NationStates Jolt Archive

Because my mother seems to thing the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Because my mother seems to thing the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

right or left libertarianism? and i assume you mean anarchy according to the dictionary definition? rather than the political science definition?

right or left libertarianism? and i assume you mean anarchy according to the dictionary definition? rather than the political science definition?
Left libertarianism, political science definition.

Left libertarianism, political science definition.

then they are functionally interchangeable, though one could imagine some not-quite-anarchist theories that might have a plausible claim on the term, should anyone ever get around to building a movement out of them.

Left libertarianism, political science definition.

Anarchists (left-wing anarchists, anyway) are libertarian socialists, but libertarian socialists need not be anarchists.

There are, for instance, libertarian Marxists who advocate a state that makes "All Power to the Soviets!" more than a convenient political slogan.

anarchists have the guts to be completely principled and get rid of all government? Too simplistic. Libertarians are afraid to cut the cord? Nah, too misanthropic. I think it's a question of recognizing the truly core elements of governmental utility. And while I disagree with many libertarians as to the utility of a social safety net, I do appreciate their honesty and integrity in advocating what they do. As for anarchists, apart from the observation that many of them are spoiled little upper-middle-class suburban white kids who have never had to really survive on their own, I think in general their position is that they think they are in a good enough position that they don't want to upset the boat by offering a coherent social/economic system to enable others to eventually supplant them. Yeah, it's a bit harsh, but anarchists tend to piss me off. They turned the Seattle WTO protests from a massive demonstration of solidarity around the world into a war zone. I don't think I'll be in a position to welcome them into polite company any time soon.

They turned the Seattle WTO protests from a massive demonstration of solidarity around the world into a war zone.

um, not only is your seattle timeline off (the cops attacked before the black bloc formed), but it was organized anarchists that made the global justice movement have any sort of visible presence and vitality at all. without us, it'd have been the same old 90s protests that nobody paid any attention to. you know, like the antiwar movement now.

Libertarians do believe that we should have a government, it's just that the government is restricted and limited (and should be IMHO.)

Anarchist believe in no government, period.

It's simplistic yes, but it gets the job done.

um, not only is your seattle timeline off (the cops attacked before the black bloc formed), but it was organized anarchists that made the global justice movement have any sort of visible presence and vitality at all. without us, it'd have been the same old 90s protests that nobody paid any attention to. you know, like the antiwar movement now.

Yeah, it was pretty much all hyperbole there. I don't particularly care one way or the other. In my experience, libertarians are the ones who say, "hands off my guns, hands off my money, and out of my bedroom"; anarchists just seem to be angry and occasionally destructive. Maybe a bit less focused, but all in all the whole lot are pretty impotent politically.

I think the relation is that one can be a libertarian without being an anarchist, but the more libertarian one is the more anarchist one is.

Anarchists are students (which is laughable in itself), and libertarians are businessmen (which is also laughable).

It's really not worth worrying about either, since they are all full of shit.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Semantics, mainly.

Anarchists are students (which is laughable in itself), and libertarians are businessmen (which is also laughable).

It's really not worth worrying about either, since they are all full of shit.

Ok, just exactly how are we full of shit? You know, if you want people to take you seriously, you honestly are going to have to put some effort into this. You just can't say "Well they're full of shit and are laughable" without explaining why.

I think there's a difference between the basic philosophies of anarchism and libertarianism as opposed to the jumbled views of those who profess to be anarchists or libertarians and, further, the various positions ascribed to anarchists and libertarians.

Anarchism is a political philosophy or group of doctrines and attitudes centered on rejection of any form of compulsory government and supporting its elimination. The term "anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism", in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership (and thus also involuntary servitude) are undesirable and should be abolished.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty.

Both the opening statements of Wikipedia but the difference is in the aims of the philosophies rather than the actions of those who do so under their name.

Libertarianism allows for government, anarchism does not.

Anarchists are students (which is laughable in itself), and libertarians are businessmen (which is also laughable).

