The fact is that the premise that the state is a representation of egalitarianism is blatantly nonsensical to anyone who can see that the mere fact that a state creates a ruler-subject dichotomy is not egalitarian in nature, and to anyone who can see that the effect of state power is NOT more equality in society. That by itself simply demolishes your premise. I've already shown you why your premise is wrong ad nauseum, and you can argue for heirarchy until you're blue in the face, but none of your points prove the untenable premise you're trying to argue for. No state, by definition, can genuinely be egalitarian precisely because the internal structure of a state and the relationship between a state and its subjects is inherently unequal. This should not be a controversial point. In fact, it's part of why marxism fails, because its theory is not consistant with the reality of what a state is, and hence it results in an even more powerful unegalitarian state, and egalitarianism is only used as the rationale for the exclusive bureaucracy or dictatorship. In short, an egalitarian state is a logical impossibility.
Brainpolice:"Leftism" in this way is just a strawman that you've invented to justify your prejudices.
Yup. I think leftism (and rightism) are jokes. But then, I don't run around calling myself right, or defending the right. In fact, for all of the hullabaloo the left makes about the libertarian right, I still have yet to see the right (as a self-identifying group) manifest itself.
Brainpolice:That's the problem with you blanket attacks on "the left" - even the slightest desire to improve conditions is brushed off as utopian.
This is incorrect. And your definition of conditions which "need" improvement, and what that improvement might be, is totally subjective.
Brainpolice:"Oh, you libertarians are just rebelling against the nature of reality itself! Don't you know that the state is the natural order?".
No. You choose to conflate your personal biases and value judgments with libertarianism, just like Long did in his recent article when he held up feminism as some left achievement. Feminism is collectivism, that's libertarianism 101. But again, you guys turn a blind eye to all sorts of things as long as it furthers your sense of values, particularly when those values are very narrow within the broader understanding of what libertarianism is.
Brainpolice: I think this sentiment is a bit naive and misleading. Noone doesn't care about the consequences of liberty. To have a goal and yet not care about the consequences of that goal relative to other goals makes no sense.
I think this sentiment is a bit naive and misleading. Noone doesn't care about the consequences of liberty. To have a goal and yet not care about the consequences of that goal relative to other goals makes no sense.
The goal is a society without the coercive apparatus of the state within a libertarian ethical framework, the consequence is liberty. I don't pretend to know what the specific consequence of that liberty would be, but I hardly think that it is a pointless goal. If the society that emerges from the framework of liberty happens to be some natural egalitarian order or the opposite, so be it! To try and impose the view of what one would like it to be on a society of liberty seems like a very deceptive way of dealing with the issue.
I want a just and ethical framework based on liberty as well, and the entire point is that there are certain things that are either inherently incompatible with that or not healthy traits to foster and sustain it. A society full of dogmatists and bigots simply is not a healthy framework for a free society, and won't remain one for long. Likewise, a society based on a feudalist model simply isn't a free society to begin with due to what a fuedalist model actually means when compared to a libertarian social theory. I also don't think it makes sense to act as if libertarianism only implies anti-statism when anything that contradicts the social theory comes into question. This includes "private" violations of personal sovereignty. Simply slapping the label "private" next to something or making something "private" doesn't automatically make it immune from libertarian criticism.
Private violations of personal sovereignty would be handled by a Libertarian court system. I think everyone here pretty much agrees with that, both RL and LL. I don't think anyone claimed that the state was the only entity capable of initiating aggression against another person. But once again, to claim that an "anarchist society will specifically have X outcome" seems....silly.
What prejudices? LS barely has any.
Granted, that's not the case with me. I can't wait to drop the term anarchism or libertarianism to distance myself from commies like you.
Brainpolice:Nothing about a general desire to see the conditions of people improve inherently means that someone is "in denial of the basic nature of man and the physical realities of existance".
In a sense it is, since you seem to assume that upon abolishing the state the poor will rise up out of the chains imposed on them by the capitalist scum and becomes Aristotles, Kants and Hoppes.
Brainpolice:This is a weak argument to justify a traditionalist bias.
Of course, LS is quite the traditionalist. (As opposed to you who can't seem to get past "19th century anarchism"?)
Not really, just meaningless. I just couldn't care for r the leeches that contaminate society with their offspring for more welfare.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Your continual insistance on pretending that there is no libertarian right is ridiculous, especially given that the libertarian right is openly asserting itself in these threads, and you're defending them.
I could use the same line of argument dismiss to the libertarian's view that the condition that is the state needs improvement. A libertarian sees the state as a negative condition, ergo, they see the elimination of that condition that is the state as an improvement. Hence, I could just as easily argue that "your definition of conditions with need improement is completely subjective", and hence brush off the desire to oppose the condition of the state as "subjective".
