What is the Difference between Anarchists and Libertarians?

Post Reply New Topic

In a minimally governed state where rights are respected there would not be Crony Capitalism such as we have. The reason why the rotten corporations have so much power is that they are in bed with the government panting a heaving on each other's pubes. In a minimally governed state there would be no favors or subsidies for business firms.

In a minimally governed state the desperate poor would be permitted to sell their blood and their organs for cash which is now currently illegal.

ruveyn

You're not doing your position much service with that last part.

Do you believe in freedom? I do and I am being consistent.

ruveyn

Free to be poor and a source of organs for people with money! That's freedom.

And free to bleed to death and starve on the street! Hurray!

Remember than Emerson quotation "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Seriously though, this points to one of my major problems with libertarianism. None other than Ron Paul (whom I respect as a person, just disagree with so much of his ideology) has said that all personal rights derive from the property right. To libertarians the property right is considered to be absolute & to trump all other rights. So does it follow that if one has no property, one has no rights? Or only the right to sell his labor or his body parts for whatever price the free market may dictate? (No right of collective bargaining, of course - that would be "interference" in the free market, which, as we are all taught, is morally wrong.)

They make the mistake of assuming a world with little or no enforced regulation will spontaneously organize into a peaceful and prosperous society. The idea is idiotic because if it could work it would have actually occurred. People naturally band together and come up with basic ground rules of fair play and preservation of the common good. It's not some unnatural thing thrust upon people. It's human nature to organize. If a free-market utopia has to be forced on a people against their democratically expressed wishes ala Pinochet's Chile, the system isn't about freedom but tyranny and it has therefore failed miserably. The biggest threat to freedom is hierarchic divisions and power which may or may not be related to a state.

If in your minarchist state a small privilidged class rises to the top while the vast majority are barely surviving the primary job of the state becomes to physically protect the property of the privilidged class with teargas and/or bullets. And then you're going to ask that the poor pay the same percentage of their income as the rich in order to physically protect the property of the rich? I'm willing to bet no such society would remain orderly once the public police force defect and the rich must start paying private security forces (i.e. hired goons) loyal to their class.

Last edited by marshall on 04 Mar 2012, 11:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Har har har... You're such a funny guy.

And thus magic became involved.

Whatever system is used, there will be powerful and weak people. Government does not oppress anyone; the powerful do. All government can do is help them or stop them. To my knowledge, the most workable formula is for government to help the weak against the powerful. (This is also, incidentally, Machiavelli-friendly.)

It always strikes me as odd that libertarians can talk about the evil of government and yet some of the most pleasant, socially liberal, friendly societies that we see are the Scandinavian social democratic welfare states. I've been to Stockholm and I've been to New York. Stockholm is cleaner, prettier, friendlier, and just altogether nicer.

Sadly, empirical evidence is not enough to destroy silly intellectual constructions. It is sad when beautiful concept fail to mere reality.

Also, the Italian city-states had probably some of the most interventionnist governments ever, regulating just about everything; yet when they avoided factional conflicts, they were certainly amongst the nicest place to live in their days. Venice avoided those factions, and was the richest, freest and happiest city in the world during its prime.

Last edited by enrico_dandolo on 04 Mar 2012, 11:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Most true capitalists realize that crony capitalism and capitalism are one in the same and have been since the beginning of time.

In other words, your answer to rich criminals who bribe the authorities is to do away with the authorities and give the criminals free reign. There must be better ways to combat corruption.

Btw, I agree with Vigilans' opinion on your last sentence. If that is your honest opinion, your libertarian vision is frighteningly inhumane and can't possibly be taken into serious consideration by a civilized society.

So you really were serious then. The list of freedoms that you believe in already includes the freedom to watch your neighbor starve to death. Now we can add the freedom to harvest your starving neighbor's organs if he's willing to sell them for a loaf of bread

I think I'll pass on those freedoms. I believe that my freedom ends at the point where it puts the life and physical integrity of others at risk.

Here, here!

Also, I find it incredibly irritating when Americans go on about freedom like this. Things like freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, the right to move etc. are obviously all very important. And America has those right guaranteed already. But I don't get why we need or should have the freedom to exploit others or to ruin the planet for future generations.

From what I gather Libertarians are for minimum state government that only intervenes to prevent "harm" from being done to others, while anarchists are against all government whatsoever.

Of course "harm" is an ill-defined word. I have a problem with some libertarians who classify verbal abuse as free speech and is probably my single biggest claim against them. Of course some of these people may just be trolls. It's really very very difficult to tell the difference between a libertarian and a troll from my experience.

I agree with the some ideals, but I have found that many self-proclaimed libertarians lack the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time. The more intelligent libertarians probably know to keep quiet.