Question for Libertarians

[Matty]

How is being a Libertarian any different than being an Anarchist?

[lehighguy]

You believe the government should provide some basic things like security, defense, courts, laws, etc. If you a really soft core libraterian like me you might even think the government should provide public roads and running tap water and such (less because its the right thing and more because its a practicle thing).

An anarchist doesn't think there should be anything at all. Buy a gun...

[jimymat]

A anarchist burns books. A libertarian sorts them and puts them back on the shelves in order. Hope this helps /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[slickpoppa]

Libertarians believe in limited government and anarchists believe in no government. But there is no bright line that separates libertarians from everyone else. There is no Libertarian consensus on exactly what the government should do and what it should not. Libertarians just tend to lean towards less goevernment involement, but not necessarily none.

[nicky g]

"An anarchist doesn't think there should be anything at all. "

This generally isn't true. Poltical anarchists tend to believe in a sort of rule (they wouldn;t use that term, but it's more or les what it is) by small collective organisations that are run by direct democracy.

[nicky g]

There is a Libertarian party which has specific agenda that is different from what most anarchists would advocate. Libertarianism with a small l tends to refer to people whose views are socially and economically "liberal" ie they believe in as little government interference in personal and economic affairs as possible, but not no government at all. They tend to believe that government only has the right to interven to prevent someone from directly physically harming a person or his property.

Anarchism on the other hand largely refers to a political doctrine that beleives government should be replaced by small local collectives run by direct democracy/direct participation, as opposed to representative government on a national scale, and that the concept of private property should be replaced with collective property ("Property is theft.") They also beleive in thr idea of no interference in personal matters and tend to distrust many non-government instituions too (schools, the Church, etc). Neither beleive in a no-rule, no-instituion, no-obligations free-for-all, although the term anarchism might be argued to imply that.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Anarchism on the other hand largely refers to a political doctrine that beleives government should be replaced by small local collectives run by direct democracy/direct participation, as opposed to representative government on a national scale, and that the concept of private property should be replaced with collective property ("Property is theft.") They also beleive in thr idea of no interference in personal matters...

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the beliefs of the anarchists (in bold) are inherently contradictory.

There is NO WAY to eliminate and maintain absence of personal ownership of property, without implementing and sustaining major interference in personal matters.

[nicky g]

Well they would say that property ownership is an ideological concept and they would be using a different system, and that in the context of that system there is no interference (and that maintaining a property oriented system is involves/constitutes interference too, as it necessitates the use of force to enforce what they regard as theft). But I meant mainly non-economic personal matters.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well they would say that property ownership is an ideological concept and they would be using a different system, and that in the context of that system there is no interference (and that maintaining a property oriented system is involves/constitutes interference too, as it necessitates the use of force to enforce what they regard as theft).

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, they want the collective to tell each person what they can use, when they can use it, and how long they can use it. That implies an even greater collective control over the individual than does communism, which "only" seeks to control the means of production. This syndico-anarchism wants to control every last thing you use.

Property ownership is much more than merely an ideological concept; it is far more efficient than the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]
But I meant mainly non-economic personal matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarification, but if you can't use a shirt, or a garden shovel, or a shed you built in your backyard, without permission from the collective to use "their" item, it is a fairly unimportant distinction.

So: is Chomsky actually an arnarcho-syndicalist, as you describe it? If so then he is a much greater whackjob than I supposed.

[Kaz The Original]

"In other words, they want the collective to tell each person what they can use, when they can use it, and how long they can use it. That implies an even greater collective control over the individual than does communism, which "only" seeks to control the means of production. This syndico-anarchism wants to control every last thing you use.

Property ownership is much more than merely an ideological concept; it is far more efficient than the opposite."

But you assume the collective is a seperate entity from the workers. It is not. It is made up of all the workers. So yes, the collective tells everyone want to do, but everyone is the collective. It is like you telling yourself to get out of bed. That is not a mericless manipulation of the working class man (your body) by it's inherently seperated capitalist task master (your head) no matter how much rhetoric I throw around.

"Thanks for the clarification, but if you can't use a shirt, or a garden shovel, or a shed you built in your backyard, without permission from the collective to use "their" item, it is a fairly unimportant distinction."

Well there is no one 'anarchism', no objective description that fits all anarchist beliefs, of course you can use the collectives shovel, because it is your shovel as well as everyone elses. Of course you can wear a shirt no one else is wearing, as it is your shirt as well as everyone elses. Property belongs to no one, and to everyone, which is not a contradiction.


