[SpiderMonkey]

I've been reading up on the subject, and am begining to appreciate the differences between these two ideologies. I had previously believed the two terms were synonymous.

Which would the posters of this forum consider themselves?

[smashthestate]

I am definitely a Libertarian and not an anarcho-capitalist. However, I am very close to the latter.

I believe that:

1. A state should exist and its main purpose is to prevent and/or punish the initiation of force by one person, organization, etc. against another.

2. The state should uphold and defend the private property rights of every person.

Because I advocate the existence of a state and private property rights, I can't be considered an anarcho-capitalist.

[Eauz]

I guess it's another one of those common questions:

How would you stop corruption? You say the state should protect private property, but what if someone gives money to the state and the state provides better service to them and not the other guy? If you believe humans are all looking out for individuality, wouldn't it be almost communist of the government to even try and keep it equal protection for all private property?

[Tim]

'Anarchy state and Utopia' by Robert Nozick is a brilliant examination of anarch-capitalism and libertarianism. He eventually settles for Libertarianism and the minimal state.

I however, am neither, a Thatcherite.

I believe in a free market, but i'm afraid my social conservatism stops me joining the libertarian fold

[SpiderMonkey]

I am definitely a Libertarian and not an anarcho-capitalist. However, I am very close to the latter.

I believe that:

1. A state should exist and its main purpose is to prevent and/or punish the initiation of force by one person, organization, etc. against another.

2. The state should uphold and defend the private property rights of every person.

Because I advocate the existence of a state and private property rights, I can't be considered an anarcho-capitalist.

Firstly, bear in mind I am getting my information from here (if you want it first hand):

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... .htm#part1

1. This isn't specific to rightwing antistatism, its a general anarchist thing. Society naturally prevents harm to its members without the benefit of the state. The state simple takes these natural laws and tags on its own agenda, making them look one and the same. From the FAQ:

As Kropotkin writes, "[L]egislators confounded in one code the two currents of custom ... the maxims which represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure external existence to inequality. Customs, absolutely essential to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect from the crowd. 'Do not kill,' says the code, and hastens to add, 'And pay tithes to the priest.' 'Do not steal,' says the code, and immediately after, 'He who refuses to pay taxes, shall have his hand struck off.'"

2. From what I understand, anarcho-capitalists do believe in private property rights, but they also believe that people will protect their own private property (presumably, yould be able to afford the level of protection yould need)

Of course, I'm not really an anarcho-capitalist, I'm just playing devils advocate.

[Garibaldi]

somewhere between the two, much like Smash. I believe a state should exist, but voluntarily. The government, then, is basically a non-profit organization agreed upon by people to protect their most basic rights.

However, this very well could turn into Anarcho-capitalism. If people believe they could protect their rights best, they won't fund their police or government and ultimatly act much the same.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

SpiderMonkey, if you want to learn about anarcho-capitalism, you're going to want to read Hans Herman-Hoppe.

I consider myself a radical libertarian minarchist, though I'm very, very close to becoming an anarcho-capitalist. Basically, I'm on the fence.

[Pope Perseus Peptabysmal]

I was gonna post something about Anarcho-Capitalism last night, but I didn't like the site that described it.

I'd need to learn more about it, but from what I have read it sounds better than what we got now.

[Garibaldi]

Probably the only real question to libertarianism I've had is how much power should be given to towns, counties, and parents? For a while I believed little power to the towns and counties, but now I'm starting to wonder. On that level, what somebody does with their property negitivly or positivly effects your property; I'll discuss that another time.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I've been reading up on the subject, and am begining to appreciate the differences between these two ideologies. I had previously believed the two terms were synonymous.

Which would the posters of this forum consider themselves?

I'm a minarchist (,i.e. a believer in a minimum state) personally. I have no problem with a society with no government per se, but I don't see how rights to person and property can be properly enforced with no govenment.

However, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism aren't synonyms. Anarcho-capiatlism is perhaps the most 'extreme' form of libertarianism. An anarcho-capitalist would still believe in upholding rights to person and property and the avoidance of using force and fraud (which is the basis of libertarianism). So one could state that all anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.

Because I advocate the existence of a state and private property rights, I can't be considered an anarcho-capitalist.

Huh? All anarcho-capitalists would, by definition, agree with the notion of private property (if private property is defined as property that isn't owned by a government).