the libertarian-anarchist line

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Steve Austin
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:17 am

Post by Steve Austin »

In another thread, NYC ERE noted the subject proclivities apparently shared by ERErs. I roughly self-identify with the libertarian, and I've voted that way for 10+ years, but have never registered with the Libertarian Party (US).
Would someone who is schooled in political views please lay this out for me? I understand that Libertarianism is North American (true/false?), but with (I imagine) analogues in other continents; while Anarchism appears to be something more global? I've done some light study on the Spanish Civil War, and it's where I first ran across the term Anarchist, other than from the popular music / culture references back in the late 70s, early 80s (UK/US).
What are the dis/similarities between a libertarian and anarchist? Is there a distinct line, or lots of blurring? I vote in the US, but I'm not much of a student of politics. Every two or four years, I do find some amusement in spectating the sport though. ;-\


KevinW
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:45 am

Post by KevinW »

The "classical liberal" ideology seeks to maximize personal liberty and property rights through a minimal state and unregulated free market capitalism. Generally a classical liberal supports a minimal state, limited to functions such as law enforcement, private contract enforcement, and national defense, and seeks to privatize all other activities. Outside the US these views can be called "classical liberal" or "liberal." In the US, "liberal" became synonymous with leftist, so classical liberals started calling themselves "libertarian."
"Anarchism" seems to mean the same thing everywhere. An anarchist does not support any state whatsoever, not even the minimal state condoned by libertarians. There are anarcho-capitalists that prefer capitalism and no state, but other economic arrangements, such as anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism, seem to be more popular among anarchists.
So anarchists and libertarians generally agree that we should have much less government that we have now, and that social issues should be unregulated. They disagree over whether there should be zero government or very little government, and how the economy should work. Both philosophies are individualistic and skeptical of collectivism.
Wikipedia covers these topics fairly well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


Steve Austin
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:17 am

Post by Steve Austin »

In the US, does "the Left" consider libertarians to be conservatives or liberals (in the popular Right-Left sense)? Another way to ask this question: in the US, is there a "classical conservative" position, and is it the same as what I've heard referred to as paleo-conservative? (Non-US perspectives welcome here, too; I'm only asking about the US because I am a Citizen and resident, and so it's my point of departure.)
KevinW, thanks for the wikipedia link, a source I read often. However, my first preference is to get individual opinions and then aggregate them into a holistic picture later. That way, when I do read a wikipedia page, I can have some basis for deciding whether something was lost in the collective nature of writing a wikipedia entry. The Discussion page for a wikipedia entry can also be informative in that same vein.


borisborisboris
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:12 pm

Post by borisborisboris »

My guess is that if you ask an American left winger (votes Democrat, supports Obama etc.) how he thinks about Libertarians, he might call them "conservative". However, he'll probably realize that the Libertarian is conservative on Fiscal/Economic issues, but liberal [in the USA sense] on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.
A conservative would agree with the libertarian about limiting government programs (and the taxes / sovereign debt required to fund those programs), but would disagree on social issues (ie regulate gay marriage, regulate abortion).
Someone else can please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I think of it.


JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

Unfortunately, most liberal democrats I meet seem to believe the MSM that libertarians are racist, militia terrorists.
Too bad they can't see the libertarians as allies to break up the neocon stranglehold on the republican party... And maybe actually end some of these ridiculous wars, something the democrats pretended to car about recently. Now that it's a democrat war monger it's taboo to even mention ending the wars.
It's all so bizarre.


Edgewater Tom
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:04 pm

Post by Edgewater Tom »

From my experiences, Libertarians in the US tend to be viewed as voting conservative for fiscal reasons. They can quietly adopt any social mores they choose (ala Freedom in an Unfree World) and fly under the radar. It is harder to keep the government's hand off your property and out of your bank account, however, so their fiscal issues are more closely aligned with a conservative party. So, tell me I can't do something "socially" with my relationships or recreational stimulants...I'll probably get it done anyway. Tell me my property or income taxes are going up again...that becomes a voting issue.


Marius
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:39 am

Post by Marius »

@KevinW

"Outside the US these views can be called "classical liberal" or "liberal." In the US, "liberal" became synonymous with leftist, so classical liberals started calling themselves "libertarian."
Thanks Kevin! No single label exactly describes my views, but now at least I understand why many of my favorite Americans are libertarians. :-)


Matthew
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:58 pm

Post by Matthew »

In my opinion Liberals and Libertarians are greatly different. Liberals tend to be democratic and supportive of welfare to the point of taking from those who "have" and giving it to people with less in the name of equality.
Libertarians believe you should be free to do what you want as long as it doesn't hinder anyone else's freedom. So things like murder and theft would be wrong, but drug usage or sexual orientation may be more accepted. It would not support government or taxation more than what is necessary to enforce the rights of the people and would not believe in taking more from one tax bracket to the next. The rules should be the same for all. It would probably not support letting companies have different tax rules than a wage earner. Most libertarians are likely more conservative in nature.
Anarchism is very similar to Libertarian except that they believes in Chaos. They would not believe in supporting any kind of government, police, etc.


AlexOliver
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm

Post by AlexOliver »

I should note that most Tea Partiers call themselves Libertarians, and, as a group, aren't in favor of either abortion or gay marriage.


