's purpose is to ensure the safety and welfare of the people so that the citizens would be able to prosper happily with little threat. The government should be weak enough so that the people have enough freedom, but strong enough to ensure the safety.
Also, isnt an 'Anarchist Party' a paradox? If Anarchy is against government, and a party is a government seat, then...
It is chaos. When there is no government, there is no order. Without order there is chaos. When government fails, there will always be someone to take charge. You cant stop a government from forming. Some guy will take control over a few men (a gang). One thing leads to another and you have a government. Anarchy cant exist. Its too ideological.
You state this like it is a proven law of physics. Rather, it is the opinion of some guy on youtube.
As anarchists resist the state, or resist capitalism, so too, they can resist gangs, in solidarity with one another. People who make this comment seem to think everyone just goes home and leaves this massive social vacuum. They do not. Read about the Paris commune and the Spanish Civil War.
If Libertarians are conservatives, then they are funny conservatives, indeed.
They oppose the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War. They support marriage equality and tend to be pro-choice about abortion. They defend free speech and free thought.
They do join some Republicans by supporting free market policies, but I argue that the true free market is closer to an anarchy.
Calling us conservatives gets us wrong about 2/3 of the time.
Nah, not really. But Libertarians (of the most common type) typically only attack the state when it's over economic issues, rarely over things like drug legalisation, immigration controls, militarism etc. etc. Ron Paul is the perfect example.
What libertarian *capitalists* have no issues with is capitalism. Remember that "libertarian" was first used in a political way by an anarchist-*communist* trying to evade anti-anarchist laws.
Capitalism - system prone to crises, to exploitation and poverty. I don't, by the way, oppose the free market, which is an entirely different thing before you start busting my balls over this.
There will be no ball busting. Your balls are safe. I shall pause while you cup them gently.
The term "libertarian" was used that way but when it is used 99% of the time in the United States (where I'm from), it squarely means capitalist minarchism. While I understand your point and historical perspective, trying to reclaim the term libertarian is probably a lost cause, but you're free to try.
I'd more put my energies into fighting anarchocapitalists over the term "anarchist."
my only with the misconception in Libertarianism as I am one. is that we don't know if free market is truly prone exploitation and poverty. those a usually signs of a monopoly ad injustices created by govt. the U.S. hasn't has free market since the days of 1913 when the Fed came in. since then it's been socialism. the govt. interfering one way or another in the markets or economy. as of right now, U.S. follow a communist economy of state ownership on enterprise and private property.
well what is it called when the state owns the banks, insurance companies, and businesses? and lets not forget, the U.S. now follows the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, abolition of private properties? heavy and progressive income tax? abolition of right to inheritance? state influence in communications? a central bank? all the way down the list. is that not socialism or statism? i'm not trying to pick a fight, trying to get the opinion from someone who follows Marxism.
"monopoly of money, land, and patents." just to clarify, tucker used the term "money monopoly" to denote a central bank's monopoly over the common means of economic exchange. a "money monopoly" is simply any institution with government granted "legal tender" priviledges.
This will really clear things up! The truth is libertarians are really the moderates. The fascists, communists, socialists....are on the left and anarchists are on the right of libertarians.
ok. if you want the exact translation of anarchy from greek to english, you must understand that in greek the letter "a" means "without" and the word "archy" means rulers. anarchy is literally "without rulers."
"I do believe in minimal govt for things like property rights."
That is impossible. A system in which property rights are protected is incompatible with a system in which government exists because governments necessarily systematically violate property rights through their conduction of taxation which is theft.
So do I not have the right to build a house and live in it without others taking it over? You are correct about one thing, taxation is theft but I personally believe in the constitution (government piece of paper) that limits government action(suppose to). If government is going to be here should we at least try to limit it? Property itself is not a material or good....it is a right. We have property over ourselves, what happens if someone comes to my house and won't leave?
Personal and property defebse are insurable enterprises and dispute arbitration is potentially a market function. The market creates competitive solutions to human problems. The only reason why we don't have private companies providing these services is because governments outlaw competition and force people to purchase their services at gunpoint. That is the difference between anarchists and all other political ideas.
I don't think we are addressing my question. I understand economic freedom, what I am asking is what happens when those few people in an anarchist state infringe on my liberty? People do murder and steal....in a lawless state there is no justice.
If somebody kills your grandmother you would hire a company which specializes in forensic science or whatever other methods are used to catch criminals in order to investigate this matter, gather sufficient evidence, catch the criminal, try the evidence before a private judge and jury, determine whether the suspect is innocent or guilty, and then administer justice in some form of financial compensation.
That person's name would be entered into a database, much like credit card companies do, and your criminal record would be available for all employers to see. People would simply not associate with you and you would be socially and economically isolated from society. Not only have you been forced to relinquish your property to the victim's family, but now no one will associate with you.
Hans Hermann Hoppe goes into intricate detail of how these services will be provided in the marketplace with his free online essay, "The Private Production of Defense." Steffan Molyneux, youtube name "Stefbot", has devised a possible "DRO", dispute resolution organization, system for the provision of these former government services.
Anarchists believe that goods and services should be provided voluntarily on a contractual basis in a market atmosphere and everyone else believes that goods and services should be provided involuntarily at the barrel of a gun. Either you believe services should be provided contractually in the marketplace, anarchists, or you believe services should be provided at gunpoint, everyone else.
I wish it were that black and white but the real world has people who do not voluntarily trade and use force. What will we do to those people if we do live in an anarchist state? Let's say someone kills my grandma? Or even less, let's say someone steals something from me?
but the idea that anarchy is somehow chaos is completely false. anarchy is the only system in which property rights, personal safety, and rational criminal prosecution exists.
