Well i have still been reading to the best of my understanding, through all these types of groups and well i noticed a similarity between these two, and also found it mentioned on this site www.anarchy.net/

So are they similar?, what do you all think? i'm finding this stuff more interesting as i read through things, i'm pretty sure i'll mis-understand things and its always a good thing to see what others think. =)

(the site link has nothing to do with anarchist cookbook for those that may jump to that conclusion before checking lol)

Generally, libertarians believe what our founding fathers believed in -- government is best which governs the least, and should be reserved for the police, the courts, and national defense.

Anarchists believe in no government at all.

Originally posted by Scalebane

Well i have still been reading to the best of my understanding, through all these types of groups and well i noticed a similarity between these two, and also found it mentioned on this site www.anarchy.net/

So are they similar?, what do you all think? i'm finding this stuff more interesting as i read through things, i'm pretty sure i'll mis-understand things and its always a good thing to see what others think. =)

 

(the site link has nothing to do with anarchist cookbook for those that may jump to that conclusion before checking lol)

 

Fisher's comments are pretty accurate.  I would also add that most Libertarians in the United States could also be labeled "Constitutional Moderates."

For a more in-depth definition of this word I would watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

Originally posted by Fishermage

Generally, libertarians believe what our founding fathers believed in -- government is best which governs the least, and should be reserved for the police, the courts, and national defense.

Anarchists believe in no government at all.

i guess i get confused at the point in their discription that they are socialists...eh lol

Most of these terms have a major disadvantage: they fail to express the basic characteristics of the doctrines they are supposed to describe. Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago martyrs, (1) claimed that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist."

Some anarchists consider themselves to be the best and most logical socialists but they have adopted a label also attached to the terrorists, or have allowed others to hang it around their necks. This has often caused them to be mistaken for a sort of "foreign body" in the socialist family and has led to a long string of misunderstandings and verbal battles-- usually quite purposeless. Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism.

Forgot to put in a disclaimer.  I don't agree with the label that movie gives to anarchists.  I think it's possible for people to want zero government and not have an oligarchy take its place.  I do agree with the movie that anarchy's logical conclusion is rule by oligarchy though.

Anarchists and Libertarians have a lot of similarities, but the movie I linked gives a great distinction between the two.

Originally posted by Scalebane

Originally posted by Fishermage

Generally, libertarians believe what our founding fathers believed in -- government is best which governs the least, and should be reserved for the police, the courts, and national defense.

Anarchists believe in no government at all.

 

i guess i get confused at the point in their discription that they are socialists...eh lol

 

Most of these terms have a major disadvantage: they fail to express the basic characteristics of the doctrines they are supposed to describe. Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago martyrs, (1) claimed that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist."

Some anarchists consider themselves to be the best and most logical socialists but they have adopted a label also attached to the terrorists, or have allowed others to hang it around their necks. This has often caused them to be mistaken for a sort of "foreign body" in the socialist family and has led to a long string of misunderstandings and verbal battles-- usually quite purposeless. Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism.

Left wing anarchists aren't really anarchists at all -- they just call themselves anarchists.

The same with "libertarian socialism" -- guys like Noam Chomsky call themselves this, but the word has the opposite meaning than it traditionally had.

There is nothing libertarian about libertarian socialism.

The left usurped the word "liberal" as well -- it used to mean less government in economics and social areas. They changed the meaning of the word so now we have to call ourselves libertarians or "classical liberalism."

See George Orwell's 1984 for the reason behind this tactic.

Originally posted by Scalebane

Originally posted by Fishermage

Generally, libertarians believe what our founding fathers believed in -- government is best which governs the least, and should be reserved for the police, the courts, and national defense.

Anarchists believe in no government at all.

 

i guess i get confused at the point in their discription that they are socialists...eh lol

 

Most of these terms have a major disadvantage: they fail to express the basic characteristics of the doctrines they are supposed to describe. Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago martyrs, (1) claimed that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist."

Some anarchists consider themselves to be the best and most logical socialists but they have adopted a label also attached to the terrorists, or have allowed others to hang it around their necks. This has often caused them to be mistaken for a sort of "foreign body" in the socialist family and has led to a long string of misunderstandings and verbal battles-- usually quite purposeless. Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this description of Anarchy.  I wouldn't call them socialists because in my definition of socialism it is equality enforced through the state.  Anarchy has no state, it uses goodwill to establish liberty and equality instead of force.  Which leads to a difference between Libertarians and Anarchists.  Libertarians don't profess to believe in an utopia whereas anarchy does (in my opinion =p).  Libertarians acknowledge the existence of a "human condition" whereas we are not perfect beings and thus cannot have perfect societies.  The society described in Anarchy is by definition "perfection" which is impossible (again in my opinion).  Should Anarchy's goals then be ignored?  No absolutely not, which is why you see Libertarians and Anarchists ally themselves more and more often as we move closer and closer to 100% government as described in my earlier posted video.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Forgot to put in a disclaimer.  I don't agree with the label that movie gives to anarchists.  I think it's possible for people to want zero government and not have an oligarchy take its place.  I do agree with the movie that anarchy's logical conclusion is rule by oligarchy though.

