The writer seems not to count anarcho-capitalists as libertarians, quoting someone else who wrote:
this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal).
I think there is nothing unlibertarian about retaliatory coercion, any more than with self-defense.
His thought process is similar to one I had about 6 years ago. The issue of legalized Marijuana is so misunderstood and then mischaracterized that few people really do understand the concept. Still, that’s just a single issue in a very broad and substantial platform. But using the Marijuana issue anyway; did the US go into anarchy chaos when the 21st Amendment was ratified? That was a law that limited government.
MPM: I agree with him on that.
Anarchists aren’t libertarians (and “anarcho-capitalist” is incoherent as a formulation).
The issue is muddled by all the Rothbardites and other anarchists who think they’re libertarians.
(Yeah, so Rothbard wanted a “third way”, defining his “nonarchy” as equivalent to what people now call “minarchy”. Problem is that all his followers seem to be, in essence, anarchists.)
(Though to be fair to the Rothbardites, while they’re anarchists, they’re not the collectivist anarchists of the left.)
The issue is muddled by all the Rothbardites and other anarchists who think they’re libertarians.
Or maybe Rothbard was right and it’s the minarchists who wrongly think they are libertarians… 😉
*groan* This is like herding cats — why don’t you freedom-lovers neatly organize into tidy little collective compartments for the benefit of collectivist trolls?
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of collective anarchism. Is that the anarcho-syndicalism that guy was haranguing King Arthur about just before he got a firsthand look at the violence inherent in the system?
I have never seen convincing evidence of the existence of an anarchist. All I’ve ever seen are people who hate this government or that law, custom, habit, or social myth, and usually want to replace it with something at least as coercive.
Libertarianism is no exception. I want a system in place that forces all the rest of you vermicious knids to respect my liberty, whether you want to or not — indeed, in particular when it inconveniences and annoys you.
I believe in a very strong government — just a government strictly limited in the aims to which its power can be used, namely, a government that cannot exert its power other than to prevent the majority from violating the rights of the minority. A way to prohibit the good of the many from overriding the good of the one, so to speak.
What’s even stupider is when some bozo statist calls Tea Partiers “anarchists” because they protest Obamunism.
“I have never seen convincing evidence of the existence of an anarchist.
I agree. Any period of anarchy would be relatively short lived as inevitably the strongest would claim enough wealth through force and quickly devolve into dictatorship as hangers on begin to the circulate around the new regime. I think the so called “anarchists” are those intellectually and emotionally stunted adolescents that think they got it all figured out. They don’t need any establish system of fuddy duddy’s to tell them the best way to kick ass and get laid.
Actually that is how Ayn Rand referred to Libertarians in the early 1970’s, so she probably as least should be given credit as an early pioneer of the concept of Libertarians as anarchists…
[[[AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism.]]]
So I guess the Tea Party faithful have gone so far right that now even Ayn Rand is considered a member of the Left. What more is there to say?
It’s rather odd to me, and always has been, that many people who call themselves libertarian (and probably are) in the economic sphere are completely the opposite in the sphere of morals – particularly sexual morals.
@Fletcher Christian: I would call your example a Social Conservative and the opposite a Modern Liberal.
I’ve yet to hear of a soi-disant libertarian who was a strong supporter of anti-sodomy laws, Fletch. And if you refer to marriage, for the benefit of the present or future Mrs. Christian I shall point out to you that marriage is about more than sex.
Anarcho-capitalism always evokes in me the old Joan Rivers joke about the Nazi Quaker: He declares war, and then refuses to go.
It’s an absurd concept.
Mr. Pham – how about anti-pornography, anti-contraception and anti-(first trimester)abortion? Or anti-drugs or anti-alcohol?
1930s America was pretty close to laissez-faire capitalism (libertarian) but had blue laws and prohibition (morally authoritarian). Many areas in the USA still prohibit the sale of alcohol. I would be extremely surprised if a vast majority of them were not in “red” states.
I think Mr. Christian is confused between “liberterian” and “conservative.”
*”libertarian”
…government that cannot exert its power other than to prevent violating [anyones natural] rights
FIFY.
Property ownership should be total and absolute. Only free trade or freely entered contract should allow anyones property to be taken.
A citizen should be a taxpayer to vote.
Mr. Anthony; I’d go further. The vote ought to be conditional on making a net contribution to society. Which means that civil service chair-warmers don’t get to vote, and also means that government employees who put their lives on the line (military, frontline cops, firefighters and probably paramedics) do.
Darkstar – No, I am not so confused. However, many who call themselves libertarian seem to be; many of such seem to think it’s perfectly in order to restrict the moral choices of others. Such people are the ones who are confused.
To quote Heinlein: “True freedom starts with telling Mrs. Grundy to take a hike”. (Slightly inaccurate quote, perhaps.)
…many who call themselves libertarian seem to be; many of such seem to think it’s perfectly in order to restrict the moral choices of others.
Who? If there are so many of them, surely you can provide at least one example? Or is it like Whittington’s imaginary Internet Rocketeer’s Club?