No. You choose to conflate your personal biases and value judgments with libertarianism, just like Long did in his recent article when he held up feminism as some left achievement. Feminism is collectivism, that's libertarianism 101.
I hope you can see your hypocrisy here. No, that isn't libertarianism 101. On one hand, you accuse others of conflating personal preferances with libertarianism, then you imply that libertarianism inherently means you must oppose feminism. Once again, you make blanket judgements of social causes without looking at the subtleys of different positions among them. Wendy McElroy, for example, is a libertarian/individualist feminist. Not all people who identify as feminists are collectivists.
But again, you guys turn a blind eye to all sorts of things as long as it furthers your sense of values, particularly when those values are very narrow within the broader understanding of what libertarianism is.
This accusation applies more to you than anything.
Brainpolice:The fact is that the premise that the state is a representation of egalitarianism is blatantly nonsensical to anyone who can see that the mere fact that a state creates a ruler-subject dichotomy is not egalitarian in nature, and to anyone who can see that the effect of state power is NOT more equality in society.
The fact of the matter is that egalitarianism in any form is untenable, as such it doesn't really make sense to criticize something or to just how egalitarian it is in regards to its consequences. It only makes sense to question the implications of an ideology and then question to what extent it is egalitarian. Now, democracy, with the "one vote per person" ideology and the concept that we're all really part of the government (some indeed claim that it is really self government) implies egalitarianism to a great extent. Moreover the disregard for private property, destroys the objective borders between people, hence making us more equal.
Brainpolice:That by itself simply demolishes your premise.
Perhaps you could stick to "refuting" instead of a running commentary as well?
Brainpolice:I've already shown you why your premise is wrong ad nauseum, and you can argue for heirarchy until you're blue in the face, but none of your points prove the untenable premise you're trying to argue for.
As buisness to some extent is hierarchical, as is the family, as are social relations generally. The fact of the matter is some humans are better leaders than others, the current leaders are those who are most adept at weilding power. Without the state the "leaders" would be those that demand the most respect.
Brainpolice:No state, by definition, can genuinely be egalitarian precisely because the internal structure of a state and the relationship between a state and its subjects is inherently unequal. This should not be a controversial point.
And it isn't.
Brainpolice:In fact, it's part of why marxism fails, because its theory is not consistant with the reality of what a state is, and hence it results in an even more powerful unegalitarian state, and egalitarianism is only used as the rationale for the exclusive bureaucracy or dictatorship
Actually, Marxism fails because of that whole calculation thing.
Brainpolice:In short, an egalitarian state is a logical impossibility.
All egalitarianism is.
Stop misrepresenting me with rhetorical statements. I am not a communist. My political philosophy is not consistant with communism.
Once again, this is just a misrepresentative rhetorical statement. You are really bad about doing this. I don't believe that "upon abolishing the state the poor will rise up out of the chains imposed on them by the capitalist scum" and become gods.
Stop lieing about my views, it is out of the bounds of rationality.
I'm not defending "leeches that contaminate society", and your statement is simply raw bigotry with no basis in reality.
Sorry, your premise remains absurd. The effect of the state very blatantly is not that we are made more equal. All the state does is created a massive web of redistribution that benefits various small niches at the expense of the rest of society. That does not increase equality at all. You're simply engaging in bad rationalization to back up your indefensible bias for more heirarchy.
The problem is that this exact same line of argument can constitute a conservative defense of the state.
That's only one reason among many as to why it fails. I also explained an additional reason why it fails, I.E. it's theory about the nature of the state is nonsensical.
Brainpolice:I am a communist.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I am a communist.
Stop it. You are trolling me and making up lies about me. I am not a communist and do not have a favorable view of communism.
Your behavior is simply childish.
Brainpolice:The effect of the state very blatantly is not that we are made more equal.
You're going to have to do more than assert things as if they were self evident.
Brainpolice:All the state does is created a massive web of redistribution that benefits various small niches at the expense of the rest of society.
So what?
Brainpolice:That does not increase equality at all.
Perhaps not, but there are clear implications of the belief that we need to help the most dull and generally least capable people in society.
Brainpolice:You're simply engaging in bad rationalization to back up your indefensible bias for more heirarchy.
Stop the commentary, it's boring.
Brainpolice:The problem is that this exact same line of argument can constitute a conservative defense of the state.
And it fails because unlike the family, the church, buisness and human relations in general it is still coercive.
Brainpolice:That's only one reason among many as to why it fails. I also explained an additional reason why it fails, I.E. it's theory about the nature of the state is nonsensical.
You did finally get something correct.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I am a communist. Stop it. You are trolling me and making up lies about me. I am not a communist and do not have a favorable view of communism. Your behavior is simply childish.