I am not personally saying that anarchy is chaos. I am saying that this is a Darwinian look at life and does not look out for the rights of the people. How can you have property rights under a lawless system? How does rational prosecution exist in a place where there is no prosecution of those who infringe on the rights of others. Don't get me wrong, I have a deep anarchy tinge, I just can't see society without rule of law.
Regardless of our differences, you are great at discussion. Do you support the libertarian party or are you an anarchist who doesn't believe in voting?
Nobody says "this is how people WILL organize in an anarchy", but these are possible business models that could very well work. At any rate, it is certain that markets create competitive solutions to human problems. If worst comes to worst, we will have mafias providing these services in an anarchy, which is what we have now anyway.
No I just think some people might have some legit questions about the difference between the two and there is nothing wrong with asking and answering them.
Well, I agreed with you last week, but it's over now: the Ruwart and Kubby people nominated Barr, because they're bad at math. Root was the libertarian candidate, and he only got VP, due to the late arrival of Ruwart, and the failed and penniless campaign of Kubby. To the end they were delusional. That's how we got a semi-libertarian and pro politician like Barr as out "standard bearer". But that's that. Let's make the best of it, and rally behind Barr. If so, Root can win LP pres. in 2012!
A libertarian does not believe in the initiation of force.
They take that philosophy to its natural conclusion.
Government gets its power from the people.
People do not have the right to harm or steal from others.
Therefore the government does not have this power if so were did they come by it?
Giving government more power then the people who constitute it implies Government is God.
ilkhanX 2 weeks ago
Anarchists are Reds (libertarian refers to a type of socialism). Socialists don't believe the government should do everything. Socialists believe that the working class should control the fruits of their labor, not speculators and capitalists who mismanage society into the ground by their greed. Laissez faire capitalists (hypocrites who run for political office as libertarians) want a society owned by rich people and organized by businessmen. Kind of like the antebellum South.
perdondaris 3 months ago
@00PBST00 you mean Libertarianism vs. Autoritarianism? Yeah freedom always wins.
CloverfieldMonster95 4 months ago
Libertarianism would still allow a judiciary system. there's your difference
jtizz711 6 months ago
Anarchism is the belief that governments should not exist.
Some people who call themselves anarchists have specific ideas about *what else* ought to happen when there is no government -- some of these plans, ironically, would likely require government-type coercion in order to take effect! -- but what all anarchists have in common is a desire to get rid of government.
Some Libertarian Party members are anarchists, while others feel that limited government is the best way to safeguard liberty.
HeavenlyLoving 6 months ago 3
Anarchy means life without RULERS. IT does not mean live life without RULES. True Anarchists understand that anyone (from the tax man to the armed street thug) who starts the use of force against a peaceful person is trying to be a ruler over that peaceful person. The rule is NO rulers.
yinzjagoffs 7 months ago
@yinzjagoffs I could tell you were a right wing "libertarian" from the fact that you emphasized TAXES AND CRIME. Rush Limbaugh howls about the same things.
But anarchism is an actual political theory, and it has never advocated capitalism. Rather, anarchism developed against capitalism as a kind of rule.
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron Rush Limbaugh also howls about how the State should have control over your body and mind. He's for the War on drugs, against prostitution, wants the state involved in marriage and would still lock up anyone who didn't pay their fair share or taxes. Sounds more like socialism to me. Also, remember political theory is always under development . The sun used to orbit the earth at one time.
yinzjagoffs 6 months ago
@yinzjagoffs I agree that political theory is always under development. But that doesn't mean that neo-fascist National "Anarchism" or "anarcho"-capitalism are developments of anarchism. Just means capitalists and fascists want to call themselves anarchists.
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron I agree that a fascist can never be an anarchist because fascism implies State control over capital. Anarchy is void of any sort of State control. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, but as soon as one advocates the initiation of force, that person becomes a Statist through and through.
yinzjagoffs 6 months ago
@yinzjagoffs Indeed, anarchism is void of state control, but it has always also been more than that; opposiition to exploitation, to rule by capital. Anarchism is not simply an ambiguous anti-state mentality. It is actually a political theory with a broad array of constructive ideas that developed in tune with anti-authoritarian tendencies of the 19th century workers movement.
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron I agree and understand. I'm also interested in the nature of Anarchism in matters such as personal relationships and child rearing. I have studied Proudhon, Bakunin Kropotkin and the workers movement and can understand the passion about what there is to be said about it all, but at the end of the day all the classical anarchist would be nothing but happy to usher in more state control .
yinzjagoffs 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yinzjagoffs "but at the end of the day all the classical anarchist would be nothing but happy to usher in more state control."
Right. Even though they wanted to abolish the state in favor of free association, etc.
agapeiron 6 months ago
@yinzjagoffs And I did not merely say that, by your argument, that the classical anarchists would be in favor of state control. I also said that anarchists throughout history-- Whether the thousands of anarchists in Chicago, New York, Paris, Russia, Italy, Germany, China, Uruguay, Mexico, throughout rural and urban Spain (where it took form through the work of millions)-- All of these, by your definition, would not be anarchists.
When did the "true anarchists" begin? Murray Rothbard?
agapeiron 6 months ago
@yinzjagoffs Assuming your notion of force justifies and defends private property-- which was founded on force (correct me if I'm wrong)-- your assertion that the use of force (in dissolving private property) makes one a statist, would necessitate that Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin were statists, and therefore not anarchists. That would mean the main figures of classical anarchism were not anarchists, and that the majority of all anarchists throughout history were not anarchists. Agree?
agapeiron 6 months ago
@agapeiron My defense of private property only applies to property obtained though one's own labor or free trade. The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
yinzjagoffs 6 months ago
@yinzjagoffs Where does the right come from to claim a section of the earth as permanent private property-- to be bequeathed, or sold?