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15906
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Post by jacob »

A few comments:
Anarchists tend to believe that people can get along and life without government would NOT be "brutish, nasty, and short".
(In my opinion they are 95% correct. 95% of everybody are good people. It is the remaining 5% who ruins everything and require government control.)
US liberals = European socialists (although, that's relatively speaking---the difference between US democrats and US republicans is quite small from a European perspective.)
European liberals = US libertarians.
[When I first got a close up view of US politics, this caused endless confusion.]
It is also interesting to note the Europe has many functional parties, whereas the US only has two. Europeans thus have separate conservative and liberal parties.
On the whole, Europe is a whole lot more progressive in terms of personal rights though. This is likely because Europe has had state religions for a long time, whereas the US was founded by puritans.
[This is another point of confusions. The "morals" originally belonged to the political left, because "Jesus gives to the poor". Thanks to some ingenious maneuvering on part of the Republicans, "morals" now vote for the right even though it's not really in their socioeconomic interest.]
[On a similar note, Republicans "owns" the military vote.]
[Another interesting part about US politics is the issue of Reaganomics---also not really seen in European politics. Republicans like to increase the deficit (since Reagan). Democrats like to increase taxes.]
To end this confusing post ... I think there are three axes which can describe almost all political parties
Economic freedom (regulation, taxation, ... )

Social freedom (social transfers, poverty, ... )

National freedom (border control, immigration, ... )


Marius
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:39 am

Post by Marius »

Scott Adams says he's "libertarian, minus the crazy stuff".
I think that's very smart of him. Everybody can have his own take on what exactly comprises the "crazy stuff".


jakio
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:08 pm

Post by jakio »

Hello folks. This one finally tempted me to join up; very insightful comments so far.
I have always considered market anarchism to be a subset of the larger category of libertarianism, with small government libertarians being the other, more common branch. Depends, of course, how you define libertarianism.
Jacob: I don't think most market anarchists would disagree with you on the point that there is a subset of the population that will do bad things to people. The question a market anarchist would ask, however, is who should do the controlling? It does not follow that a centralized monopoly of force is the only way to organize defense and dispute resolution.


JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

@AlexOliver: it's hard to say what the tea party stands for... I think it started as genuine opposition to the status-quo of both parties.
If you look at who's spending the most in primaries, it seems the republican leadership is terrified of the tea party. That would explain why they're using their disinfo machine to co-op the tea party movement...
When you hear nonsense like the idiot neocon Sarah Palin is a tea party founder and leader, you can be confident the movement is near dead.
Wow, parties go from a rout to nothing in under 2 years instead of 8. Seems like volatility is increasing in the political arena as well...
Libertarianism is becoming more and more popular, I am happy to note.


Kevin M
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:58 pm

Post by Kevin M »

Seems like the majority of us lean libertarian, no? It seems like this statement is what the founding fathers had in mind:
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government.
From: http://www.lp.org/platform


Marius
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:39 am

Post by Marius »

@KevinM (Libertarian Party 2010 Platform)
There's a lot in that text that I agree with. I attach a lot of importance to personal liberties and the possibility to accumulate wealth.
But I do disagree with a number of points, mainly the ideas that people need no protection at all and that the free market will automatically take good care of public health, environment and education. In that respect I have changed since the time when I was a student.
Yes I do want "all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success". That's very important to me.

But I also want some level of protection for those who fail to achieve economic success and I don't trust charity to take adequate care of that. Shit does happen and some people are more incompetent than others. I think a minimum support system should be provided that makes sure nobody starves, is denied healthcare or can't send his kids to school.
While the market needs freedom, I think government needs to act against harmful behaviour like cartels. I want the Glass-Steagall act restored. And my heart and lungs are incredibly happy that smoking is now banned in the workplace and in restaurants (in Belgium).
I don't trust the free market to take care of the environment. I don't trust the general public to realize something's wrong with its safety before it's too late. I believe that government should try to act in the interest of our long term survival.

Example: taxing oil consumption and subsidizing the adoption and development of solutions to end our dependency on oil; if we wait until oil runs out, there will suddenly be a large demand for solutions, but maybe not enough time to develop them and get them into widespread use.

I just hope ways will be found to better insulate political power from corporate influence. I like capitalism, but crony capitalism is a horrible thing.


JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

@Marius: excellent, I agree on all points. Except maybe smoking, I think the owner should have the right to decide... I am open to the possibility otherwise, but it is their establishment.
"insulate political power from corporate influence."
This is key, as is the govt is completely owned... The banking sector dominates both party cabinets, the BP fiasco showed where the Federal loyalty lies on the environment, the health care bill was written by health care lobbyists.


Marius
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:39 am

Post by Marius »

@JohnnyH "smoking, I think the owner should have the right to decide"
I agree, theoreticaly I could just have eaten in restaurants that didn't allow smoking.
Unfortunately there were almost none to be found. So 99% of the time I ended up eating among the smokers and going home with clothes and hair stinking of nicotine.

I used to be a smoker, but stopped for health reasons.


JohnnyH
Posts: 2005
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Rockies

Post by JohnnyH »

@Marius: true, that's how I observed it as well... How about a meager 1% tax reduction or tax credit for establishments that don't allow smoking?
I'd prefer that to the authoritarian route.


Marius
Posts: 257
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:39 am

Post by Marius »

@JohnnyK
I don't know if that would work. Restaurant owners were very much afraid that a smoking ban would put them out of business. The initial resistance was huge.
But you know, the only downside of the ban so far is that smokers will smoke a bit less.
They can still smoke at home, which is kind of silly for something of which the catastrophic health effects have been known for so long.

This is no victimless crime, smokers cause heart disease and cancer in their partner and children, in waiters and waitresses (professions that rank high in the cancer statistics) and in themselves. The cost to society is huge. A partial or complete smoking ban means huge cost savings for our public health insurance system (it's great and affordable and it's one of the reasons why I stay in my country), less unnecessary bypasses and cancer treatments, more people with useful educations and job experience who can contribute to society and take care of their family.
So I think I'm a bit more authoritarian than you. :-)
But generally I don't mind people using any drug they want.


Matthew
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:58 pm

Post by Matthew »

I am realizing I am limited in my veiw as a lifetime American.


Locked