Thank you, so much, for the amusement you just provided.
Ok, this is getting a bit out of hand. It's time to cool off.
Give me a break. You very well know that the effect of state power around us is not a more equal society. To argue that our current society actually is equal is absurd on its face. It is self-evident. Just look around yourself or turn on the news.
That inherently is not "equal" in nature, hence demolishing your premise.
Noone holds that believe, and your way of phrasing it just asserts your own ridiculous prejudice.
There is nothing inherently virtuous or non-coercive about the family, the church or buisiness. A family can be healthy or unhealthy, coercive or uncoercive. A church can be coercive or non-coercive. A buisiness can be coercive or non-coercive. Your tendency to treat them as if they are inherently being good, regaurdless of context, simply makes no sense.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:I am a communist. Stop it. You are trolling me and making up lies about me. I am not a communist and do not have a favorable view of communism. Your behavior is simply childish. Thank you, so much, for the amusement you just provided.
Amusement?
Thankyou, so much, for confirming to anyone with sanity that you are trolling me.
Brainpolice:Give me a break. You very well know that the effect of state power around us is not a more equal society.
Notice, I wasn't talking about effects. Try to answer what I actually say.
Brainpolice:To argue that our current society actually is equal is absurd on its face. It is self-evident. Just look around yourself or turn on the news.
So what? Some morally and intellectual weak people are starving and asking the government for money. What's more, they're given it and almost every applauds the governments action to help the poor. Moreover false "elites" are promoted, so yes, the whole thing is very egalitarian.
Brainpolice:That inherently is not "equal" in nature, hence demolishing your premise.
No, it doesn't. Try reading my premise.
Brainpolice:Noone holds that believe, and your way of phrasing it just asserts your own ridiculous prejudice.
Yes I am very prejudice, so what? The poor are generally less intelligent and capable then the upper and middle classes (that's why they're poor generally) so yes, people do hold that belief.
Brainpolice:There is nothing inherently virtuous or non-coercive about the family, the church or buisiness. A family can be healthy or unhealthy, coercive or uncoercive. A church can be coercive or non-coercive. A buisiness can be coercive or non-coercive. Your tendency to treat them as if they are inherently being good, regaurdless of context, simply makes no sense.
I treat them as natural humans institutions. That's all.
GilesStratton: Juan: There are people however who seem to believe that absent the state their church will overrun the whole world... That's exactly what I believe... No, there will be non believers still, fewer though, don't worry though. You'll pay for sins sooner or later.
Juan: There are people however who seem to believe that absent the state their church will overrun the whole world...
GilesStratton: Juan: ...conservatism belongs to the past You mean, for example, when the state was for smaller?
Juan: ...conservatism belongs to the past
The old way of thinking in terms of feudal bonds gradually gave way to the idea of a contractual society. Finally, as outward expressions of this changed state of affairs in public opinion, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 came along; and nothing was the same after these revolutions had occurred. They proved, once and for all, that the old order was not invincible, and they sparked new hope for further progress on the road toward freedom and prosperity.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Some morally and intellectual weak people are starving and asking the government for money.
This is just your prejudice, not an accurate description of reality. Your assumption that people are morally and intellectually weak stems for your own intellectual weakness and is just an irrational bias.
What's more, they're given it and almost every applauds the governments action to help the poor.
And what you're completely leaving out is the reality of the situation: it does not help the poor. Hence, it is NOT actually egalitarian.
Moreover false "elites" are promoted, so yes, the whole thing is very egalitarian.
No, the promotion of "false elites" is not egalitarian. The promotion of elites in general is not egalitarian. Your premise fails. Egalitarianism is not what follows from any of this.
Prejudice is inherently irrational. Especialy your archiac ones.
Noone, outide of extreme social conservatives, actually believes that the poor are inherently less intellegient or moral by virtue of their economic status. It is not intrinsic or some law of nature.
Everything that exists is natural, so it's a meaningless point.
I don't see how it follows from the fact that the state panders to empathy and the fact that the libertarian is opposed to the state provision of welfare services that the libertarian must therefore be opposed to empathy itself and the provision of welfare as a matter of principle. I also would propose that there is a notable psychological problem or ulterior motive going on for an individual who actually lacks any capacity to have empathy for people experiencing negative conditions or builds a caracature for themselves that functions that way. I say this as a full-scale psychological egoist who uses an ethical framework of mutual self-interest and hence rejects altruism as an ethical theory, so don't try to misrepresent me. Empathy is a perfectly valid principle when put in a proper context, particularly the context of mutual self-interest.
Brainpolice:Prejudice is inherently irrational.