It's really not worth worrying about either, since they are all full of shit.

Ok, just exactly how are we full of shit? You know, if you want people to take you seriously, you honestly are going to have to put some effort into this. You just can't say "Well they're full of shit and are laughable" without explaining why.

You forgot that it's Socialism, Facsism and Communism or broke! /sarcasm

It depends on the kind of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is close enough to libertarianism to be considered interchangeable. Anarcho-communism is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism. Anarcho-communism is regular communism except there is no state running things and everyone happily surrenders what ought to be rightfully theirs to the community in exchange for a say in what is done with it. Like Communism in general, looks good on paper to some but cannot be implimented on a large scale without an authoritarian state forcing it on those who refuse to play nice and share. Any capitalists within this anarcho-communist society would probably eventually take over. The only problem here is that with a leveled playing field, to rise above the influence--I mean crowd, those few would have to step on others to do it in a rather literal interpretation of that rule of acquisition that says "Employees are the rungs on the ladder to success, don't be afraid to step on them."

For all the moral shortcomings of greed the Ferengi never had racial slavery, genocide, or any of the other really horrible attrocities common to human history. There was no profit in such ventures.

Anarchists want a world without rulers. Libertarians want rule by giant fucking corporations, or at least delude themselves into thinking that their absolute free market, no government interference policies would not most likely give us a world like Shadowrun, but without the trolls.

Because my mother seems to thing the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Libertarianism = Little Goverment that leaves people the-hell-alone.
Anarchy = NO Goverment.

It depends on the kind of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is close enough to libertarianism to be considered interchangeable. Anarcho-communism is pretty much the opposite of libertarianism. Anarcho-communism is regular communism except there is no state running things and everyone happily surrenders what ought to be rightfully theirs to the community in exchange for a say in what is done with it. Like Communism in general, looks good on paper to some but cannot be implimented on a large scale without an authoritarian state forcing it on those who refuse to play nice and share. Any capitalists within this anarcho-communist society would probably eventually take over. The only problem here is that with a leveled playing field, to rise above the influence--I mean crowd, those few would have to step on others to do it in a rather literal interpretation of that rule of acquisition that says "Employees are the rungs on the ladder to success, don't be afraid to step on them."

For all the moral shortcomings of greed the Ferengi never had racial slavery, genocide, or any of the other really horrible attrocities common to human history. There was no profit in such ventures.

Of course they had slavery. They just called it "employment".

As far as I know, anarchy is extreme libertarianism.

As far as I know, anarchy is extreme libertarianism.

A lot of anarchists see big business as another form of ruler.

anarchist = grunt at McDonald's

libertarian = power mad boss at McDonald's

what people do on the ground, with a name, any name they choose to lable themselves or anyone else with, and any rational deffinition of what that name might otherwise mean, are, invariably, two very different things.

all the libertarians i've ever met, seem to think that lettting bussiness get away with murder will make the world a better place then letting government do so.

this isn't exactly anarchism in any and either sense of the word, by rather a long stretch as far as i can see. their honesty, at least in words, otherwise is indeed refreshing.

unfortunately, letting governments get away with not justifying their existence, in any useful and positive way, does not, as libertarians, seem to claim, make them go away, or even signifigantly reduce their meddling in the private affairs of thier populas.

instead, governments that are not kept usefully bussy providing welfare and infrastructure, invent wars to prevent people from realizing how unneccessary they would otherwise be.

=^^=
.../\...

Anarchists want a world without rulers. Libertarians want rule by giant fucking corporations, or at least delude themselves into thinking that their absolute free market, no government interference policies would not most likely give us a world like Shadowrun, but without the trolls.

Actually a true free market goes without the legal "corporate personhood" that government provides in an economy. Furthermore for those corporations to rule would be an act of government, not free market. If a company engages in force, that is not an act of free trade.

Left-Libertarians = can be anarchist, or not
Right-Libertarians = usually describes small government advocate, not no government advocate

ancient spirits of NSGevil, transform this decayed thread into mumm-ra, the ever-living!

