Libertarianism vs. Anarchism

I agree with ya Hue,

In a lot of ways anarchist neglect to see that people are horrible with governing themselves. You might be able to get small groups to play nicely with each for a little while but it never is that simple especially with more demand on resources. The lazy always return to the easiest amount of labor to obtain the most amount of return. Usually in the form of stealing or killing then taking.

"Anarchy only lasts until the candy runs out".

Unemployment and poverty is not merely a result of laziness.

equal distribution of goods and services.

You can never get this, because there will be some pompous ass who thinks they are better than everyone else who deserves more of something or everything else. It doesn't work and no amount of forcing it will ever make it work.

Anarchism definitely fails to address a few issues this is because the system (or lack of system) is set up so that the world may be more of a fend-for-yourself enviroment forcing us to use survival skills and technique that we wouldn't have to use in under libertarianism. Under libertertarianism, we are far less concerned with survival because we have a strong government to defend us and support us in most cases, then us as individual become less able to survive without any higher authority and justice. When living under anarchism we are then forced to live without as much protection and therefore become more cautious about our well-being. I agree with krumple and what he has illustrated that we as humans unfortunately put ourselves before everyone in most cases, you say that in effect we are naturally corrupt. Without laws and order, very few people would not take the chance to steal if they could. That is our fundamental flaw. We cannot all coexist as equals without taking from one another and causes tension and conflict. People are naturally selfish and that is another flaw with everyone living without any control and authority.

Furthermore, why would they want more when they could basically have all of the goods and services that they need?

Because some people don't want what they need, they want to feel better than everyone else, they want to feel more privileged or special so they will do what ever that takes, if it means having more or controlling more they will do that.

I had many a debate with anarcho-capitalists on my point that they merely redefine 'government' to exclude their 'defense agencies'.

The root argument is what role coercion properly has in human social life. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalist would agree (I think) that the only proper role is limited to resistance against the use of it, and to objectify it's use in settling disputes.

On the other hand, Hue-man's notion of "equal" distribution would require a massively centralized agency of coercion that would have control of virtually every aspect of the individual's life.

Capitalism allows the value, importance and distribution of wealth to be determined in a more democratic fashion by the individuals actually involved in the creation, distribution and consumption of that wealth.

Capitalism is, properly, an ecological system, not a centralized dictatorship.


JIM

How can it not ?

Some kind of power elite with have to determine what the individual can properly claim to need and what one person must contribute to society to qualify as the object of distribution.

Thus the government becomes the arbiter and enforcer of proper individual values, proper individual goals and, therefore, the direction of individual lives.

That about covers it, no ?

No, that doesn't cover it. There will be no political elite. Individual and collective needs will be determined by direct democracy through consensus. The government wouldn't aggressively enforce any values other than the minimization of coercion. Individual's will choose their own way of life as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of other people.

So we have a national referendum if I want a HD TV ?

Either your 'vision' needs more elaboration or it is utter nonsense. Please cook up a scenario of how your utopia works.

Hue-man, I think also that thy arguments are to a great extent utopian. Consensus? It doesn't work if there are people who want to have more than others, as henry said. Communism beginning from Karl Marx imlied coercion...
I cannot choose between anarchism and libertarianism. The other thing is that I am now living under anarchy: none can make me do what I don't want. I have no need in punishments also, therefore I have no need in government. See, all this presupposes we have something valuable in life, something worth protecting. For those who are free from desire to the worldly things, there is no need in government, I should even say it doesn't exist for them.
But these are only elite. The masses when deprived of government, will reestablish it sometime again, just because they ascribe value to worldly things. Anarchy is only for few.
It is impossible to build a good house from straw however one may arrange it.

Libertarianism argues that the state should be minimized to protecting individuals from aggression and coercion with a minimal amount of coercion.

No offense, but this is all very rhetorical, Eudaimon. A Utopia is a perfect society, and I believe that that's impossible. I haven't committed to anarchism, but many of its arguments are valid. Desire for the worldly things has nothing to do with government. Government's primary function is the protection of individual rights with a minimal amount of coercion. Virtually all people value the minimization of coercion, and virtually everyone values their individual freedom of non-coercive actions. That value is not a worldly thing, and by worldly I assume that you mean superficial.

Desire for the worldly things has nothing to do with government. Government's primary function is the protection of individual rights with a minimal amount of coercion. Virtually all people value the minimization of coercion, and virtually everyone values their individual freedom of non-coercive actions. That value is not a worldly thing, and by worldly I assume that you mean superficial.

"...some pompous ass who thinks they are better than everyone else..."

yeah: that would be me

HA!

anarchism and libertarianism are fictions just like republicanism, democratism, democracy, capitalism, communism, atheism, christianity, justice, morality, ethics, equality, natural rights, etc.

these fictions, and a truck load of others, are sometimes useful...nice models for galvanizing the domesticated to move in one direction or another

but: they're just fictions...that is: they have no basis in how the world seems to work...they exist only as ideas of men, implemented by men

when men are gone: the fictions go too

for my money: gimme the true anarchy of the 'free market" (which is NOT the same as a capitalistic market)...that is: gimme the unrestrained interactions of, between, and among individuals

a cog described my position as advocating for a return to the 'wild west'...the cog is probably right

all i know: the veneer of civilization is thin and dishonest...the dull and stupid are invariably elevated while the cunning and smart are forced to lower themselves...such is the demand of 'equality' and 'justice'

bottom line: anarchism, libertarianism...both have too many goddamned rules to follow

---------- Post added at 02:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

"Individual's will choose their own way of life as long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of other people."

but: that's not how the world works...it never has worked this way and it never will

the basic transaction of the world is 'prey' or 'be prey'

amoebas do it...platypi do it...even fragile human beings do it

so, do it: use the other guy before he uses you

it's not ALL 'bad'

marriage is a good example: mutually agreed upon 'use'...half the time it actually works out

them's pretty good odds as far as 'eat' or 'be eaten' goes...