Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 42   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertarian vs Anarchism  (Read 92760 times)

debra

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 287
Libertarian vs Anarchism
« on: July 23, 2002, 02:58:47 pm »

I just thought this board needed a jumpstart! :)

Are you a libertarian? Libertarian (big-L)? Left-anarchist? Market (right)-anarchist?  Constitutionalist? Or something else entirely?

Why?

Let the battle begin!  ;D
Logged
"Society has always honored its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."

tpahl

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2002, 07:00:56 pm »

I am an anarchist.  I do not beleive that their is ever a justifiable reason to initiate force.

Travis Pahl
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2002, 08:59:41 pm »


I just thought this board needed a jumpstart! :)

Are you a libertarian? Libertarian (big-L)? Left-anarchist? Market (right)-anarchist?  Constitutionalist? Or something else entirely?

Why?

Let the battle begin!  ;D


I used to be a Libertarian minimal government person, coming at it from reading Ayn rand stuff.  Now, having read some Hoppe and Rothbard, I'm leaning toward anarcho-capitalist.

I also hold that there can be no distinction between right or left anarchism.  People automatically understand the concept of private property.  In order to eliminate that requires coercive force, thus its not anarchism anymore.  Anarcho-socialists are totally deluded, unless they are simply thinking of a voluntary commune arrangement within a market-anarchist system.

Charles
Logged

Matthew

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2002, 10:24:57 pm »

I'm not quite sure at this time, I am begging to beleive more and more in what tpahl said.  Just because something is convinient, in the short run (and even long run), to you doesn't mean it is right or just.  But at tis moment i am either an realy anarchistic libertarian or a (right) libertarian.
Logged
"And if Donald Trump delivered the mail, you could send letters for 12 cents, and also gamble with the stamps." Howard Stern

Matthew

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2002, 10:27:03 pm »

I agree with you Charles, I don't see how left and right anarchists can be politicaly different at all.  What happens after anarchy is all voluntary (not forced by gov't) meaning your either anarchist or not.
Logged
"And if Donald Trump delivered the mail, you could send letters for 12 cents, and also gamble with the stamps." Howard Stern

Dusty

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
  • I am not a llama!
    • Check out Dustyland!
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2002, 01:02:10 am »

I've been wrestling with this question myself.  Reason is leading me down the path to anarchism.  But I'm having a hard time sweeping out the last few dust bunnies of pragmatism.  While I'm in this holding pattern, I am mostly subscribed to Bill of Rights Enforcement as my current guiding principle.  As I search for the elemental truths on which to base my own social-political beliefs, I have temporarily placed my faith in the wisdom of our founding fathers, and in particular the anti-federalists.  I suppose its about as close to religion as I get.  I haven't yet fully embraced the Non-Agression Principle and all of its intricate ramifications, so according to L. Neil Smith I can't really even call myself a libertarian at this point.  I will probably eventually arrive at that conclusion, though, once I've exhausted all of those afore-mentioned bunnies.

Dusty
Logged
Dusty Sharp
Cherry Valley, CA
http://www.dustyland.net

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2002, 02:19:56 am »

Perhaps I misunderstand the definition of the term anarchism, but how can someone pragmatically support anarchism as an answer to the problem of force?  Anarchism would remove any legal restraint for using force, leaving us to our wits to attempt to avoid being killed.  We would be forced into making treaties, agreements, and contracts, and would end up right back where we are now, in a social contract otherwise known as government.  National governments if considered as individuals, exist in an anarchy, mostly, and even _they_ are starting to come together into a world government (to my dismay).

I guess what I'm saying is that governance is inevitable, and our best bet is to make such governance as light as possible.  
Logged

BukHix

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 72
  • Don't Tread On Me!
    • The Conservatarian
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2002, 05:03:14 am »

Quote
I guess what I'm saying is that governance is inevitable, and our best bet is to make such governance as light as possible.


You are so right and I think that is where I stand on governmental bodies in general. They are a necessary evil that can be made to be tolerable with the effort of the people being governed.

Although I believe in the concept of Market Anarchism I do not trust human nature enough to handle the responsibility that would come with it. There are too many people who want a nanny to take care of them from cradle to grave and I don't think they would care if the nannies are tyrannical in nature. Besides the people afraid to govern themselves you also have another problem with human nature and that is that many people can not stand for other people to be free. They are perfectly happy to put limits on the freedom of others for a perceived benefit to us all. Self-goverment would take great responsibility and that is why most people fear it and in fact resist it. Using history as a guide I think it would be safe to say that many people faced with this responsibilty would soon beg for a tyrant to govern them.

I guess I would be considered a Right Libertarian; I started out as a right wing conservative (Republican) that believed Ronald Reagan was a model for all Republicans to follow. About 10 years ago I read two books that started my transformation from a Republican to a Libertarian. The books were, "How to Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization" and "Defending the Undefendable." These two books literally changed my life forever.