Because my mother seems to thing the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Depends on what you believe a libertarian is. A libertarian can be anything from an anarchist to someone who wishes to downsize the government to someone who is economically conservative and socially liberal/libertarian. They can believe in rule of law or believe in the goodness of man.

For that matter, what's the REAL definition of a conservative, or a liberal, or a socialist. I don't mean the political science definition, I mean a useful, basically satisfied definition that applies for at least some region and at least some period of time.

anarchy doesn't print money, or maintain highways. nor does it carry the burden of governments, which in libertarianism serve as little useful purpose as if they did not exist, but are none the less maintained and in a sense almost worshipped, for ghod only knows why.

libertarianism also seems to buy into, even be mostly about, and about promoting, the concept of markets regulating themselves, which the 1930s proved the fallacy of and which we seem to be on the brink of having to relearn all over again.

anarchy, true anarchy, is the zen of idiology.
libertarianism is letting little green pieces of paper get away with murder in the vain obsurdity that this somehow equals or contributes to freedom.

=^^=
.../\...

yes, because the only "true" definition of anarchy is the marxist one.:rolleyes:

http://www.applefritter.com/images/zombie_1-9316.jpg
Quick, get a Mod and holy water!

Wow, didnt see how old this was..

The difference between anarchy and libertarianism is that with libertarianism a state is still an option, it just has to be really small. Anarchy is about the elimination of government.

http://www.applefritter.com/images/zombie_1-9316.jpg
Quick, get a Mod and holy water!

*brings old priest, dons robes*

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, leave now unclean thread, I cast you back to the graveyard!

*brings old priest, dons robes*

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, leave now unclean thread, I cast you back to the graveyard!

won't work, thread has already called upon the ancient spirits of NSGevil (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13396385&postcount=26) and transformed. you'll need more and better backup.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8665/thundercatss2p13ej3.jpg

Because my mother seems to thing the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Libertarianism is a conservative political philosophy. Many people will say that libertarians are not conservative but they are wrong. However, many people's concept of what is conservative is confused. This is because it means the opposite thing in Europe and is really the same thing as classical liberalism. I know it is complicated but I got it sorted out as an honors Poli Sci student in college.

American conservatism does not have a whole lot to do with the Republican Party. American liberalism does not have much to do with the Democratic Party. These parties are both centrist parties that have a more or less equal number of conservative and liberal positions. If you realize that you are well on your way to understanding American conservatism and liberalism.

Essentially, American conservatism is the idea that when an issue presents itself that seems to be a conflict between the two competing American political (primarily policies that have some nexus with economics) ideals of liberty and equality, it is best to err on the side of liberty. The opposite approach is the essense of American liberalism.

Even more essential is the idea that in economic and moral areas where there is a political contraversy between the power of the State to act and the rights of the citizen, it is better to err on the side of the individual that the State. This is the position of American conservatism. The opposite applies to American liberalism.

Libertarianism is pretty much the most conservative philosophy. At its most extreme, the state is little more than a protector of contracts and the employer of private military and police forces. The Free Market is the primary force within society and the economy is not regulated beyond ensuring that contracts are honored or more to the point, enforced.

Communism and espescially totalitarianist communism takes the American liberal philosophy to extremes.

Anarchism is somewhat beyond and outside of the political spectrum although lots of people will defer on that. Anarchism is a philosophy that I do not understand as well as Libertarianism. Anarchism, at least the type that gets intellectuals' attention is really less of a political idea than a social one. It is hard to explain but it is sort of a movement to localize social, political, and economic life. It is similar to libertarianism in that there is an emphasis on small government, yet it is quite different. Imagine if we no longer had cities but lived in small villages or nomadic groups. That is sort of what they are talking about.

Because my mother seems to thing the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.

Libertarianism is a conservative political philosophy. Many people will say that libertarians are not conservative but they are wrong. However, many people's concept of what is conservative is confused. This is because it means the opposite thing in Europe and is really the same thing as classical liberalism. I know it is complicated but I got it sorted out as an honors Poli Sci student in college.

