Am i a libertarian or an anarchist?
I believe the only government social program should be SSDI and retirement homes and medicine for poor elderly who are in retirement homes.Poor people will be able to get affordable health care under the free market If taxes were a lot lower and the cost of goods and services went down.I would abolish the federal reserve to fight inflation so more poor Americans have more money so they are able to invest in their retirement.I think we should cut our military spending by 50 percent because we would still be incredibly powerful and we should adapt a non interventionist foreign policy.I think taxes should be low and if we abolish the federal reserve and stop bailing out banks and end corporate welfare but also not tax them a lot then we would have low taxes and cheaper things and more jobs through the free market.After that parents will be able to send their children to private schools which is why public school is pointless and it helps no one .After those changes if we even have some that still cannot afford school then the number will be small and charity would be more than enough.I believe in restoring our civil liberties completely because it makes no sense to say that in order for our freedom to be respected we need to violate them which is why i say abolish the TSA.I hate cops but we need some but no more harassment from them.In short i am socially liberal and want to end the war on drugs and i am against the death penalty and consenting adult sex is fine.I am pro gun
Are all libertarians anarchists?
So, the short answer is, “No, not all”. My best guess is that more than 90% of libertarians are not anarchists.I guesstimated here:<0788: What are the relative sizes of the various libertarian segments?>that about 4% of libertarians are right-anarchists, eitherAnarcho-capitalists, who believe that all the services that our rulers monopolize today could be better and more safely provided by competing and cooperating companies, similar to hiring cell phone carriers, insurance providers, or lawn services.Voluntaryist libertarians who would allow consensual governments for those who wanted them (but people could leave their government if they disliked it, sometimes without even moving.)Another 4% of libertarians identify as “left-libertarians”; most of these reject some types of state, as well as private property. While most claim to be anarchistic, they do require governances, for example, large democratic collectives whose leaders would control all property. To me, this sounds like just a different form of government. And I am sure that I am misunderstanding. So, I leave it up to you whether you include them in the number of Anarchist = No Rulers.There are a number of reasons why you may have thought that most libertarians are anarchists:See Related:0788: What are the relative sizes of the various libertarian segments?0482: Why is anarchy misunderstood as chaos?0569: Why is libertarianism conflated with anarcho-capitalism?0466: Which is better: minarchism or anarcho-capitalism?0255: Do all libertarians want to abolish the state?0572: Are anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism the same?0716: How could anarcho-capitalism work?0648: Could workers and consumers choose non-capitalist enterprises in a free market?0481: From where does authority come and when should it be respected?0166: How can people give up faith in government?0019: Are minarchists intellectually inconsistent because they support government initiating violence?→ Essays on Libertarians: Why are you not an anarchist? I can speak from experience on this one.I used to be a Republican before I'd done much thinking, then turned libertarian in college when I started reading voraciously (and I still consider myself in the general sphere of libertarianism), but now I refer to myself as an 'anarchocapitalist.'The transition at each point was natural but still difficult, because 'you don't know what you don't know.'In other words, the early books I read on libertarianism claimed that we needed government for national defense, roads, etc, a la Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, who are some of the more mainstream libertarian thinkers, and therefore I assumed that was reasonable. They were my first stop as I journeyed into the wilderness of 'crazy' political beliefs, so I just assumed that was as good as it got.Only when I really thought deeply and read far off the beaten path did I begin to understand that there are very sound libertarian answers for the 'who will build the roads?' and 'who will stop Hitler?' questions. Dr. Walter Block, among others, answers all these questions.I think most people just have trouble, as I did, conceptualizing these solutions, since they are so foreign in our current reality and absent in mainstream philosophy. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be invented, just as the fact that the iPhone didn't exist in 1990 didn't preclude it from the possibility of ever existing. It simply hadn't been invented yet, but thanks to a relatively free market in technology the incentives were such that eventually it was.This will not be the case for transportation/roads or so-called 'national defense' until government gets their ugly nose out of it and quits forcing our dependence on such antiquated ideas and technology. Can someone be libertarian and an anarchist? Anarchist and Libertarian share very much the same political territory. You could say that a libertarian is a polite anarchist, or an anarchist an extreme libertarian. The defining feature of both is the emphasis on individual liberty.This priority is oblique to what is usually regarded as right or left wing politics these days, and both anarchists and libertarians can be in that sense either left or right wing. Individual liberties can be in tension with each other. Right-wing libertarians stress property rights and don’t worry too much if those lead to pretty gross practical restrictions on personal liberty, even to the extent of debt bondage. Left-wing libertarians stress practical personal liberty at the expense of property rights, sometimes going so far as to declare that ‘property is theft’.In the early days, when ‘right-wing’ meant supporting absolute monarchies, and ‘left-wing’ meant supporting democracy, liberty and equality, libertarians and anarchists felt themselves to be naturally on the same side as socialists, and participated in Marx’s First International, though they were soon thrown out. These days, there is a vogue, especially in the US, for right-wing libertarianism, sometimes called anarcho-capitalism. But it