"So: is Chomsky actually an arnarcho-syndicalist, as you describe it? If so then he is a much greater whackjob than I supposed."

Chomsky is a great thinker, and no one can rightfully debate that.



[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

So essentially, you need permission from the collective to wear any shirt (even, I'd imagine, if you knitted it yourself with yarn you spun yourself). Before you use ANYTHING, the collective must approve (even if tacitly).

And...people actually take this seriously, and believe it is theoretically viable. Can you even begin to imagine the gross inherent inefficiencies which would be entailed in the implementation of such a system?

U-N-F-K-N-B-L-V-A-B-L.

This is an example showing what I have long suspected: the human species has major inherent defects. Really bright (and/or kind) people are just less defective than others;-) Comment, Zeno?

Many people will apparently believe ANYTHING. So, what is the use of a brain, then?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you can wear a shirt no one else is wearing, as it is your shirt as well as everyone elses. Property belongs to no one, and to everyone, which is not a contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So HOW is the use allocated? Whatever your answer, the proper response is: yeah, right...that wouldn't work very well.

The world is so chock-full of nitwits, I can't stand it anymore. And if Chomsky believes in (Nicky's description of syndico-anarchism) as being a viable solution, then Chomsky is the High Priest of the Educated Nitwits. Hallelujah.

[fimbulwinter]

we believe in government controlled national defense for one.
there are many many other dissimilarities.

[MMMMMM]

P.S. Kaz, sorry for the outburst.

It's just that it seems in every way more inefficient to have a syndicate managing every single piece of property--abysmally, horribly inefficient--no matter how it is organized.

Think about it.

[nicky g]

Before I answer this can I clarify that: a. I'm not an anarchist and am explaining their viewpoint rather than advocating it; B. I know very little about Noam Chomsky, have read very little of his output, despite the facct that it is "well-known" on these forums that i am just another young leftist spouting recycled Chomsky and Said (of whose work I have also read little); C I'm sure there are others who are a lot more knowledgeable on anarchist theory than I am and invite them to step in.


"In other words, they want the collective to tell each person what they can use, when they can use it, and how long they can use it. That implies an even greater collective control over the individual than does communism, which "only" seeks to control the means of production. This syndico-anarchism wants to control every last thing you use."

Not necessarily; only that such things are shared, that no one person can be viewed as having ownership of it or deprive others in the community of its use. The difference with something like communism is that communism relied on a large state apparatus deciding such matters "on behalf" of the community. Anarchists envisage really very small communites in which everyone has an equal and direct say in the running of things all the time. Imagine many small "commune" stye organisations. No doubt such communities can become oppressive and cooercive but, it's not the same as a large state apparatus telling you what to do, as decisions are taken very close to the individual, who has a direct say in them. Or that's the idea.

"Property ownership is much more than merely an ideological concept; it is far more efficient than the opposite."

That's not the argument though (its efficiency); the argument is that you view the lack of private property as interference in a personal matter, whereas they would say as the notion is illegitimate and would be done away with, there would be no such interference as there would be nothing to interfere with.

"Thanks for the clarification, but if you can't use a shirt, or a garden shovel, or a shed you built in your backyard, without permission from the collective to use "their" item, it is a fairly unimportant distinction."

Perhaps; but remember such communities are meant to be lived in by common consent; many would in theory by happy enough for you and your friends to go and live somewhere else and do what you want with your garden shed, so long as they could remain outside of any kind of state control.

[nanoCRUSHER]

I'll take this one down as a half-libertarian/half-liberal.

Anarchism may not specifically be "you must have X approved by all in the community" as someone earlier may have stated. Primarily, Libertarianism focuses on two main things
(1) Property law (mentioned in earlier posts)
(2) Contract law

1. Property law goes further than the t-shirt analogy. As it relates to commerce, property law in libertarianism means that you can purchase a home, business without fear of it being stolen by another person. More importantly, intellectual property is protected, so copyrights and patents are protected by the state.

2. Anarchism would basically demolish court systems. Libertarianism would use the courts to protect infringements of individual rights (theft, murder, rape, etc. would be prosecuted) as well as protecting contracts, patents and copyrights.

Hope this helps.

[Richard Tanner]

Lehighguy got it. We believe that there should be a little government, not alot.

Cody