American conservatism does not have a whole lot to do with the Republican Party. American liberalism does not have much to do with the Democratic Party. These parties are both centrist parties that have a more or less equal number of conservative and liberal positions. If you realize that you are well on your way to understanding American conservatism and liberalism.

Essentially, American conservatism is the idea that when an issue presents itself that seems to be a conflict between the two competing American political (primarily policies that have some nexus with economics) ideals of liberty and equality, it is best to err on the side of liberty. The opposite approach is the essense of American liberalism.

Even more essential is the idea that in economic and moral areas where there is a political contraversy between the power of the State to act and the rights of the citizen, it is better to err on the side of the individual that the State. This is the position of American conservatism. The opposite applies to American liberalism.

Libertarianism is pretty much the most conservative philosophy. At its most extreme, the state is little more than a protector of contracts and the employer of private military and police forces. The Free Market is the primary force within society and the economy is not regulated beyond ensuring that contracts are honored or more to the point, enforced.

Communism and espescially totalitarianist communism takes the American liberal philosophy to extremes.

Anarchism is somewhat beyond and outside of the political spectrum although lots of people will differ on that. Anarchism is a philosophy that I do not understand as well as Libertarianism. Anarchism, at least the type that gets intellectuals' attention is really less of a political idea than a social one. It is hard to explain but it is sort of a movement to localize social, political, and economic life. It is similar to libertarianism in that there is an emphasis on small government, yet it is quite different. Imagine if we no longer had cities but lived in small villages or nomadic groups. That is sort of what they are talking about.

Essentially, American conservatism is the idea that when an issue presents itself that seems to be a conflict between the two competing American political (primarily policies that have some nexus with economics) ideals of liberty and equality, it is best to err on the side of liberty.

On the side of property, perhaps.

The opposite approach is the essense of American liberalism.

Really?

What, then, do you say to leftists who insist that their ideology maximizes both liberty and equality? Are they not really aware of their own preferences?

Even more essential is the idea that in economic and moral areas where there is a political contraversy between the power of the State to act and the rights of the citizen, it is better to err on the side of the individual that the State.

So if I, an individual, violate the state-sanctioned, state-protected system of property rights, you're telling me that conservatives will be on my side?

The opposite applies to American liberalism.

No, it doesn't. American liberals are perfectly content to side with the individual against the state in a multitude of instances.

At its most extreme, the state is little more than a protector of contracts

And of property.

Communism and espescially totalitarianist communism takes the American liberal philosophy to extremes.

Communism, perhaps. Totalitarian "communism" does not.

Anarchism is somewhat beyond and outside of the political spectrum

In some respects, yes. In others, no. You can't encapsulate the anarchist position on, say, the economy by putting it on a spectrum, but certainly you can do so in a way that is meaningful and informative.

Anarchism, at least the type that gets intellectuals' attention is really less of a political idea than a social one. It is hard to explain but it is sort of a movement to localize social, political, and economic life.

Anarchism is about abolishing rulers: it is about people ruling themselves and managing their own affairs.

Traditionally anarchists have proposed political and economic decentralization as part of achieving this end, and in that sense you are correct.

It is similar to libertarianism in that there is an emphasis on small government,

No, it isn't. Anarchist and libertarian critiques of government are profoundly different.

Libertarians have a problem with government when it interferes with the free market: they want a government that protects the workings of the market, and does nothing else.

Anarchists have a problem with government as an institution of domination that deprives people of the right to rule themselves. For us, the fact that a particular government happens to limit itself to enforcing capitalist property rights changes nothing in that respect.

Imagine if we no longer had cities but lived in small villages or nomadic groups. That is sort of what they are talking about.

No, it isn't.

Imagine if we had a society where political and economic decisions were made at the grass-roots level by the people affected by them, rather than by those given power by a state or a system of property ownership. That's better.

