Libertarianists/Anarchists - what's the difference ?

BenjAii

I'm curious as i've come across a few people now on boards.ie that subscribe
to libertarianism.

In essence though it seem exactly the same to me as Anarchism, except
is followers are of the left and the opposite is true for libertarianism.

My own personal opinion is to find many of the principles laudable
but to have considerable skepticism of the ulterior motives of followers
on both sides.

brianthebard

Firstly you should provide a definition of what you understand libertarianism to be, because otherwise we will have a dozen different people with different arguments based on their own definitions. What I'm trying to say is libertarianism/liberalism is complicated.
Second point would be my understanding of libertarianism is that the state is as uninvolved in personal affairs as possible. It is a leftist doctrine.* The difference between that and anarchism is that anarchists seek the destruction of the state and to put in place a new system, libertarians don't go that far (despite the "shrink the state small enough to drown" quip).
What you may be referring to when you imply libertarianism is right wing is neo liberalism, again a term with many different meanings. My understanding of it is generally the sort of free trade abroad, protectionism at home policies that countries like the US and the EU as a group follow. This can have profoundly negative effects for people in the third world and is tied in many ways to the concept of neo colonialism, deemed to be monopolistic and exploitative.



*again depends very much on definitions.

BenjAii

brianthebard wrote: »

Firstly you should provide a definition of what you understand libertarianism to be, because otherwise we will have a dozen different people with different arguments based on their own definitions. What I'm trying to say is libertarianism/liberalism is complicated.

Taking wikipedia to give us broad definitions.

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government i.e. the state. The term anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχω, anarcho, meaning "without archons" or "without rulers",[2][3] from ἀν (an, "without") + ἄρχή (arche, "to rule") + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν). It is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state.


Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty[2] and seek to minimize or even abolish the state.

Second point would be my understanding of libertarianism is that the state is as uninvolved in personal affairs as possible. It is a leftist doctrine.* The difference between that and anarchism is that anarchists seek the destruction of the state and to put in place a new system, libertarians don't go that far (despite the "shrink the state small enough to drown" quip).
What you may be referring to when you imply libertarianism is right wing is neo liberalism, again a term with many different meanings. My understanding of it is generally the sort of free trade abroad, protectionism at home policies that countries like the US and the EU as a group follow. This can have profoundly negative effects for people in the third world and is tied in many ways to the concept of neo colonialism, deemed to be monopolistic and exploitative.



*again depends very much on definitions.

I get your point, it seems inherently leftist. It's just my observation that those that espouse it seem to be quite right-wing.

brianthebard

Well that's why I wanted you to define it. In this country it would probably seem quite right wing; in England the lib dems are fairly left. In America libertarians are way out on the left beside the commies-it varies from state to state and period to period. I don't think there are many(any?) libertarians who are seriously espousing the abolition of the state.

BenjAii

brianthebard wrote: »

Well that's why I wanted you to define it. In this country it would probably seem quite right wing; in England the lib dems are fairly left. In America libertarians are way out on the left beside the commies-it varies from state to state and period to period. I don't think there are many(any?) libertarians who are seriously espousing the abolition of the state.

Brian, I'm puzzled by what you are saying here. Libertarianism belongs firmly on the right in the US. The UK Lib Dems are Liberals, something completely different from libertarianism.

2Scoops

Libertarians: Economically right wing (less government); socially left wing (I'm ok, you're ok).

Anarchists: Teenage angst.

Kama

In essence though it seem exactly the same to me as Anarchism, except
is followers are of the left and the opposite is true for libertarianism.

Like many tasty ideological products, there's more than one flavour; or rather, the position tends to be flavoured with the context. The similarity is in seeing the state as an oppressive force infringing on a more 'natural' state of affairs/human liberty; there's a congruence with neo-liberalism here, with the Hayekian genealogy. I always get a strange deja vu reading market-libertarian stuff about self-organization without central authority and thinking about anarchist philosophy tbh.