That is how I was introduced to the Libertarian principles but I resisted joining and supporting the party because it was my belief that a vote for a Libertarian candidate would be a wasted vote in that it would not go to the politician who shared most of my beliefs and had a chance to win an election.

The events that have happened since Sept 11 have caused me to realize that I have been wasting my votes anyway. Right now the only difference I can see between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans are only slightly less ambitious in growing the size of government. If that is not bad enough I am starting to see a trend with the current administration that leads me to believe that the Republican party is fast becoming an enemy to Liberty. I am still not sure of what I will do when I get in the polling booth come November but I will NEVER vote a straight ticket again. Never.

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2002, 12:45:12 pm »


Perhaps I misunderstand the definition of the term anarchism, but how can someone pragmatically support anarchism as an answer to the problem of force?  Anarchism would remove any legal restraint for using force, leaving us to our wits to attempt to avoid being killed.  We would be forced into making treaties, agreements, and contracts, and would end up right back where we are now, in a social contract otherwise known as government.  


Whoa! There is no contract in our current form of government.  I agree that people would be "forced" into making treaties and so forth, much like we are currently "forced" to buy food at a grocery store.   If there was a contract in our current governmental system, it would say something like "Party A (the citizen) agrees to allow party B (the state) to change the content of this contract unilaterally at any time without consent.  Failure to abide by the rules of the contract will result in fine, imprisonment or execution, the extent of which is determine solely by party B.  Party A is disallowed from ever ending the contract and any attempt to do so will result in imprisonment or execution."

What kind of fool would sign such a contract?

Quote

National governments if considered as individuals, exist in an anarchy, mostly, and even _they_ are starting to come together into a world government (to my dismay).

I guess what I'm saying is that governance is inevitable, and our best bet is to make such governance as light as possible.  


Voluntary cooperation between individuals is inevitable.  I don't see why these contracts need to be the one sided deals they currently are.  As you say, the countries of the world exist in "anarchy" with respect to each other.  Prior to the civil war, the states of the US may have been believed to exist in anarchy - they were simply voluntarily cooperating.  

I would assert that allowing secession is equal to being an anarchist.  You are allowing people to voluntarily opt out of agreements.

Charles
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2002, 01:19:17 pm »



Whoa! There is no contract in our current form of government.  I agree that people would be "forced" into making treaties and so forth, much like we are currently "forced" to buy food at a grocery store.   If there was a contract in our current governmental system, it would say something like "Party A (the citizen) agrees to allow party B (the state) to change the content of this contract unilaterally at any time without consent.  Failure to abide by the rules of the contract will result in fine, imprisonment or execution, the extent of which is determine solely by party B.  Party A is disallowed from ever ending the contract and any attempt to do so will result in imprisonment or execution."

What kind of fool would sign such a contract?


The kind of fool that preferred an unfair contract of servitude to being killed outright by the contractually grouped band of marauders 5 miles away.  This is the fundamental principle of feudalism.

My point is that the end result of an unbound anarchism is merely the creation of new oppressive governments, starting with warlords and moving on to kings, and eventually democracies, republics, socialist states, etc.  That is why instead we created in the US Constitution a system of government that allowed anarchic and free relationships between states while setting up a framework of justice and order.  This protects the states from constant struggles between each other, and unites them against common aggressors.

This contract has _become_ a contract of servitude due to our own laziness in enforcing the contract terms (listed in the constitution).  As such, we are now taking up the mantle and attempting to correct the problem.  Personally, I'd like to avoid secession, although I consider it to be a legal and valid process, simply because the seceded nation will be subject to the gales of international politics, and I don't see a secessionist nation surviviing it.  if the South couldn't do it, what makes you think that New Hampshire, Wyoming, or even Alaska could do it?  

If it ever came to that point, it would take a large amount of political wrangling with neighboring nations, the UN, and some well-placed propaganda to keep from ending up like another Dixie.  Such a move would be _very_ unlikely to work without the support of enough other nations.  And if you were to obtain it, you would then be subject to _their_ influence and quite possibly would _still_ not be free.
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2002, 03:56:42 pm »

The south was unable to secede because the north actively invaded and forced them to stay.  It had nothing to do with surviving in the cruel international world all alone.

Also, are you really so certain the the constitution is being violated in our current system of government?  If so, where?

Charles
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2002, 04:21:30 pm »

The south was unable to secede because the north actively invaded and forced them to stay.  It had nothing to do with surviving in the cruel international world all alone.

Also, are you really so certain the the constitution is being violated in our current system of government?  If so, where?

Charles

Surviving the cruel international world requires them to survive the invasions of the North.  Upon secession, the South was on its own diplomatically.  There was nothing keeping the north from attacking the South to take back its land.  If the North had been willing to let them go (and apparently a large minority of congress _was_) then they probably would have survived _other_ outside aggression, or if they had gotten even one large nation to ally with them against the US, they would have probably survived.  However no other nation was willing to help them fight the US and the US fought the CS in a war of sovereign states.  