If you defend private property obtained through free trade, does that mean you would defend private property taken arbitrarily by force just because it passed through the hands of people with wealth who did not actually use force in obtaining it?
agapeiron 6 months ago
Libertarianism and Anarchism are very different and I don't know why people keep trying to marry the ideologies. There are a few key differences. Libertarians still seek govt. and are very pro private property rights. They seek a much smaller govt. but still wish to have it as an authority. Anarchism is much more extreme. Anarchists wish to abolish the whole govt. on all levels, and despise authority. Most believe in collectivism. Anarchism is closer to liberalism without the state.
drieey 8 months ago
@drieey Right wing free marketeers took "libertarian" which used to mean anarchist. They started calling their new brand of conservatism "libertarianism."
They package it with "not quite right, not quite left" rhetoric to rope in impressionable middle class folks.
The idea of something like a libertarian "party" would have been absurd to all actual libertarians throughout history! For how can you bring about a libertarian society by entering the electoral circus and joining the State!
agapeiron 7 months ago
@agapeiron Exactly. This is what I've always thought so I agree.
drieey 7 months ago
Ron Paul 2012! Defend Liberty!
Leftovervictim1991 8 months ago
Very nice video. I suggest you GOOGLE "Libertarian International Organization" to see what Libertarians are actually doing.
RalphKSwanson 9 months ago
@agapeiron
Right wingers who support gay marriage, drug legalization and abortion? Also, who oppose corporate welfare and most foreign wars? Get your facts straight before you say something. Quibbling over definitions of the word libertarian is one thing but characterizing them as right wing is absurd.
tysonbc0927 9 months ago
These people are not "libertarian" but "propertarian" because the only thing they really value are property rights not true liberty
Shenlong86 9 months ago
Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians.
davitodude 10 months ago
@davitodude
The word libertarian used to mean anarcho-communism. It is still widely used today to describe views that are anti-authority. In other words: libertarian does not have to mean capitalism or free markets, I would even say that in most cases it doesn't.
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
@pulsatingremedy
Well, I'm speaking more about the Libertarian party. After all the words Republican and Democrat had very different meanings hundreds of years ago. Does that mean these people who call themselves such abide 100% by the definitions and all variations there of, and if not they should call themselves something else?
In fact I could argue that Libertarians are more Republican than Republicans themselves.
davitodude 9 months ago
@davitodude
In the US, words that describe ideologies tend to change definitions. If I think about libertarianism, I think about libertarianism that actually existed like in Spain. The Spanish anarchists called themselves libertarian communists.
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
@pulsatingremedy and in latin america, we use "libertarian" like synonymous of anarcho socialism too.
Reyludd 9 months ago
@davitodude The problem with your assertion is that no actual anarchists believe in free markets and capitalism because, as such, anarchism excludes these oppressive ideas. Libertarian ideas have generally tended to do so also, though in the 1970s a whacky group of American right wingers began using "libertarian" to describe their free market ideology.
agapeiron 9 months ago
@davitodude Anarchists do not believe in capitalism. Every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist.
agapeiron 7 months ago
@agapeiron Yep.
davitodude 7 months ago
@davitodude Huzzah!
agapeiron 7 months ago
The issue here is the non-aggression principle and voluntary principle. Modern day Libertarians want a government to reduce human on human force (courts, police, military), all funded by voluntary taxes. The idea is that a "U.S. Brand" of these services will be enough to prevent anarcho-capitalism. Remember, pragmatic issues play second, as Libertarianism is a philosophy first.
Yanirakarola 10 months ago
Libertarian= Small government
Anarchist= No government
Not too fucking complicated.
bigman1225 11 months ago
Libertarians = minarchists
Btw, anarchists do not advocate the absence of a government, but of a state. Which is quite different.
Libertarians remind me a mix between minarchists and collectivists. But always with a higher power that's in control. Not really anarchism ... just a "do whatever you want" inside a classed society. Which is the opposite of anarchism that gets rid of that same classed society first.
Anarchism is impossible nowadays. Many years perfecting mankind are needed before..
MrCroky123 1 year ago
@MrCroky123 "Many years perfecting mankind are needed before.."
You mean undoing all the child and adult abuse? That can be fixed in one generation.
ProDCloud 1 year ago
I'm a libertarian. The difference between me and an anarchist, is that I want a state for national defense. Something a state has proven itself very useful for.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream
Thomas Jefferson rejected the need for a standing military because he felt that all of a nation's citizens would be more than willing to voluntarily defend their sovereignty collectively in a society they held to be genuinely free & invaluable.
The more power you give the state to "defend",the more power you give it to subjugate.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@thirdshift47 I'd have people being allowed their own militias/militaries as well. That and the use of unions, will keep the government back. Its a huge deterrent. Nothing is perfect though. The reason for having a military, private or not, is to defend the country.
Also, the government exists as an arbitrar in disputes, and holds people to contracts.
spartacandream 10 months ago
@spartacandream
Fair enough.
As a libertarian on the left,though,I've always had this problem with the notion of a philosophy which doesn't advocate the state actually having a humane function,but only that it exists in the most coercive way,e.g.,armies,courts,police,etc.,being referred to as libertarian.
thirdshift47 10 months ago
@thirdshift47 I'm a leftist libertarian as well. Though I think that communities and groups of communities should get together to help their own through noncoercive means.
spartacandream 10 months ago
Its called Libertarian Anarchism! No government, and as long as you aren't hurting anyone, by all means do it.
davidcalifornia10 1 year ago
This guy, at the beginning of the film, had no idea what political anarchism meant.