is certainly not the only kind, or even particularly representative worldwide. Are libertarians really just anarchists? No, they are closet communists and don't know it. I'm not talking about communists as an economic system, I am talking about the one size fits all attitude which is a basic communist tenet. They talk about personal responsibility a lot, but who's personal responsibility are we supposed to measure that against? What the state dictates? With libertarians its really a free for all, screw you and everyone else, just let me have my version of the Constitution. Yet it still goes back to personal responsibility and if someone is not personally responsible, then its tough ?hit - you just starve to death, along with your children. If you had not noticed, when a libertarian talks about examples, its always starts with I. Not we, not the people, not the poor, not the under classed, it always starts with I. And its all about My money, My taxes, My home, My job, My rights, My frigging six pak of beer. Pure unabashed selfishness. Peace Jim . Socialism and libertarianism? Anarchy? William Godwin and Thomas Hodgskin independently approached libertarian socialist ideas, but Josiah Warren and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon are generally considered the first true libertarian socialists. The principle of federation can be seen as an anarchist response to the social contract; it retains the voluntary elements, and removes the hierarchical ones. We condemn much of presently-asserted private property, not for being private, but for being stolen and/or extorted and/or fraudulent. "[Capitalist] property is theft," but "[possessive] property is freedom." Our economics range from free-market-based to anarcho-communist. As for those other libertarians; it's fine when they mix our ideas with classical liberalism; it's just wrong when they mix the combination with nationalism, constitutionalism, and the other hierarchical aspects of paleoconservatism. Okay, some sources on socialism, but not liberalism: http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/2006/0... http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/inst... http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193... "Even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that the means of production did not change their form as capital when the state took over their ownership nor did wage-labour change its nature when it is the state employing labour (for example, Proudhon argued that if the "State confiscate[d] the mines, canals and railways" it would only "add to monarchy, and [create] more wage slavery." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 62]). For anarchists state ownership of capital is not socialistic in the slightest but rather a tendency within, not opposed to, capitalism just as the growth of larger and larger companies does not imply in any way a tendency to socialism (regardless of what Lenin or Marx argued -- see section H.3.12 for more on this). Indeed, as Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned everyone into a proletarian (bar the state bureaucracy) -- hardly a desirable thing for a political theory aiming for the end of wage slavery!" Are some libertarians or anarchists really statists? Are some libertarians or anarchists really statists?Okay here is what is going on. I shall use me as a classic case of an anarchist who has outed himself as a statist.I am a registered Libertarian Party member. This makes me a statist to most people because after all libertarians still support a limited government. But if you carefully examine this political ideology you will find the non-aggression principle that all libertarians adhere to. If such a government were to be installed the state would erode away to nothing because it could no longer employ violence to demand or enforce anything. So the bottom line is yes I am a Libertarian but only under the context of the state.However...if you gave me an option I would follow my heart. I would choose a free stateless society -- peaceful anarchism with true personal sovereignty.Most anarchists remain statist simply because they do not have an option. They are forced to live under the context of the state so they begrudgingly accept it. Why do anarchists violently hate libertarians? Anarchists don’t. Leftists who claim to be anarchists, but who call for the end of liberty, do.Those who promote individual liberty are ultimately anarchists. They are also by definition libertarians. Some who call themselves libertarians have not yet come to grasp that you cannot be a libertarian and support the state at any size. Am I a liberal or libertarian? These are my views on us politics I don't like right wings, left wings, republicans and democrats I think the us government are nothing but greedy selfish murdering fat cats Im against all military not just us because i think its primitive and outdated as religion just pointless endless wars I also dislike capitalism I also think the pledge should not be force in schools Am I liberal or librarian? If Im neither then what am I? How did you become an Anarchist? A combination of false dawns, dissatisfaction with the political establishment, and a never ending hatred for the federal government.I came to the simple conclusions that The State cannot exist without the usage of force or coercion and has shown itself to be unable to protect the rights of individuals and their private property thus necessitating it's abolition with passage of time and that the only way to correct this problem is to abolish the state and replace it with a combination of free market economics, natural law aka the non aggression principle, and voluntary associations among individuals seeking a common purpose.Furthermore as a Christian I believe the state to be what amounts to a satanic attempt to usurp the rightful place of God from whom life, liberty, and property are derived. The State is an immoral institution which exists on a steady diet of mass murder, extortion, and superstition all of which flies directly in the face of God, Anarchism therefore allows me to fulfill my ultimate purpose in life which is to know and serve the Lord my God without the presence of other masters.So there you have it folks…. What kind of Anarchist am I? "Pacifism gets you nowhere." Tell that to Ghandi and MLK who succeeded without violence. "All forms of government are evil" No form of government is evil in and of itself, it is the people who constitute government that may or may not be evil. Society, order, progress and infrastructure on a large scale are impossible without