You are free to declare your sovreignty at any point you would like, but if you cannot maintain that sovreignty through forceful defense of your borders, you won't be sovreign for long.  Any secession movement from the US at this time is likely to be unable to maintain its sovreignty without diplomatic support, and probably would need military support as well.  

And on the other point, our constitution is violated with almost every federal law and almost every federal regulation.  The 9th and 10th ammendment is crushed underfoot every day at the capitol building.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2002, 04:36:10 pm by maestro »
Logged

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2002, 05:13:19 pm »

I'm not fully following your argument.  If I say I'm an anarchist, I'm merely asserting that I think it is wrong for the state to focibly prevent secession.  Isn't that all I can do?  The US could invade and assimilate Canada and Mexico, that doesn't mean that those countries were not wronged.

Maybe I missed your point.

There was nothing keeping the north from attacking the South to take back its land.

What do you mean "its" land?

Charles
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2002, 05:44:53 pm »

My point is that between nations, there is by necessity no such thing as right and wrong.  It is true anarchy in that there is no authority to appeal to that has any real power.  If you (as a nation) feel you have been wronged, you can either do something about it or do nothing, but you can't go to court about it.  The United States is "right" due to being the most powerful force on earth.  It cannot do _anything_ however, since even the US can be defeated by some combination of other nations.  As such for the US to do anything aggressive it must have the tacit approval of another nation.  If a portion of the US seceded, the US would be within its rights (power) to forcefully take over the now "sovereign" nation, unless pressure can be brought against them to keep them from doing so.

Perhaps we are discussing different meanings of the term anarchist.  if "Anarchist" _only_ means that you believe the state shouldn't prevent secession, I am also an anarchist.  I think the North was wrong in attacking the South.  My understanding is that an anarchist is an advocate of the removal of all forms of government.  It is my argument that if that was possible, it would be a very brief state quickly ended by the grouping together under warlords, followed by other oppressive forms of government.

PS:  The North believed that the South still belonged to the US, and thus from _their_ point of view, it was "their land."  If the South had seceded by moving to Antarctica, I don't think the US would have worried with it, since they kept the land.
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2002, 06:43:16 pm »

"Are you a libertarian? Libertarian (big-L)? Left-anarchist? Market (right)-anarchist?  Constitutionalist? Or something else entirely?"

In general I'm very skeptical of all political views since most people believe something because it's what their parent believed.  In general I reject everything to begin with and work my way towards firm views by proving them to myself first logically and then with real world evidence and finally I try my hardest to break the theory down to prove that it's wrong or can be wrong in certain situations.  If the view can withstand these tests then I will incorporate it into my political belief system.  An example is lowering the highest tax bracket (when it starts out being pretty high) has shown to increase the fed's revenue and I've proven it to myself with pretty simple economic reasoning.  There are lost of things that I 'think' are true or are 'mostly' true but I can't prove in all cases, these are the types of things I enjoy discussing in order to discover what is the best solution.  This leads me to be even more harsh and critical of my own current views than the ones I oppose so that I can find a way to make them more logically sound.  This is of course because it is EXTREMELY hard to find a liberal or socialist who has given any intellectual thought to their possitions.  At every opportunity I try to engage a left winger in a very polite intellectual conversation about a certain issue and 90% of the time they get REALLY angry with you (mostly) or have no responce to what your argument is, I seriously like socialist/communist more than most liberals because many liberals are SO intollerant of other people's opinion and are just so angry and hateful to you if you dare to dissagree.  Anyway this criticism of my political views seems to make me one of the least libertarian people in our community on lots of issues.  Not because I dissagree with certain issues but because I present arguements against them that prehaps I haven't resolved.  Still I think I am quite libertarian or anarchist because ideally I'd like there to be no government.  Problem is I haven't found a logical way of making this possible in a pracital or theoretical sense.  In constructing a theoretical world with no government I've only gotten this far:  Everything would be contracts, and contract disputes would be judged by a jury (no judge) and the courthouse would be paid for by the looser of the contract dispute.  A company would run courts off of this revenue.  
Essentially this would give rise to competeing governments that you could join by signing a contract with them.  These 'governments' would act kind of like trade associations, or fraternal organizations where they look after your interests (or not depending on how much you pay).  Still there are huge problems with this theory I still need to resolve.  One drop in the bucket is if your address and phone # is private information, how can the 'court' company make a random selection of the population to make up the Jury without having everyone's information?
This doesn't even scratch on all of the economic situations that are 'natural' monopolies, comodities that are non-excludable and the comodities that (I forget what they're called) have no marginal cost.  Roads, utilities, radio waves (beaming into YOUR house without your permission!), airplanes flying over your yard, neighbor's yard breed pests that infest your yard but you can't prove it, giving citizens nuclear weapons, eminate domain, required car insurance?, debtor's prison?, indetured servitude to pay you debts?, children's right? so many problems that I don't know know the answer to.  But alas I have rambled now for an extremely long time!
-Eddie
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 42   Go Up