Baculus 1 year ago
libertarianism in the us is very different from the rest of the world in that us libertarianism takes a right wing approach to economics.
but basic fundamentals are the same; all libertarians advocate for reduced state, and higher personal liberties
to what extent power will be held (i.e. state level, city level) varies. but when it is no state at all it is anarchism
so the two political philosophies are similar
an50331 1 year ago
@an50331 yeah thats why they support the constitution. hmmm what is in the constituion that portrays it to be a supporting article of anarchy?? absolutly nothing, because there are rules, and rights, and the rights prevent the possibility of " no order" or "no rules" or "no state".. way off buddy, this is propaganda,"black" to be technical
PatriotTom1 1 year ago
Nice try, but you are confused. All I'm saying is that Libertarianism is very different in the US than it is in the rest of the world. I addressed this because I could tell people were confused by reading the comments.
And I never said that Libertarians are Anarchist, I actually was explaining how the two are different. Reread my comment you seem to be arguing out of thin air.
an50331 1 year ago
@an50331 There is a reason Mao Zedong waited for a right wing politician to be in office before he could talk to the west. But then again Mao was a disgrace to Marxism just as Nixon became a shamed for democracy.
dinamo4889 1 year ago
Check out The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Addendum
Leftovervictim1991 1 year ago
good. now make one called Genocide/population control/world government & the Progressive party.
AENIMA42069 1 year ago
There is a difference. Libertarians DO want a state and anarchists don't, there are other differences as well.
babyloniandream 2 years ago
@babyloniandream
Some anarchists want a temporary state that would be eventually be rendered obsolete and gradually evolved into a stateless society.
redcommander27 2 years ago
That's Marxism-Leninism the dictatorship of the proletariat remember? it was a total failure. Anarchism needs another chance to prove itself by not trying to be destroyed it by external forces.
sarsanch 1 year ago
in the US most Liberterians are either Anarcho-Capitalists or Oligarchists.
In the rest of the world Liberterians are quite often Liberterian-Socialists/Anarcho-Syndicalist.
WhimsicalQuandary 2 years ago
This guy is an idiot. True libertarians seek self-government over authoritarian government.
bucek1 2 years ago
Theyre just saying the philosophy is very similar. Big L libertarians are oligarchists or minarchists, not anarchists.
athwbitt 2 years ago
@bucek1
Many libertarians would consider such a pro-government libertarian to be an intellectual midget, because government itself, politics, is not at all a legitimate means of the prosecution of human societal affairs, it evolves from Ancient Greeks meeting in halls to decide on arbitrary policies regarding slavery etc, it is not respectable and it does not forge social bonds and material welfare as does market action.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@bucek1 It ain't that easy. Authority over economics or socially? That is where the nuances begin . . .
Baculus 1 year ago
Ha ha. I love how they openly co-opt a word they have no understanding of the history of.
Ril74 2 years ago 9
Thank god that they lack the understanding to which you refer of the term anarchism-because I would be truly appalled to count as anarchists in my understanding and 'co-opting' of the term those self-professed anarchists like Proudhon who deemed it legitimate to say that unequal material relations necessarily impel political tyranny i.e. initiation of coercion. Just because tyranny arises from inequality as by a tautology does NOT mean that freedom to exchange means of production is exploitative
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
Thank god that they lack the understanding to which you refer of the term anarchism-because I would be truly appalled to count as anarchists in my understanding and 'co-opting' of the term those self-professed anarchists like Proudhon who deemed it legitimate to say that unequal material relations necessarily impel political tyranny i.e. initiation of coercion. Just because tyranny arises from inequality as by a tautology does NOT mean that freedom to exchange means of production is exploitative
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill if a man does not have the gold he does not make the rules, so why then does the man who has the gold make the rules? because he has the gold. how is that not tyranny?
heylelshalem 1 year ago
From chemistrydaily:
"After the French Government banned anarchism, some French anarchists adopted libertaire as an alternative term. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Proudhon from New Orleans. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861."
Libertarian communism, yes sir!
RSFO 2 years ago
The LP talks about how evil the federal government is without any criticism of state government. State governments have all the same suppressive qualities of that of the federal government, except less accountability to the public at large. The smaller the gov (land wise) the narrower the views tend to be.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
It's easier to move to another state (if current state government is doing bad) than to move to another country.
schlaflosig 2 years ago
This would without a doubt cause another civil war. All the liberals and civil libertarians flocking to the north and the neocons and the conservatives to the south. Sounds like a recipe for tyranny and disaster. There would be no balance. It's best to just get rid of the state altogether.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Getting rid of the state would without a doubt lead to Somali-like type of society. Somali is exactly why I'm minarchist, not an anarchist.
schlaflosig 2 years ago
Somali is a possible result of anarchy and fascism and communism are possible results of statism. I'll take Somalia over Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. You have the right to your opinion, but please don't call yourself a libertarian if you support terrorism.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Just because you're scared of society shouldn't give you the right to force your unwanted tyrannical nanny state on me.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
WTF? Since when minarchists support tyrannical nanny state?
schlaflosig 2 years ago
I'm sorry, sir, are you alright? How come I support terrorism?
Somali is a very possible result of anarchy, true. Fascism and communism are very possible result of statism, true as well. Early United States and Hong Kong are results of minarchism. I'll take early USA and HK over Somali or Stalin/Hitler.
schlaflosig 2 years ago
terrorism -noun: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
You are for forcing me to pay taxes because you support minarchy, correct?