However, most right-libertarians (like Nozick) require a night-watchman state, to protect the right to indivudal property, which anarchists of the Left would usually see as the plain 'aul coercive State, handmaiden to the propertied elite. While anarchism and libertarianism share correlates on the political axis of state authority, they tend to be polar opposites on the economic axis. Political Compass works well for this.

nesf

At its simplest Libertarianism is essentially about small Government and the primacy of individual freedoms (some groups put more emphasis on the former or vice versa). The different flavours come from the multitude of definitions for small, differing stances on redistribution of income within a small State etc. Libertarians do however, generally speaking, recognise a need for some government and think some things are better done by the State etc which is what differentiates them from Anarchists who generally believe that there should be no State

In reality you'll find that neither anarchism nor libertarianism can be pinned down by single all encompassing definition and you might be better off thinking of both of them as being distributed across a range on a political axis and that their ranges overlap slightly.

SteveS

BenjAii wrote: »

Libertarianism belongs firmly on the right in the US.

It is neither left, nor right.

Manic Moran

Although correct, it's generally considered to be a conservative viewpoint, and thus to the right on the very simplistic American political chart.

NTM

Akrasia

For my position on what anarchism is there's quite a long thread on this forum here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055009758

There are also other threads about 'anarcho capitalism' and libertarianism where I am very forthright in my view that anarchism and libertarianism are totally different in very fundamental ways

RNL

Anarchism is anti-authoritarian socialism.

A 'libertarian', nowadays, is a socially liberal believer in the 'free market' (aka neo-liberalism).

But it should be noted that the word was co-opted by the American right; the first person to call themselves a libertarian, in 1857, was Joseph Déjacque, a French anarcho-communist.

SkepticOne

A degree of authority is necessary for socialism on a large scale. People, for the most part, don't voluntarily give up what they have to others unless forced whether or not they have an excess of goods. I may have more than you, but before I hand it over, I want to know what you are willing to offer me in return.

On a small scale, of course, there may be some sharing. I might share things with family or friends or neighbours. There might also be charity. But these things happen in all societies. In itself it is not what most people would think of as socialism.

Therefore left-anarchism is a rather incoherent philosophy. It is anti-authoritarianism with socialism somehow tacked on.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is anti-authoritarianism with socialism somehow tacked on.

It's not. Few are under the illusion that authority can be completely done away with. But the burden of proof of legitimacy is on the authority figure. An interesting definition of legitimate authority is anyauthority that, inherently, seeks its own redundancy; the authority that a teacher has over a student, for instance (in terms of education per se, not necessarily the education institutions we've constructed), is in a constant state of liquidation, as the teacher imparts more of her knowledge to the student, the inequality between the teacher and the student decreases until eventually the student and the teacher are equals. That's one example of arguably legitimate authority. Authority which ossifies and seeks to defend itself (the state, for instance) is illegitimate. Surely most people would agree that ideally there ought to be absolutely as little social hierachy as is possible. Hierarchy is subordination of one to the other and it's antithetical to liberty.

Akrasia

SkepticOne wrote: »

A degree of authority is necessary for socialism on a large scale. People, for the most part, don't voluntarily give up what they have to others unless forced whether or not they have an excess of goods. I may have more than you, but before I hand it over, I want to know what you are willing to offer me in return.

On a small scale, of course, there may be some sharing. I might share things with family or friends or neighbours. There might also be charity. But these things happen in all societies. In itself it is not what most people would think of as socialism.

Therefore left-anarchism is a rather incoherent philosophy. It is anti-authoritarianism with socialism somehow tacked on.

'therefore' its a bit much to completely write off anarchism based on that very limited and flawed summary of what you think constitutes an anti authoritarian society

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Few are under the illusion that authority can be completely done away with. But the burden of proof of legitimacy is on the authority figure.

In practise, once the existing liberal "anti-democratic" checks on power are done away, the proof of legitimacy tends to be an army and secret police. Anarchism, anti-authoritarian ideals and so on demand an inhuman attitude from their supposed citizens, when it has been blatantly obvious to thinkers thousands of years ago that most people do not desire to be free [with all the risks inherent to that], they seek only fair masters.

RNL

Sand wrote: »

In practise, once the existing liberal "anti-democratic" checks on power are done away, the proof of legitimacy tends to be an army and secret police.

...?

That's force, not proof of moral legitimacy.