On the side of property, perhaps.

provided the property in question is being used in ways approved of by conservatives

Various nefarious things.

The difference is that libertarianism is naive, and anarchy is extremely naive, libertarianism purports that that the government apparatus of the bourgeois can be limited, and anarchism that it can be abolished entirely, both are either indirectly naive or directly a ruse and ideological veil for the ruling class.

Libertarianism won't work because the worker's would never willingly work for the wage-slave system of the bourgeois, without the overriding oppressive apparatus of the state to force them to work for their capitalist overlords they would never yield.

So yeah, if you 'libertarians' want no state, that's fine with me, but your only digging your own grave, your taking away the only protection the bourgeois has to keep it's dictatorship alive, without that state apparatus of the police and military, they will be toppled. So yes, the bourgeois dictatorship needs protection, because without guns it would have already gone the way of the dustbin.

I'm a libertarian, at least, thats what I like to call myself. I believe the government is very important and we would be royally screwed without it.

If you take a liberal/left view towards ethical issues such as abortion, stem-cell, gay marriage, BUT then you also take a conservative/right view towards economic issues like less taxes, less social programs, less bureaucracy, then you are a libertarian.

NOTE: I am a libertarian and I support the following things which an anarchist would not support.

public education through school vouchers
seat belt laws
public fire/police stations
laws and a system of courts to enforce them
an army, navy, air force

So you can see there are some big things that I support that an anarchist wouldn't.

NOTE: I am a libertarian and I support the following things which an anarchist would not support.

seat belt laws
You call yourself a libertarian?

You call yourself a libertarian?

of course, they save lives, its a fact. I hope your kidding.

of course, they save lives, its a fact. I hope your kidding.

I believe the Libertarian viewpoint is that there should not be a law enforcing the use of seat belts. Nothing to do with whether or not they save lives.

You call yourself a libertarian?

Libertarianism is also the 'freedom' to do stupid things, and to think stupid ideas, libertarianism is so extreme in it's 'freedom' angle because the ideas of it's adherents are so ridiculous that you need that kind of protection for them. Absolute capitalists, gun-nuts, militant minorities, 'states rights' peoples (so they can law homophobic laws), racists, extreme nationalists, libertarianism is a banner for the abnormal to flock too.

of course, they save lives, its a fact. I hope your kidding.
Seatbelt laws are a form of governmental intervention into one's personal liberty. Although Llewdor's reaction might be a bit strong, it is surprising that a libertarian would support such a measure, rather than, say, just a public awareness campaign of the safety aspects of seatbelts.

On the side of property, perhaps.

Property is freedom, when it isn't being theft or impossible.

Seatbelt laws are a form of governmental intervention into one's personal liberty. ...it is surprising that a libertarian would support such a measure...

But it isn't surprising that liberal Republicans would support such a measure (edit: within the context of the state (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13397025&postcount=49), at least).

NOTE: I am a libertarian and I support the following things which an anarchist would not support.

public education through school vouchers
seat belt laws
public fire/police stations
laws and a system of courts to enforce them
an army, navy, air force

So you can see there are some big things that I support that an anarchist wouldn't.

An anarchist could support all of those things, given that they were produced through the genuine voluntary consent of all of those subjected to them. The present political order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) is not conducive to said genuine voluntary consent, thus an anarchist would object to these things within that context.

Basically, your claim fails because of the apparent assumption that a state is necessary in order to institute any of the things you list. A libertarian would know better ;)

An anarchist could support all of those things, given that they were produced through the genuine voluntary consent of all of those subjected to them. The present political order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) is not conducive to said genuine voluntary consent, thus an anarchist would object to these things within that context.

Basically, your claim fails because of the apparent assumption that a state is necessary in order to institute any of the things you list. A libertarian would know better ;)

I don't understand, if people begin to organize themselves and collaborate to do these things, then there is no more anarchy, right?