Early United states led to fascist United States. Statism is a failed ideology. If you believe in the "free market" you should be for competing collectives instead of a single monopolized state.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I believe in the free market, that's right. But free market is only possible when there's no coercion, and transactions are voluntary. As you can see in anarchist Somali, there's too much coercion for free market to evolve and prosper.
The only reason d'etre of the government is to keep society free from the violence and protect us from the violence. I consider it a minimum necessary evil. And yeah, I'm not happy that it still has taxes, even the lowest possible.
schlaflosig 2 years ago
Actually since the government fell in Somalia the life expectancy has gone up two years and 400 thousands refugees came back to Somalia. Every aspect of life has improved slightly, though the numbers are still awful. There was no Utopia in American "minarchist" history. There was a lot of slavery, Native American slaughtering (Ayn Rand loves that barbaric slaughter), gun duels, religion, and wife beating.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
That's interesting what you say about Somali. If I see successful example of anarchism in the modern world, I'll become anarchist too. So far I only see the perfect example of almost minarchist economy in HK.
schlaflosig 2 years ago
I don't believe in anarchy achieved through force. The majority has to accept the concept of anarchy and vote to demonopolize the government. And if HK were to become anarchist people can still participate in that successful collective. People should have the choice to opt out though.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I think we should gradually move towards to freedom and liberty by decreasing size of government, step by step, smooth transition. Let's get to the minarchism first, then we can also experiment with anarchism. We're still too far away from both minarchism and anarchism to argue what's better.
schlaflosig 2 years ago
See my comment to Vote3rdParty.
overmind25 2 years ago
Somali is not even an anarchism. It is a decentralized statism. To give it credit living standards have increased since the central government fell (as you said) but that does not make it an anarchism. There is still ruler ship. A state collapse does not automatically equal an anarchism.
overmind25 2 years ago 2
I dont believe there is a such thing as a free market anymore, I dont even think we live in a capitalist country anymore either. The individuals are over regulated to the point where they cannot freely produce and sell without being dominated with tough licenses and taxes, yet major corporations are allowed to stronghold without regulation the individual, the the corps rule through the fist of government, where us individuals are regulated against doing so.
mikelunz 2 years ago 5
funny, i hear neo cons going on n on bout the free mkt. free mkt for poor n mid class and socialism for rich corps. right? cant let them fail or the whole econ goes. whos bailin me out when my work dries up?
adzug 2 years ago
Right. This is definitely what neo-cons have endorsed. But Libertarians aren't neo-cons, and neo-cons, though they may pretend to be, certainly aren't libertarians. I'm not sure if I understood your comment correctly. Libertarians are anti-war and anti-corporatism. No special state favors for the wealthy or the poor.
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
It's too bad that the Libertarian Party is not nearly as anti-government as it was when this documentary was produced. Now they advocate replacing the income tax with the oxymoronic "fair tax" instead of arguing that taxation is theft. They shy away from discussing the insane war on drugs. They won't even entertain the notion that the Federal Reserve should be abolished or that the FBI is unconstitutional. The Libertarian Party is no longer the party of principle. It has become a waste of time.
peterscottfrost 2 years ago
Most Libertarians today are minarchists. They advocate the minimum government necessary to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. That means police, national defense and a judicial system, as well as most of the legislative and executive functions outlined in the Constitution.
I'd say about 20% of the LP members are anarcho-capitalists.
We are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, and do not advocate foreign military entanglements.
freesk8 2 years ago 2
Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes I am an Anarchist.
00PBST00 2 years ago 7
Most anarchists are socialists. You may want to look up anarcho syndicalism if you are not aware of it. Market anarchists are a minority but are growing. The important point is anarchism (no rulers), not markets, voluntary socialism, or any other economic preference.. Anarchism without adjectives ftw.
overmind25 2 years ago 3
the group that talks about "anarcho-capitalism" aren't growing at all.
satisatisati 2 years ago 3
haaaaaaa
overmind25 2 years ago
@satisatisati Its such an oxymoron isn't it?
davidcalifornia10 1 year ago
@satisatisati Then you're not on facebook. By the way, a lot of them now call themselves "voluntarist" or "agorist"
rightarmofwyoming 10 months ago
@00PBST00 Anarchist should all grow up an realize nowadays their needs to be a government when it comes to organizing a society.I don't know what you as an anarchist believe will happen to society with out government where I see a MadMax situation.Socialism on the other hand is a perfect form of government that can perfectly supplement both capitalism and a democracy if a capitalism and democracy is capable of a lenghtoftime,it will be because of socialism that restrains the extremes of the two.
idicula1979 3 months ago
Libertarian are not communist, black panthers or anarchists. Anarchy means no government, Libertarians stand for smaller government and more personal freedom, get the hint smaller government. Libertarians stand for the true meaning of the constitution and bill of rights. Can you tell me you like giving up more freedom to the government that doesn't represent you?
doucheton 2 years ago 3
Libertarian meant anarchist orginally.
overmind25 2 years ago 3
Most anarchist, if they had a true Libertarian government (like 1% of what we currently have, the way it was inthe begin for US so small government it was almost no government would be very happy and not even seek the more. I work with alot of anarchists and will right down till we have a very very very small government, at that point I will stop as a Libertarian, but will let the anarchists stand free :-) In Freedom for Liberty! We have the only option that will work, free the Llamas:-)
clthinkingman 3 years ago
Libertarians are not anarchist.
Just old school the American old school American philosophy.