Anarchism, anti-authoritarian ideals and so on demand an inhuman attitude from their supposed citizens, when it has been blatantly obvious to thinkers thousands of years ago that most people do not desire to be free [with all the risks inherent to that], they seek only fair masters.

That's an unsupportable, elitist condescension, and a double logical fallacy to boot (appeal to authority + appeal to tradition).

Insofar as liberty is defined as the capacity to live the life one desires to live, everyone desires liberty, by definition.

You assert that people desire to be ruled. I contend that many people desire to be led, and that leadership is not implicitly authoritarian. Rulership is leadership that is not necessarily consensual, and thus authoritarian.

SkepticOne

Akrasia wrote: »

'therefore' its a bit much to completely write off anarchism based on that very limited and flawed summary of what you think constitutes an anti authoritarian society

I don't completely write it off. I leave the door open for counter argument.

What I think left-anarchists need to show is that groups naturally cooperate on the large scale over long periods. It is not enough to merely define cooperation into existance.

Otherwise, I maintain that groups look after themselves primarily with a relatively small priority given to cooperation. Cooperation within small groups but generally competition between them.

Akrasia

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't completely write it off. I leave the door open for counter argument.

What I think left-anarchists need to show is that groups naturally cooperate on the large scale over long periods. It is not enough to merely define cooperation into existance.

Otherwise, I maintain that groups look after themselves primarily with a relatively small priority given to cooperation. Cooperation within small groups but generally competition between them.

Capitalism is mostly about cooperation, workers in businesses mostly cooperate, The reason human beings climbed down from the trees and became the extremely successful species that we are is because we choose to cooperate rather than compete on an individual basis for all our resources. There is only a small element of domination, and that is down to the allocation of rewards which is controlled by the capitalist. Anarchists choose to allocate rewards differently.

The other element of anarchism is the decision making process which is lateral rather than top down, and the currency to carry a decision is democracy, and not just cash.

brianthebard

Sand wrote: »

In practise, once the existing liberal "anti-democratic" checks on power are done away, the proof of legitimacy tends to be an army and secret police. Anarchism, anti-authoritarian ideals and so on demand an inhuman attitude from their supposed citizens, when it has been blatantly obvious to thinkers thousands of years ago that most people do not desire to be free [with all the risks inherent to that], they seek only fair masters.

Which Anarchic state are you referring to when you say 'in practise'?

SkepticOne

Akrasia wrote: »

Capitalism is mostly about cooperation, workers in businesses mostly cooperate, The reason human beings climbed down from the trees and became the extremely successful species that we are is because we choose to cooperate rather than compete on an individual basis for all our resources.

This is what I think anarchists fail to argue successfully. No one is saying that there is no cooperation between people. The problem is that for left-anarchism to work, this cooperation needs to be on a large scale and needs to be voluntary.

Most people don't voluntarily give up resources to those in greater need that they don't know to any great extent. It requires something equivalent to the state to cooerce the giving up of those resources.

Note that here, I'm not saying that either socialism or indeed anarchism are undesirable, but rather that they are not consistant with each other.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not saying that either socialism or indeed anarchism are undesirable, but rather that they are not consistant with each other.

Political anarchism = libertarian socialism.

I call myself a socialist simply because anarchism strikes me as more of a philosophical ideal, one of the moral principles upon which socialist political theory should be founded.

But anarchists are socialists.

(You're using the phrase 'left-anarchism', so presumably you recognise the anti-state right as a branch of anarchism. I don't, anymore than I do Stalinism as a form of socialism.)

RNL

Also, appeals to Human Nature are pretty flimsy...

nesf

RNL wrote: »

Also, appeals to Human Nature are pretty flimsy...

Not really, there's a whole raft of research into human nature these days. We've several academic disciplines that specialise in it.

SkepticOne

RNL wrote: »

Political anarchism = libertarian socialism.

I call myself a socialist simply because anarchism strikes me as more of a philosophical ideal, one of the moral principles upon which socialist political theory should be founded.

But anarchists are socialists.

(You're using the phrase 'left-anarchism', so presumably you recognise the anti-state right as a branch of anarchism. I don't, anymore than I do Stalinism as a form of socialism.)