Seatbelt laws are a form of governmental intervention into one's personal liberty. Although Llewdor's reaction might be a bit strong, it is surprising that a libertarian would support such a measure, rather than, say, just a public awareness campaign of the safety aspects of seatbelts.
I don't think my reaction was strong at all. It surprised me that anyone claiming to be a libertarian would support the prohibition of any activity that didn't harm non-voluntary participants.

Seatbelt laws are a form of governmental intervention into one's personal liberty. Although Llewdor's reaction might be a bit strong, it is surprising that a libertarian would support such a measure, rather than, say, just a public awareness campaign of the safety aspects of seatbelts.

Its not surprising at all. Libertarians may support limited government intervention, but most of us have common sense too. I believe anti-monopoly laws are good too. Maybe we support a free market, but within reason. Without traffic laws or a least a tiny amount of business regulation, we really might as well not have a government, and libertarians believe that government has its place.

Like I said, the easiest way to define a libertarian is to combine the ethical positions of a liberal with the economic positions of a conservative.

Actually,

Fuck political parties!:upyours:

From now on, I will only have opinions and no affiliations.

I don't understand, if people begin to organize themselves and collaborate to do these things, then there is no more anarchy, right?
You need to update your understanding of anarchism. Anarchists are in no way opposed to organisation per se, but 'merely' hierarchical organisation.

Its not surprising at all. Libertarians may support limited government intervention, but most of us have common sense too. I believe anti-monopoly laws are good too. Maybe we support a free market, but within reason. Without traffic laws or a least a tiny amount of business regulation, we really might as well not have a government, and libertarians believe that government has its place.
I wouldn't want to speak for them, but I believe many who call themselves libertarians would disagree.

You need to update your understanding of anarchism. Anarchists are in no way opposed to organisation per se, but 'merely' hierarchical organisation.

I guess my interpretation of anarchy is like a Hobb's Leviathan scenario. Where nobody helps anybody and the life of man is violent, short and pointless.


I wouldn't want to speak for them, but I believe many who call themselves libertarians would disagree.

Well, my neighbor says that she is a libertarian and she is pro-gun control. And another one of my friends claims to be libertarian but supports welfare. I also know a republican who is against seat belt laws so as far as I know, you can believe anything you want and call yourself whatever you want. screw labels.

I found this on a libertarian website:

"A list of policies that most libertarians support would include: legalization of drugs, legalization of all consensual sexual acts between consenting adults (including sodomy and prostitution), abolition of government censorship in all its forms (including restrictions on pornography), free trade, noninterventionist foreign policy, abolition of rent control, abolition of the minimum wage, abolition of farm and business subsidies, abolition of arts subsidies, privatization of Social Security, abolition of welfare, and drastic reduction of taxes."

I support all of these things, so maybe I can call myself a libertarian?

I guess my interpretation of anarchy is like a Hobb's Leviathan scenario. Where nobody helps anybody and the life of man is violent, short and pointless.
Hobbes' "State of Nature" is certainly not what anarchists envision an anarchist society to be like. (In fact, as a purely theoretical vision of pre-society, it'd be a strange fellow who'd suggest it as a place to live.) Anarchist political philosophers differ in the details of what living without hierarchical institutions would be like, but a many of them envision non-hierarchical collectives co-operating with other collectives. Organisation would, obviously, play a massive part in any such society.

As well as studying the writings of anarchist theorists (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/proudhon/proudhonbio.html) might be a good start), Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed is an intriguing and thought-provoking vision of how an anarchist society might work, as well as being a fantastic book in its own right.

Now, it's a work of fiction and a pure political treatise, but it's perhaps a good introduction to a school of thought which contends that life without hierarchy wouldn't be "nasty, brutish and short".

I support all of these things, so maybe I can call myself a libertarian?
I think you probably could.

All I was saying was that certain libertarians would regard any governmental measure to limit personal liberty as unnecessary.

You need to update your understanding of anarchism. Anarchists are in no way opposed to organisation per se, but 'merely' hierarchical organisation.
True, but to have no hierarchy means no one would be able to direct the group.

