[Wolfman]

AnCaps (a sub-species of Anarchists)

Anarcho-Capitalist?

If that one says government should not be in charge of the cops, that one is not a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal

At this point I'm not arguing with you, just explaining this person's justification. Acording to him, When the Government runs the justice system, it is too easily corrupted. When I asked the obvious question, I found out the hard way how highly he thought of me. This was a site with a Reputation system, by the way. I stopped talking to this guy at that point.

Well, this guy might be a Libertarian (in the sense of a member of the American Libertarian Party, for example)

This guy has actually run for pres 3 times. He got like 10 votes each time. Never vote for the Kaith Party, by the way.

Again, by definition, this third person cannot be a Libertarian/Minarchist/Classical Liberal, even if he insists upon calling himself one.

I, again, am only explaining his rationale. To this guy, the military should be funded by donation ( ), and otherwise just be a Militia. To him, the government running the military makes it too easy for the government to take action against it's own people, or wage wars for economic means. Whatever.

Can you not grasp the fundamental difference between a philosophy which states that government (albeit strictly limited government) is an essential component of a society and a philosophy which states that government is forbidden to society?

I understand. I was talking about these guys having ideas that are similar to Libertarian ideas (National Government with seriously limited power). I still am not sure I understand how there could be an Anarchist who wants a National Government, even if that government isn't maintaining roads or running the military. The guy compaining about the Justice system I agree, but the other two I don't get. I geuss I'm just an idiot :shrugg:

[ninurta]

Sorry for the late reply, internet was shut off......darn I see i am a little late, but phred explained it well.

When i said that some libertarians are anarchists, i was refering to those (pseudo-anarchists or not) that believe in democracy and defending a country by militias. Basically creating a state but not one.

[Wolfman]

When i said that some libertarians are anarchists, i was refering to those (pseudo-anarchists or not) that believe in democracy and defending a country by militias. Basically creating a state but not one.

Gotcha

[Suska]

Gotcha

Anarchy is antipathetic to hierarchy
Libertarianism is too

the difference is that Anarchy is virtually an archaic term, much abused by 70's punks and always coined to describe assassins - which more likely were paid by one or another hegemony. The theory of Anarchy as it has been developed on a basis apart from these misuses has developed into a sort of absolutists Libertarianism. Whereas Libertarianism is founded in current politics and doesn't reach so far back, has not been abused and suggests a pragmatic approach and an economic theory. That is to say, the difference is very slight at the theoretical level. It is mainly a difference of place and time. Libertarians don't associate themselves with Anarchy for the same reason Libertarians don't call themselves Anarchists. There's too many silly connotations.

The question is can a system be a system without a hierarchy. Of course it can. In which case "a state but not a state" because it is a recognizable system except that it dispenses with an element most people associate with a state - a leader/leadership apparatus. In that case we're talking about Anarchy. But some Libertarians would argue the matter is purely economical, or purely Federal. Neither topic Anarchy or Libertarianism has a strict Orthodoxy. The closest thing to Orthodoxy in Libertarianism is that Ron Paul is popular. Anarchy as a subject is all over the place, ranging as widely as Anarcho-Syndicalism which is a sort of socialism. What remains after the entire field is taken into account is a dislike/distrust of arbitrary authority - if God didn't appoint our leader, if corruption and hegemony undercut Meritocratic sentiments and Democracy - what is leading us and where is it leading us to? Libertarians and Anarchists agree - it cannot be a good thing.

[ninurta]

-archy is a loan from the greek "rule", though it doesn't translate specifically to english but refers to "to rule" instead of "law", but yeah it is often misused to mean the english meaning of "rule" not refered to in the sense of the word. So what people do to make anarchy mean assasin, bad people and all that is manipulate and change the word. I am aware of all this.

Who keeps a system without a hierarchy a system? Who organizes it? While it can become, remain and stay a system and work, it will be unorganized and unstable. Though it depends on what kind of hierarchy, leadership and a person to speak before a democracy is a good thing, hierarchy in the sense of "I am higher up and I have the power" is not. I may have missed the meaning of hierarchy there.

The best way for me to describe my views of my libertarianism is, government must be big enough for stability and to organize things a little bit, but be small enough to have no unnecessary involvement in the lives of the people. Also when it comes to economics, yeah I am still a libertarian. Though I support very little government interference at all, but that would be up to those involved in working for the company and those buying the products.

I agree with anarchists on alot of things, though when it comes to a state in which I believe is necessary for stability, we tend to disagree the most.

"A state but not a state" was a reference more to what seems to be a democratic state which is a community based absolute democracy, and is in line with my libertarian views of government.