Yes, I know many of those who call themselves anarchists tend to hold socialist views in addition anti-state views. I just don't think these views are consistant on a large scale.

Even ignoring human nature, socialism involves compusory collectivism. It is not an option for my group to decide to keep all it produces including surplus, it must be shared with the wider society. There's a sense in which socialism implies a state.

But when you bring in human nature things really fall apart.

RNL

nesf wrote: »

Not really, there's a whole raft of research into human nature these days. We've several academic disciplines that specialise in it.

How can you specialise academically in something that may or may not exist?

Unless you're a theologian, I suppose...

I'm aware you're probably referring to fields like anthopology, linguistics, neurology, etc, but that's not what I or, I presume, ScepticOne were referring to.

It's either a metaphysical question about the 'essence' of the human animal, or the implication is biological determinism on the level of social organisation (which has us a hair's breadth from Social Darwinism).

If the question is "Do humans 'naturally' cooperate over long periods of time?", then the answer is Yes. Just look at any voluntary cooperative endeavour that's lasted a long time (political movements, for instance). Any and all human behaviour, throughout the entire history of the species, must, by definition, be within the bounds of possibility of Human Nature.

So, unless you do want to attempt to answer the metaphysical questions, or you do want to make a case for biological determism at the level of social organisation, appeals to Human Nature in political debates are pretty flimsy.

RNL

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes, I know many of those who call themselves anarchists tend to hold socialist views in addition anti-state views. I just don't think these views are consistant on a large scale.

Even ignoring human nature, socialism involves compusory collectivism. It is not an option for my group to decide to keep all it produces including surplus, it must be shared with the wider society. There's a sense in which socialism implies a state.

You're talking about socialism as though its a monolithic school of thought. And the way you're descibing it makes it sound like a primitive form of anarcho-communism. 'Your group'? It calls to mind hermetic 19thC farming communities engaged in trade. I don't think anyone has that kind of quasi-tribalism in mind when they talk about anarchism (though I fully understand how the word conjures those associations, which is another reason I don't call myself an anarchist).

Any kind of social organisation on a large scale requires administration. But administration doesn't have to be authoritarian. I wouldn't acknowledge a democratic, non-authoritarian form of representative administration as being a State. EDIT: Certainly if it existed on an international scale.

But when you bring in human nature things really fall apart.

Because we know nothing about it, or about whether it even exists.

nesf

RNL wrote: »

How can you specialise academically in something that may or may not exist?

You think that human nature doesn't exist?

SkepticOne

RNL wrote: »

How can you specialise academically in something that may or may not exist?

Unless you're a theologian, I suppose...

I'm aware you're probably referring to fields like anthopology, linguistics, neurology, etc, but that's not what I or, I presume, ScepticOne were referring to.

No, it is this latter sense of human nature that I'm referring to, not some metaphysical or religious notion.

RNL

nesf wrote: »

You think that human nature doesn't exist?

I don't know. Humans are nothing but emergent properties of the natural world, so I think it's more accurate to talk about humans, as animals, being of nature than to talk about humans having a Nature. Those are very different things.

On the level of physiology, obviously you can say "It's natural for humans to ingest food, extract nutrients and excrete faeces." You can say also, according to a logical principle, rather than any kind of scientific understanding, that it's natural for humans to cooperate and compete, since humans do both. It's evident that both cooperation and competition lie within the bounds of possibility of Human Nature (if there be such a thing).

But if you want to start talking about the natural limitations on human behaviour (in any sense, including social organisation) then you're engaging in pure speculation and assumption. And an increased scientific understanding of linguistics or neurology won't change much of anything. Successfully mapping the genome hasn't had much of an effect on the debate either.

Appeals to Human Nature carry an implication of biological determinism at the level of social organisation. This has not even come remotely close to being evidenced. In fact, the deep heterogeneity of human behaviour in terms of social organisation and the heavily evidenced adaptibility of human psychology indicates quite the opposite. So aside from coming uncomfortably close to Social Darwinism, and thus carrying a whiff of status quo apologetics (no accusation intended), the appeal to Human Nature is making an implicit assertion that is unsupportable, and is demanding the debate become a discourse on a subject nobody knows anything about.