What can you guys get? O_o
If we where agaisnt government all together, we wouldnt be involved in the politics period. -.-
SunBeamsan 3 years ago 2
sunbeamsan:
i have been an anarchist for a while (about two years), and i am now becoming a libertarian. to be honest, i think libertarians should support anarchists, because in the end, anarchism is voluntarism, and therefore can work together very well with libertarianism.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
Thats right.
The mostly support the NRA too.
But there are amny anarchists in, I guess.
And in the Green Party.
Nederlandac 3 years ago
Green Party?!
I WOULD NEVER, NEVER EVER VOTE FOR THEM!
Bunch of communist black supremacy assholes.
SunBeamsan 3 years ago
They are mostly no communists, me included.
Nederlandac 3 years ago
Ed Clark was AMAZING!!!
He should run for the nom. again!
soicuw 3 years ago
What?
These are 1970's belifes of people when it comes to the libertatina party.
In reality, an "anarchist" is a savage anti-goverment 100%.
Libertatians believe that the Goverment is only there to protect the citizens agaisnt forgien threat,& balance the federal budget.
Not to spy on us and reduce our civil liberities,.
Democrats are socialist...they are Liberals...Libertatians are Libertatians,not liberals.
SunBeamsan 3 years ago
Sun.. true.. I agree. Anarchism does not imply an embrace of violence to achieve aims - not in any way.
brigo234 3 years ago
Anarchism is lack of hierarchy, which implies no government, no capitalism (the traditional anarchists anyway), and, as a consequence, equality.
That is all it is. Anarchists believe human beings can interact, survive, and prosper, without the interference of government.
There's nothing savage about that. It may be naive, but I'm not necessarily convinced of that either.
It is telling to me that every time someone seriously tried anarchism, it is crushed mainly from the outside.
Quag7 3 years ago 4
you quote: In reality, an "anarchist" is a savage anti-goverment 100%." If this be true all the more resason we need to work with them as Libertarians! :-) May Libertarians be blessed with more free radicals again :-) I much rather deal with an anarchist what his color then any statist closked in deception to control us one way or another. Anarcist need Libertarians as we need them, join and fight the statists together, and some day the Llamas will be free!
clthinkingman 3 years ago
absolutely, i feel what you are talking about. i've been drawn very closely to the libertarian party since the Ron Paul Revolution. but i feel more and more as the U.S. govt. becomes bigger and more socialistic (i feel its always been socialistic since the days of Federal Reserve and govt. interfering in the market) the only way to bring the power back to the people, is through an anarchist revolution to break down the system, and install whatever system that works best for the people..
xmattycorex 2 years ago
just like the russian revolution of 1917 and the american revolution of 1776. eventually the people resort to an anarchist (anti-state) philosophy after many years of injustice and corruption in the system, to combat it. and in that small window, it is important to reach to the people of the philosophies of economic and personal freedom. if that's what history has shown in sociology, then i say lets look towards anarcho-libertarianism. a system for the people and by the people...
xmattycorex 2 years ago
"Government has nothing to give, and everything to take" is my philosophy..
xmattycorex 2 years ago 3
I just wanted to say as an indepenent, I have come to realize who the democrats really are(socialist) and probably be supporting the conservitves more in the future. But as an independent who will no longer consider democrats as an opption I must look for another opption, and I must say the libertarian movement is looking good. Also if you ask me to choose between anarchy and socialism I choose anarchy.
ericlebo 3 years ago
Many Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. Famous anarchist libertarians include Murray Rothbard, the long-time head of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Austrian Economics bastion.
But many more Libertarians are minarchists, or Constitutionalists.
They want to dramatically reduce the size and power of the government. They oppose the Iraq war, (war is the health of the state) the USA PATRIOT Act, and violations of free speech.
Libertarians want government to go in the right direction.
freesk8 3 years ago 3
Just so we're clear:
Not all libertarians are anarchists, however all anarchists are libertarians. You see "Anarchy" is a form of "Libertarianism" which is the antonym of "authoritarian". Interesting isn't it?
sirpsychosexay 3 years ago
Libertarians aren't anarchistic, anarchists are anti capitalist.
jackriter 3 years ago
Clark would've been a good leader.
petergabrielfan34 3 years ago
anarchism is just bullshit-if you believe we can survive as a pseudo-nation with no laws, you've got some problems
wojoness 3 years ago
If you believe we can only survive with government, then you make low beasts of mankind, the consequence of which can only be Orwell's proverbial boot stomping on a human face forever.
Anarchism is a constant process or the rejection of hierarchical structures. This includes but is not limited to the boss-worker dynamic, gangs, mobs, and the State itself.
As the anarchists took up arms against the fascists, so too they would take up arms against gangs, thugs, or whoever you're thinking of.
Quag7 3 years ago
Well here in the U.S.
The party is run by the Black Panthers Organization.
PURE EVIL!
Rudy♠
SunBeamsan 3 years ago
The Black Panthers don't exist any more. They were ended by the FBI and local police.
The Black Panthers had a fairly positive platform for improving the conditions within the ghetto through privately funded free programs that served their communities.
They also policed their communities, and monitored the city police to alleviate racist police brutality.
Whatever groups call themselves "The Black Panther Party" today are not endorsed by founding members of the original Panthers.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago 3
Black Panthers = Black PRIDE
PRIDE = SIN
= PROUD SINNING.
GOD HATES THE BLACK PANTHERS
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
Considering that "God" is just an internal construct, your statement is a complete non-sequitur.
And a very poorly punctuated one.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago 2
haha, ohh as if.