I wouldn't want to speak for them, but I believe many who call themselves libertarians would disagree.
Go right ahead (on this issue). True libertarians do not support victimless crimes.

True, but to have no hierarchy means no one would be able to direct the group.


When with a group of friends or in some other informal setting, one always takes the time to elect leaders before making any sort of decision?

Anarchism merely take the same type of group dynamic and expands it to general societal decision-making. This is why anarchism/libertarianism have always stressed the importance of decentralization.

EDIT: But even then, "hierarchy" isn't necessarily opposed. Even in an anarchist society, leadership can emerge, based on popular consent, respect, recognition of a particular skill (most likely dispute resolution/mediation skills), etc. The trick is that in an anarchist society, the "authority" of the leadership is entirely consensual and not based on some ability to enforce or coerce compliance (force and coercion are assumed within the definition of "hierarchy" as typically understood by anarchists).

Anarchists follow the leaders they choose exactly because they do not need to be forced into doing so. Leadership emerges from among an equal group of peers, rather than being imposed from the top down in an unequal society made of distinct classes (rulers and those ruled).

When with a group of friends or in some other informal setting, one always takes the time to elect leaders before making any sort of decision?
1. I don't have friends so this would be an alien concept to me.
B. when in an informal setting the conversation tends to drift.
2B
3
000Destruct0

Anarchism merely take the same type of group dynamic and expands it to general societal decision-making.
I seem to remember either a sociology or group communications book say that sort of thing doesn't work well beyond some arbitrary number below 10 but above 5 because enough people can't agree on what needs to be done. how to go about it, who should do what, etc. That's not to say that that'd be a bad thing, it just would mean that society as a whole would just meander about and nothing would ever get done (at least on a large scale), not even the important stuff like roads and food.

EDIT: But even then, "hierarchy" isn't necessarily opposed. Even in an anarchist society, leadership can emerge, based on popular consent, respect, recognition of a particular skill (most likely dispute resolution/mediation skills), etc.
So we should just pick leaders based on popularity? I for one would feel a little uncomfrtable with the latest American Idol running society. And if you're going to pick a leader based on popularity wouldn't that be the start of a democratic government. And what if this leader happens by someone who doesn't respect their authoritah?

The trick is that in an anarchist society, the "authority" of the leadership is entirely consensual and not based on some ability to enforce or coerce compliance (force and coercion are assumed within the definition of "hierarchy" as typically understood by anarchists).
But how are you going to get everyone to consent to a leader? What if there is disagreement about who should be leader? Would society just have to split based on political and personal preferences?

Anarchists follow the leaders they choose exactly because they do not need to be forced into doing so. Leadership emerges from among an equal group of peers, rather than being imposed from the top down in an unequal society made of distinct classes (rulers and those ruled).
Which would explain why there are so many schools of thought on the subject and why the members seldom get along or work together toward any common goal.

Fact is that if you have leaders then you have a government. If they're leading because of popularity then it's a democratic government but it still governs and has the chance to grow and change into something ugly.

I seem to remember either a sociology or group communications book say that sort of thing doesn't work well beyond some arbitrary number below 10 but above 5 because enough people can't agree on what needs to be done. how to go about it, who should do what, etc. That's not to say that that'd be a bad thing, it just would mean that society as a whole would just meander about and nothing would ever get done (at least on a large scale), not even the important stuff like roads and food.


Again, this is why anarchist and libertarian ideologies tend to stress decentralization. Although decentralizing an entire society to groups of between 5 and 10 members is likely a very unrealistic approach. This is also why anarchist ideologies stress the democratic decision making process where groups of people need necessarily be large. This allows individuals to select their leadership, while instituting the infrastructure needed to handle large groups.


I for one would feel a little uncomfrtable with the latest American Idol running society.


Is that not what you have now? When the vast majority are condemned to the subclass of those who are ruled, and they have nothing more to hope for than bread and circuses granted from those who rule on high, what exactly does one expect?


But how are you going to get everyone to consent to a leader?