That’s right, we all dream of Somalia!
The writer seems not to count anarcho-capitalists as libertarians, quoting someone else who wrote:
this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal).
I think there is nothing unlibertarian about retaliatory coercion, any more than with self-defense.
His thought process is similar to one I had about 6 years ago. The issue of legalized Marijuana is so misunderstood and then mischaracterized that few people really do understand the concept. Still, that’s just a single issue in a very broad and substantial platform. But using the Marijuana issue anyway; did the US go into anarchy chaos when the 21st Amendment was ratified? That was a law that limited government.
MPM: I agree with him on that.
Anarchists aren’t libertarians (and “anarcho-capitalist” is incoherent as a formulation).
The issue is muddled by all the Rothbardites and other anarchists who think they’re libertarians.
(Yeah, so Rothbard wanted a “third way”, defining his “nonarchy” as equivalent to what people now call “minarchy”. Problem is that all his followers seem to be, in essence, anarchists.)
(Though to be fair to the Rothbardites, while they’re anarchists, they’re not the collectivist anarchists of the left.)
The issue is muddled by all the Rothbardites and other anarchists who think they’re libertarians.
Or maybe Rothbard was right and it’s the minarchists who wrongly think they are libertarians… 😉
*groan* This is like herding cats — why don’t you freedom-lovers neatly organize into tidy little collective compartments for the benefit of collectivist trolls?
I still have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of collective anarchism. Is that the anarcho-syndicalism that guy was haranguing King Arthur about just before he got a firsthand look at the violence inherent in the system?
I have never seen convincing evidence of the existence of an anarchist. All I’ve ever seen are people who hate this government or that law, custom, habit, or social myth, and usually want to replace it with something at least as coercive.
Libertarianism is no exception. I want a system in place that forces all the rest of you vermicious knids to respect my liberty, whether you want to or not — indeed, in particular when it inconveniences and annoys you.
I believe in a very strong government — just a government strictly limited in the aims to which its power can be used, namely, a government that cannot exert its power other than to prevent the majority from violating the rights of the minority. A way to prohibit the good of the many from overriding the good of the one, so to speak.
What’s even stupider is when some bozo statist calls Tea Partiers “anarchists” because they protest Obamunism.
I agree. Any period of anarchy would be relatively short lived as inevitably the strongest would claim enough wealth through force and quickly devolve into dictatorship as hangers on begin to the circulate around the new regime. I think the so called “anarchists” are those intellectually and emotionally stunted adolescents that think they got it all figured out. They don’t need any establish system of fuddy duddy’s to tell them the best way to kick ass and get laid.
Actually that is how Ayn Rand referred to Libertarians in the early 1970’s, so she probably as least should be given credit as an early pioneer of the concept of Libertarians as anarchists…
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
[[[AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism.]]]
So I guess the Tea Party faithful have gone so far right that now even Ayn Rand is considered a member of the Left. What more is there to say?
It’s rather odd to me, and always has been, that many people who call themselves libertarian (and probably are) in the economic sphere are completely the opposite in the sphere of morals – particularly sexual morals.
@Fletcher Christian: I would call your example a Social Conservative and the opposite a Modern Liberal.
I’ve yet to hear of a soi-disant libertarian who was a strong supporter of anti-sodomy laws, Fletch. And if you refer to marriage, for the benefit of the present or future Mrs. Christian I shall point out to you that marriage is about more than sex.
Anarcho-capitalism always evokes in me the old Joan Rivers joke about the Nazi Quaker: He declares war, and then refuses to go.
It’s an absurd concept.
Mr. Pham – how about anti-pornography, anti-contraception and anti-(first trimester)abortion? Or anti-drugs or anti-alcohol?
1930s America was pretty close to laissez-faire capitalism (libertarian) but had blue laws and prohibition (morally authoritarian). Many areas in the USA still prohibit the sale of alcohol. I would be extremely surprised if a vast majority of them were not in “red” states.
I think Mr. Christian is confused between “liberterian” and “conservative.”
*”libertarian”
…government that cannot exert its power other than to prevent violating [anyones natural] rights
FIFY.
Property ownership should be total and absolute. Only free trade or freely entered contract should allow anyones property to be taken.
A citizen should be a taxpayer to vote.
Mr. Anthony; I’d go further. The vote ought to be conditional on making a net contribution to society. Which means that civil service chair-warmers don’t get to vote, and also means that government employees who put their lives on the line (military, frontline cops, firefighters and probably paramedics) do.
Darkstar – No, I am not so confused. However, many who call themselves libertarian seem to be; many of such seem to think it’s perfectly in order to restrict the moral choices of others. Such people are the ones who are confused.
To quote Heinlein: “True freedom starts with telling Mrs. Grundy to take a hike”. (Slightly inaccurate quote, perhaps.)
…many who call themselves libertarian seem to be; many of such seem to think it’s perfectly in order to restrict the moral choices of others.
Who? If there are so many of them, surely you can provide at least one example? Or is it like Whittington’s imaginary Internet Rocketeer’s Club?