government of some sort or other. History is proof of that.. "I don t want any specific form of currency." Then you are against the primary means by which the exchange of goods and services is facilitated. "An individual chooses his own ... morals. Impossible without chaos reigning. Civilization would be impossible without moral codes followed by the majority. Again, proven by history. Even a basic family unit could not function without a common morality. "Technology is obsolete except for business purposes." Utterly foolish. Everything that requires a tool or a skill is "technology". Agriculture, animal husbandry and medicine are technologies. Irrigation, sanitation, transportation, writing, cooking, building, and absolutely everything else you can name are forms of technology. Even fire building and primitive stone tools are technologies. "Neither can there be a free market." That directly contradicts your assertion that government is evil. Any form of regulation by a body of individuals, whether upholding laws or economic principles is a form of government, whatever name you choose to call it by. A hippy commune operates with a very loose form of government.. "If it s different from any other form of Anarchism, I may have to create my own form." Yes you will, and you can call it "Epic Fail Anarchism" because it is moronic and you'll be the only dumbass who is an adherent. Good luck with that. What Kind of Anarchist am I? I don't believe in entitlement, I'd rather choose my own self-interest over that of the community (selfish? Yes, do I care? No), I oppose all forms of authority, including those who think they know what's best for me (I can take care of myself quite well, thank you), I believe that if you don't like what a corporation does, DON'T SUPPORT IT! or destroy it if one were so inclined (who am I to dictate morals or ethics?), just remember that you might make some people very angry. Don't get me wrong, I believe in violence/use of force only as a last resort. I'd be a fairly peaceful anarchist, but if you piss me off enough... Watch Your ***! Finally, I don't get mad... I get even... Thanks for your input! Am I an anarcho-capitalist or anarchist of any kind? What is anarchy? Why do you believe in capitalism? It relies on basically slave labor. Look at 3rd world countries. They get paid 1/10th as much as we do and they work harder. They just aren't as educated as us elites. If you're white (which I am), you are the nobility of the world. We oppress others so that we can have 10 times more than them. Socialism is much better because there nobody is richer than anybody, so its fair. Don't you believe in fairness? Capitalism offers zero fairness whatsoever. The people who happen to be the rich get all the privileges that others don't, even though they aren't necessarily any smarter. Capitalism is bullshit. It's certainly better than feudalism, but I for one am no supporter of it. Why are you an anarchist? Anarchy directly translated means without rulers, without masters. Why would anyone want to be a slave to a master?I believe nature made laws humans know instinctively. When you give other people power over you, or when one person has more power than another, that imbalance of power corrupts your society.We have to protect our equal balance of power, I have to protect your power and you protect mine, the create a healthy human society.Humans oldest recorded law is the law of reciprocity. Do to others as you want them to do to you. Do to others as they do to you. The Ur-Nammu law codeThis law is present in some form in every human society we have ever known of, universal and instinctive. Nature’s law for humans. Natural consequences.That is the only law we need, that nature wrote on our brains. We can see humans empathy instinct in action with brain scans. How many pages of laws do you have now?How Many Federal Laws Are There? No One Knows.Humans are born with natural rights. We instinctively will not tolerate exploitation for long.These systems we have in place now are counterproductive and teach people not to think or be responsible for themselves and their societies.I’m anarchist because I think that is what I am meant to be. The responsible, healthy, natural way to be. What political party am I? Well, you don't seem to have the least clue as to what Democrats are or think. We DO tend to think that it's wrong for a few to keep most of the profit of everyone else's under-paid labor, but i know of no Dem who fits your profile. Hardly anyone in the US believes in free healthcare. no one is proposing it. We do have more than two parties. It's also possible to not belong to any party. Uh, it's a lie that ONLY liberals consider Bush a Republican. All of Bush's supporters think this, none of whom are liberals. You sound more Libertarian, based on your views. You sound wing-nut Republican by the amount of delusional thinking you engage in. As an atheist, do you self-identify as an anarchist, objectivist, or libertarian? Why or why not? I'm an atheist and a libertarian (although, admittedly, very passively in both cases) for the same underlying reason: reason. Or, less cute but more accurate: rationality. I try to be rational.Where atheism comes in is simple: since I have not seen any compelling evidence for any gods, I do not believe in them. Simple enough.Libertarianism is a bit different. I suppose I particularly identify with consequentialist libertarianism with an emphasis on the consequentialism. As a caricature of an argument, I think freedom is one honking great idea--lets do more of it. (With apologies to Python.) But I think it's a great idea not because it's somehow innately special but because it generally leads to a better outcome for everyone involved. This also brings up why I dislike organized religion beyond just not believing. Religion is still the only organization I've been a part of that's overtly tried to control what and how I think, which is basically the ultimate affront to freedom. Even aside from the whole god thing, that always disquieted me. Now, do I think most atheists share this view? No. People have all sorts of reasons to be atheist and all sorts of reasons to hold their political views. For better or for worse, I've found my particular kind of reasoning to be pretty rare. I had always take consequentialism as a completely natural, almost inevitable view--well before I had even heard the term. Later, I found out this really isn't the case and many people have vastly different frameworks for making decisions. This certainly includes atheists. for Dennis’ Libertarian Essays<, Voluntaryism, Taxonomy,>
TRENDING NEWS