This is bloody youtube, only dorks put so much into spelling ;p
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
Like the man in the video said, the Libertarian party doesn't advocate anarchy, it advocates small government and personal responsibility. It advocates a minimal and properly regulated free market rather than the profoundly over regulated and monopolistic mixed market that is favored by Republicans or the down right socialist market favored by contemporary Democrats.
Piscivorus 3 years ago
anarchists don't seek 'political' power, but social change.
no one represents me except for myself.
m0bi 3 years ago
Also, wouldn't anarchism destroy the constitution...unless you would propose that an amendment be added that the national government positions of power become purely ceremonial roles or that the national government be run by a private staffing organization!! lol...
IndependentOhioan 3 years ago
Republicrats = ignoring the Constitution
Libertarians = following the Constitution
Anarchists = discarding the Constitution, and all charters of government
shutyamouf87 3 years ago
Ha! no one will associate with you...more like the fact that you're a murderer will become like a calling card for groups that need hit men. How would you solve organized crime in an anarchist society??
IndependentOhioan 3 years ago
Anarchism = Chaos
A moderate size government = :)
A government's purpose is to ensure the safety and welfare of the people so that the citizens would be able to prosper happily with little threat. The government should be weak enough so that the people have enough freedom, but strong enough to ensure the safety.
Also, isnt an 'Anarchist Party' a paradox? If Anarchy is against government, and a party is a government seat, then...
zrogoszinski 3 years ago
If you believe that Anarchism is chaos you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. Read some books !
Anarchy is order less power.
"Acracy" (like we say in france, anywhere else ?) is a better term.
But Anarchy is the historic term (Proudhon) and it is much more poetic and much more chocking, polemic, so it's a good term :)
Metacryptic 3 years ago 2
It is chaos. When there is no government, there is no order. Without order there is chaos. When government fails, there will always be someone to take charge. You cant stop a government from forming. Some guy will take control over a few men (a gang). One thing leads to another and you have a government. Anarchy cant exist. Its too ideological.
zrogoszinski 3 years ago
You state this like it is a proven law of physics. Rather, it is the opinion of some guy on youtube.
As anarchists resist the state, or resist capitalism, so too, they can resist gangs, in solidarity with one another. People who make this comment seem to think everyone just goes home and leaves this massive social vacuum. They do not. Read about the Paris commune and the Spanish Civil War.
Quag7 3 years ago
"Libertarianism" was first used by Anarchists, over 100 years ago and still is used by Anarchists throughout the world.
You can't have liberty when you're electing someone to make decisions for you, whether by a lot or a little.
VivA Libertad!
KenCat1337 3 years ago 6
Typical libertarian crap.
KafkaCrow 3 years ago
liberatarianism isnt crap
jblive1985 3 years ago
Libertarianism is conservatism is disguise.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
If Libertarians are conservatives, then they are funny conservatives, indeed.
They oppose the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War. They support marriage equality and tend to be pro-choice about abortion. They defend free speech and free thought.
They do join some Republicans by supporting free market policies, but I argue that the true free market is closer to an anarchy.
Calling us conservatives gets us wrong about 2/3 of the time.
freesk8 3 years ago
Libertarianism conservatism in disguise. Maybe
But also think this liberal democrats are indeed socialist, marxist, and collectivist in disguise.
ericlebo 3 years ago
Nah, not really. But Libertarians (of the most common type) typically only attack the state when it's over economic issues, rarely over things like drug legalisation, immigration controls, militarism etc. etc. Ron Paul is the perfect example.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
That's completely untrue. I used to be a rank and file libertarian and we did nothing but foam at the mouth at precisely those things.
Ron Paul is an ex-libertarian, now a republican.
What libertarians don't have any issues with is capitalism. if you want to be critical, start there...if your economic sense is so inclined.
Quag7 3 years ago
What libertarian *capitalists* have no issues with is capitalism. Remember that "libertarian" was first used in a political way by an anarchist-*communist* trying to evade anti-anarchist laws.
Capitalism - system prone to crises, to exploitation and poverty. I don't, by the way, oppose the free market, which is an entirely different thing before you start busting my balls over this.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
There will be no ball busting. Your balls are safe. I shall pause while you cup them gently.
The term "libertarian" was used that way but when it is used 99% of the time in the United States (where I'm from), it squarely means capitalist minarchism. While I understand your point and historical perspective, trying to reclaim the term libertarian is probably a lost cause, but you're free to try.
I'd more put my energies into fighting anarchocapitalists over the term "anarchist."
Quag7 3 years ago
my only with the misconception in Libertarianism as I am one. is that we don't know if free market is truly prone exploitation and poverty. those a usually signs of a monopoly ad injustices created by govt. the U.S. hasn't has free market since the days of 1913 when the Fed came in. since then it's been socialism. the govt. interfering one way or another in the markets or economy. as of right now, U.S. follow a communist economy of state ownership on enterprise and private property.
xmattycorex 2 years ago 3
No it's not socialism. It's capitalism - it may not be the "pure" capitalism of the Libertarian Party but it is capitalism nevertheless.