I don't try to "get" everyone to consent. I let them consent on their own.

For a practical (and, as it happens, profitable) example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/open_gore.html


What if there is disagreement about who should be leader?


What if there is?


Fact is that if you have leaders then you have a government.


Of course. But anarchism is not opposed to order, law, justice, or government. It is opposed to the minority who work to subvert law and destroy justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/oligarchy) through their preferred kind of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/state).

A man recognized as the first to explicitly call himself an "anarchist" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) defined it as thus:

"..a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum. In it, more especially, the forms of monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based on the commune."

Note that this man was French, so, in his language, the "commune" is simply the "municipality" or "town." "Commune" does not refer to Communism, as he was staunchly anti-Communism.


...it still governs and has the chance to grow and change into something ugly.

Anything worth doing carries risk. Freedom is a bitch like that.

At any rate, "it might turn into something ugly" is hardly a reason to tolerate or surrender to the ugliness now. Otherwise "freedom" has no practical meaning.

Seatbelt laws are a form of governmental intervention into one's personal liberty. Although Llewdor's reaction might be a bit strong, it is surprising that a libertarian would support such a measure, rather than, say, just a public awareness campaign of the safety aspects of seatbelts.It's also unlikely for a Green to be in favor of military intervention in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean I'm not Green.

True, but to have no hierarchy means no one would be able to direct the group.
Exactly.

That’s what anarchy, at the heart of it, is all about. No hierarchy; no one individual directing institutions.

It’s also unlikely for a Green to be in favor of military intervention in Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean I’m not Green.
Of course not; all I’m saying is that it’s surprising, not that it’s impossible.

-snip-
I had a really long point-by-point addressing your post but my browser shutdown and I lost my entire post and I don't feel like writing it again. The main theme of my post is that while I love freedom anarchy isn't stable. As an example I pointed to Somalia. Not a shining paradise or paragon of virtue, it's been carved up by folks trying to start their own countries.

The difference between an anarchist and a libertarian is that a libertarian believes that your freedoms stop when they infringe on the rights of another and an anarchist doesn't always.

The difference between an anarchist and a libertarian is that a libertarian believes that your freedoms stop when they infringe on the rights of another and an anarchist doesn't always.

enlighten me as to the names of these anarchists and where i might find their thoughts and arguments published. they seem fascinating.

enlighten me as to the names of these anarchists and where i might find their thoughts and arguments published. they seem fascinating.

They are indeed quite fascinating. The statement is true; a Libertarian does usually say "your freedom ends where my nose beings." But an anarchist will say something entirely different: "my freedom ends where your nose beings."

The difference is subtle but of vast importance.

As an example I pointed to Somalia. Not a shining paradise or paragon of virtue, it's been carved up by folks trying to start their own countries.

Find me a single anarchist who would support what amounts to constant warfare among oligarchic warlords (i.e. "Somalia").

Good luck.

Because my mother seems to think the two words are interchangable. Then again, she also thinks that we had nothing to do wiith Augusto Pinochet and that Saddam really did have WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda.

So, someone please sum up for me the differences between libertarianism and anarchy.Just shoot your mother. She is a hopeless uneducated retard. And please move out if you still live there. Greetings from me. :rolleyes:

Anarchists are students (which is laughable in itself), and libertarians are businessmen (which is also laughable).Being a student is laughable?

For all the moral shortcomings of greed the Ferengi never had racial slavery, genocide, or any of the other really horrible attrocities common to human history. There was no profit in such ventures.Certainly - they were fictional.

I don't understand, if people begin to organize themselves and collaborate to do these things, then there is no more anarchy, right?Not at all.

For instance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_society)

Find me a single anarchist who would support what amounts to constant warfare among oligarchic warlords (i.e. "Somalia").

Good luck.I've seen ancaps say it's not that bad there.

Anarchists are just lame (hurray for naïveté!), whereas Libertarians are basically just selfish (bugger the poor, woo yeah!). There we go.