What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertarians?

Post Reply New Topic

These days, you don't hear much about Anarchists in the USA any more. It is, however, rather stylish to fancy oneself a Libertarian.

What is the difference between the two?

Crazy vs Delusional

Anarchists often tend to be rather anti-capitalist and oppose the idea of private property. Generally that is not true of libertarians (with the exception, of course, of libertarian socialists).

Anarchism is a very broad movement with diverse variations which only agree in the absence of (state) power. Libertarianism does not necessarly advocate the complete abolition of the state, only its reduction to the strictest minimum, under various definitions of minimum which include, of course, no state at all. They overlapped at one point, but mostly don't.

Many anarchist tendencies are against individual liberties, for starters. Most are against property.

Also, anarchism has been tried in practice at least once (during the Spanish Civil War, there were anarcho-syndicalist communes in Catalonia*, and it kind of worked until the Nationalist troops ended all the fun), whereas libertarianism... hasn't.

* They took it in turn to serve as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer had to be ratified by a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two thirds majority in the case of more major...

In the modern world the difference probably comes down to dental care.

In the post-apocalyptic world, the anarchists will be using stop signs as bladed weapons. Libertarians will still be relying on firearms. But from a nutritional standpoint both will make for an excellent alternative source of protein. Remember to wash and peel.

Libertarians are min-archists. They want government small and limited in scope. Anarchists want no state and no government. It is the difference between Less and None.

ruveyn

American Libertarians seem to march lock-step to the tune of Ayn Rand--no Libertarian Socialists here.

In point of fact, Shi'ite Objectivists cannot stand Libertarians.


"Libertarians' indifference to philosophy was the primary cause of Rand's refusal to describe herself as "libertarian," and has led many Objectivists to follow suit. Notably, Objectivist writer Peter Schwartz has attacked the libertarian movement as a whole in his essay "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" (republished in The Voice of Reason). Schwartz accuses libertarians of thorough-going subjectivism and nihilism. However, Schwartz's essay is a polemic, not a responsible piece of cultural analysis. It fails to take note of the serious opposition to radical subjectivism and nihilism on the part of many libertarians. As David Kelley explains in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism, prominent libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation, and famous libertarian thinkers such as "Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Thomas Sowell, and Robert Nozick" are not nihilists (p. 37). Their views are to varying degrees ones that share premises with Objectivism and with which Objectivists may profitably make common cause in the struggle to achieve greater freedom."

Attitudesx toward the Libertarian Movement caused a big spit among the Objectivists.

ruveyn

Both emphasize liberty & are skeptical of state authority. Libertarians generally despise anything that smacks of "collectivism" or the redistribution of wealth. Anarchists generally despise anything that smacks of social hierarchy or coercion. Neither really is a practical way to run a government, but can be starting-points for intense debates.

The practical way to run a government is with guns, whips, clubs, chains, jails and an armed force. Government is Force, plain and simple. If I, as a private person, did what the government does, you wold call me a criminal.

ruveyn

Objectivists despised libertarians because objectivists are more honest in stating that their causes is not personal liberty but extreme individual egoism and rejection of all altruistic, egalitarian, and/or humanistic sentiments. To Ayn Rand libertarians were just flakes trying to lure leftist hippies on the premise that the state does not have the moral grounds to criminalize getting high. Hard-core Randism isn't about liberty but putting the boot to the filthy parasites of society (i.e. all those born with neither the financial means nor the talent to become ruthless captains of industry).

I also think Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and all their ilk pushed radical libertarian ideology further into the realm of quackery than Ayn Rand.

Yes, because Western governments are known for their extensive use of the police state...

Anarchist:

[img][307:410]http://www.juliapetrova.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Punk_cat-2.jpg[/img]

Libertarian:



Anarchists figure they're more likely to rise to the top in a system that makes it easier for them to apply their particular skill set, which is beating weaker people up and taking whatever the hell they want.

Libertarians, on the other hand, want to maintain a minimum of social order. In many cases, this means protection for the wealthy, without pesky regulations that protect the poor from exploitation.

They did no such thing. They simply drew conclusions from the premise of limited government.

Particularly Nozick. He realized the limitations of anarchy. A minimal government is the least a society must have to remain orderly.

I suspect you have Statists leanings. I would bet you believe the government has a role in regulating the private business of its citizens.

ruveyn

In another thread, you suggested that "any one who becomes desperate and misbehaves, gets a bullet in a vital place." Is this the kind of min-archy that you envision? A small government that protects the rich by shooting the desperately poor?