Anarchists and Libertarians have a lot of similarities, but the movie I linked gives a great distinction between the two.

yeah I tend to agree; anarchism will result in its failure which will lead to a random, capricious government. It would lead to private security forces taking over and such.

This is why constitutionally limited government seems the best way to go to ensure liberty.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Scalebane

Originally posted by Fishermage

Generally, libertarians believe what our founding fathers believed in -- government is best which governs the least, and should be reserved for the police, the courts, and national defense.

Anarchists believe in no government at all.

 

i guess i get confused at the point in their discription that they are socialists...eh lol

 

Most of these terms have a major disadvantage: they fail to express the basic characteristics of the doctrines they are supposed to describe. Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Anarchism is only one of the streams of socialist thought, that stream whose main components are concern for liberty and haste to abolish the State. Adolph Fischer, one of the Chicago martyrs, (1) claimed that "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist."

Some anarchists consider themselves to be the best and most logical socialists but they have adopted a label also attached to the terrorists, or have allowed others to hang it around their necks. This has often caused them to be mistaken for a sort of "foreign body" in the socialist family and has led to a long string of misunderstandings and verbal battles-- usually quite purposeless. Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with this description of Anarchy.  I wouldn't call them socialists because in my definition of socialism it is equality enforced through the state.  Anarchy has no state, it uses goodwill to establish liberty and equality instead of force.  Which leads to a difference between Libertarians and Anarchists.  Libertarians don't profess to believe in an utopia whereas anarchy does (in my opinion =p).  Libertarians acknowledge the existence of a "human condition" whereas we are not perfect beings and thus cannot have perfect societies.  The society described in Anarchy is by definition "perfection" which is impossible (again in my opinion).  Should Anarchy's goals then be ignored?  No absolutely not, which is why you see Libertarians and Anarchists ally themselves more and more often as we move closer and closer to 100% government as described in my earlier posted video.

Hey thanks for helping me understand that better, i understand it a lot better now, and that vid was great, i think more people need to watch that vid heh.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Noam Chomsky.

 

Can't stand that guy =p

Libertariangirl had a great blog about debunking his arguments.

http://www.libertariangirl.com/2009/09/29/noam-chomskys-strawmen/

@ Scalebane : I hope we have more threads like this where we discuss the differences the simularities and differences between points of view instead of attacking views.  (I am not innocent of attacking views either =p)

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Fishermage

Noam Chomsky.

 

 

Can't stand that guy =p

Libertariangirl had a great blog about debunking his arguments.

http://www.libertariangirl.com/2009/09/29/noam-chomskys-strawmen/

@ Scalebane : I hope we have more threads like this where we discuss the differences the simularities and differences between points of view instead of attacking views.  (I am not innocent of attacking views either =p)

Yeah, I've seen him speak and read several of his books. The guy shows quite clearly how lingusitic analysis/deconstructionism is really destructionism -- the destruction of thought.

It is interesting how many posters here from the left use his tactics over and over again.

You simply have to be careful which Libertarian you listen to to explain the pretenses of the ideology and party from their perspective. Like any other political following, it has its overly ideological fringe, and there's one or two on these boards that should be discounted 'lest you do start confusing Libertarnianism with Anarchism.

Smoke, devil, some others do a great job sharing the viewpoint from a well reasoned angle when they decide to do so.

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

If your question was honest and asked "How do we get to a free market and how do we limit government" then I'd answer you.

I'm not running away, ask me a serious question and I'll answer it.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

I see you've switched from calling everyone socialists to calling them ignorant.

It's a step forward I guess.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

I've found that a lot of libertarians do a good job of complaining about the way things currently are, but when it comes time for them to share their views on how things should be done they scream "Less government" or "Free Market" and run away.

I don't take them too seriously.  As someone said on this forum before.  They're just a protest party.

 

I haven't seen any of us scream anything here. We state less government or the free market, and expect educated people to know what that means, forgetting you are ignorant.

 

I see you've switched from calling everyone socialists to calling them ignorant.

 

It's a step forward I guess.

No, I generally call you and gameloading ignorant, because you are. He doesn't even read books! he said this himself here on this forum. I generally read up on all the liberal, conservative, and libertarian answers to today's issues on everything, and I expect others to do as well. I have read everything I can find from the other side, and have spent a lifetime challenging myself -- in fact I have been doing so for longer than you have been alive.

There are people here, like kiddy, whom don't call ignorant, because they are not ignorant. What is ironic he also knows that the modern liberalism you support has its roots in socialism, and he's not embarrassed or insulted by that either.

You however, are very ignorant of history and current affairs, and I am trying to help you by showing you your ignorance. It is an act of grace, not an insult. It's no crime to be ignorant, but you would be much better served if you actually learned a  bit about the things you  write about here.

What is bad is that you are arrogant in your ignorance. That's going be problematic for you wherever you go in life. I'm trying to help you and your arrogance and ignorance won't let you see this.

Anarchy is to libertarianism as pure communism is to socialism.

They all look good on paper,  even pure capitalism.

Here in the real world though its not the same story.

Today's Libertarians and conservatives are much more economic left than what this country was 100 years ago.  Todays republicans would of been the 1900's socialist.