MarxBakuninMe 2 years ago
well what is it called when the state owns the banks, insurance companies, and businesses? and lets not forget, the U.S. now follows the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, abolition of private properties? heavy and progressive income tax? abolition of right to inheritance? state influence in communications? a central bank? all the way down the list. is that not socialism or statism? i'm not trying to pick a fight, trying to get the opinion from someone who follows Marxism.
xmattycorex 2 years ago 4
"monopoly of money, land, and patents." just to clarify, tucker used the term "money monopoly" to denote a central bank's monopoly over the common means of economic exchange. a "money monopoly" is simply any institution with government granted "legal tender" priviledges.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
ED CLARK FOR PRESIDENT \M/
petergabrielfan34 3 years ago
watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw
This will really clear things up! The truth is libertarians are really the moderates. The fascists, communists, socialists....are on the left and anarchists are on the right of libertarians.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
it's really all semantical, but anything other than anarchy is completely radical, utopian, and naive.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
What is your definition of anarchy? That might clarify things.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
anarchy is the absence of coercive intervention in voluntary human relationships.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I consider that the definition of liberty.
watch?v=SzTozC3PCF4
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Main Entry: an·ar·chy Listen to the pronunciation of anarchy Listen to the pronunciation of anarchy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
I do believe in minimal govt for things like property rights.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
ok. if you want the exact translation of anarchy from greek to english, you must understand that in greek the letter "a" means "without" and the word "archy" means rulers. anarchy is literally "without rulers."
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago 2
Do the people rule themselves?
shanklinmike 3 years ago
"I do believe in minimal govt for things like property rights."
That is impossible. A system in which property rights are protected is incompatible with a system in which government exists because governments necessarily systematically violate property rights through their conduction of taxation which is theft.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago 2
So do I not have the right to build a house and live in it without others taking it over? You are correct about one thing, taxation is theft but I personally believe in the constitution (government piece of paper) that limits government action(suppose to). If government is going to be here should we at least try to limit it? Property itself is not a material or good....it is a right. We have property over ourselves, what happens if someone comes to my house and won't leave?
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Personal and property defebse are insurable enterprises and dispute arbitration is potentially a market function. The market creates competitive solutions to human problems. The only reason why we don't have private companies providing these services is because governments outlaw competition and force people to purchase their services at gunpoint. That is the difference between anarchists and all other political ideas.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I don't think we are addressing my question. I understand economic freedom, what I am asking is what happens when those few people in an anarchist state infringe on my liberty? People do murder and steal....in a lawless state there is no justice.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
If somebody kills your grandmother you would hire a company which specializes in forensic science or whatever other methods are used to catch criminals in order to investigate this matter, gather sufficient evidence, catch the criminal, try the evidence before a private judge and jury, determine whether the suspect is innocent or guilty, and then administer justice in some form of financial compensation.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
That person's name would be entered into a database, much like credit card companies do, and your criminal record would be available for all employers to see. People would simply not associate with you and you would be socially and economically isolated from society. Not only have you been forced to relinquish your property to the victim's family, but now no one will associate with you.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Hans Hermann Hoppe goes into intricate detail of how these services will be provided in the marketplace with his free online essay, "The Private Production of Defense." Steffan Molyneux, youtube name "Stefbot", has devised a possible "DRO", dispute resolution organization, system for the provision of these former government services.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Anarchists believe that goods and services should be provided voluntarily on a contractual basis in a market atmosphere and everyone else believes that goods and services should be provided involuntarily at the barrel of a gun. Either you believe services should be provided contractually in the marketplace, anarchists, or you believe services should be provided at gunpoint, everyone else.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I wish it were that black and white but the real world has people who do not voluntarily trade and use force. What will we do to those people if we do live in an anarchist state? Let's say someone kills my grandma? Or even less, let's say someone steals something from me?
shanklinmike 3 years ago
but the idea that anarchy is somehow chaos is completely false. anarchy is the only system in which property rights, personal safety, and rational criminal prosecution exists.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I am not personally saying that anarchy is chaos. I am saying that this is a Darwinian look at life and does not look out for the rights of the people. How can you have property rights under a lawless system? How does rational prosecution exist in a place where there is no prosecution of those who infringe on the rights of others. Don't get me wrong, I have a deep anarchy tinge, I just can't see society without rule of law.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
"How can you have property rights under a lawless system?"
Markets respond to human demands for services.
"How does rational prosecution exist in a place where there is no prosecution of those who infringe on the rights of others."
It can't, but that is not anarchy.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Regardless of our differences, you are great at discussion. Do you support the libertarian party or are you an anarchist who doesn't believe in voting?
shanklinmike 3 years ago
I don't believe in voting.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Nobody says "this is how people WILL organize in an anarchy", but these are possible business models that could very well work. At any rate, it is certain that markets create competitive solutions to human problems. If worst comes to worst, we will have mafias providing these services in an anarchy, which is what we have now anyway.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Overall I agree with you.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Did anyone also get a feeling of Deja-Vu to McCarthyism watching this video?
StugLife 3 years ago
No I just think some people might have some legit questions about the difference between the two and there is nothing wrong with asking and answering them.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
Well, I agreed with you last week, but it's over now: the Ruwart and Kubby people nominated Barr, because they're bad at math. Root was the libertarian candidate, and he only got VP, due to the late arrival of Ruwart, and the failed and penniless campaign of Kubby. To the end they were delusional. That's how we got a semi-libertarian and pro politician like Barr as out "standard bearer". But that's that. Let's make the best of it, and rally behind Barr. If so, Root can win LP pres. in 2012!
heywoodjablohme 3 years ago
Say YES to LIBERTARIANISM:
This means: Say NO to Bob Barr.
He voted FOR the war on Iraq.
He voted FOR the "Patriot" Act and was the BIGGEST supporter in ALL of Congress for the war on drugs.
Bob Barr is NO libertarian. He is an AUTHORITARIAN.
HEAR YE ALL LIBERTARIANS: DON'T sell your soul just to get more votes in '08. STAND up for your true BELIEFS!
Nominate a REAL libertarian, NOT someone who is just USING you for his OWN advancement.
NOMINATE a rEVOLUTIONARY candidate, NOT Bob Barr.
RonPaulRevolution4u 3 years ago