This has been refuted.
scineram: Brainpolice:Prejudice is inherently irrational. This has been refuted.
The word prejudice refers to a judgement made without information or evidence, so yes, prejudice is inherently irrational.
A stereotype is a collective exaggeration that overgeneralizes a group based on an empirical root that might be true. So what? Sometimes there is a grain of truth to some prejudices, but it doesn't justify the prejudice, only the grain of truth, which applies to specific individuals in the group rather than the entire group by definition. So it is simply irrational to believe in blown up collective identities in any instrinsicist sense. Correlation does not equal causation, so it doesn't necessarily follow from a stereotype based on a correlation that the trait is intrinsic to the group.
This is the point at which racist and classist theories simply fail. It doesn't matter how much correlatative scientific or statistical data you have collected, it does not prove your prejudice and it is a misuse of science to try to use it in that way, it reduces to confirmation bias. All you can prove are some general trends based on incomplete data with uncertainty as to what the specific causes are. And sometimes the individuals in a given group and the environmental factors involved are diverse to the point where proposing any absolute or generalization of that sort is simply false.
Brainpolice:Your continual insistance on pretending that there is no libertarian right is ridiculous, especially given that the libertarian right is openly asserting itself in these threads, and you're defending them.
Where is our web ring? Where are our alliance of the libertarian right websites? Who in the mainstream of libertarianism identifies as right? Lew Rockwell? Hans Hoppe? There are a lot of folks like Long and Carson who identify left. Where are the rightists?
The reality is, it's the left which is obsessed with labels, and trying to differentiate libertarianism based upon sects, such that non-libertarian, and incompatible ideas can thrive. This is the oldest tactic for subversion in the book.
Brainpolice:I could use the same line of argument dismiss to the libertarian's view that the condition that is the state needs improvement. A libertarian sees the state as a negative condition, ergo, they see the elimination of that condition that is the state as an improvement. Hence, I could just as easily argue that "your definition of conditions with need improement is completely subjective", and hence brush off the desire to oppose the condition of the state as "subjective".
The argument against the state is not utilitarian or value driven. It is rational.
Brainpolice:I hope you can see your hypocrisy here. No, that isn't libertarianism 101. On one hand, you accuse others of conflating personal preferances with libertarianism, then you imply that libertarianism inherently means you must oppose feminism. Once again, you make blanket judgements of social causes without looking at the subtleys of different positions among them. Wendy McElroy, for example, is a libertarian/individualist feminist. Not all people who identify as feminists are collectivists.
I implied no such thing. Feminism, like male chauvinism, is collectivist. There is nothing libertarian about feminism.
Brainpolice: But again, you guys turn a blind eye to all sorts of things as long as it furthers your sense of values, particularly when those values are very narrow within the broader understanding of what libertarianism is. This accusation applies more to you than anything.
How so? You don't even know what my values are. Not to mention, I have made clear many times that I have no desire to reveal or impose my values on anyone. Where you seek justice (your subjective definition of what is just) and liberty, I am content with liberty and property, and the justice will sort itself out as long as those are preserved.
That's really the meat of the dispute. You want to add to liberty, but still declare it inherent to libertarianism so that your value judgments can benefit from the credibility of the liberty ideal. And again, none of this is new. It's been done before. I think that's why it appeals so much to young people, who might not have had an opportunity to look at the bigger historical picture, and how movements get subverted and undermined.
liberty student:That's really the meat of the dispute. You want to add to liberty, but still declare it inherent to libertarianism so that your value judgments can benefit from the credibility of the liberty ideal. And again, none of this is new. It's been done before. I think that's why it appeals so much to young people, who might not have had an opportunity to look at the bigger historical picture, and how movements get subverted and undermined.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
this concept of owning land without also having the means to actually defend it against attack comes from the legal structure of the state. the state is one giant bully, to make all the smaller would be bullies simmer down. In the modern world we live in, the only people who actually own land are nuclear powers. everyone else is a renter.
most libertarian utopias are simply a rollback to the city state method of government. what reason do we have to believe that the city state won't eventually turn into social democracies as it did the first time around? well, the most obvious difference is technology. But will technological progress prevent collectivism from taking hold? I doubt it.
The last few posts are very pessimistic; do we have any chance of establishing a free society?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
nazgulnarsil: most libertarian utopias are simply a rollback to the city state method of government. what reason do we have to believe that the city state won't eventually turn into social democracies as it did the first time around? well, the most obvious difference is technology. But will technological progress prevent collectivism from taking hold? I doubt it.
Competition is the most obvious difference, not technology.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Nitroadict:Interesting. I had recently begun to think similarar thoughts regarding the emerging divisions, specifically the very real possibility that the Statists themselves barley have to lift a finger in order to discredit anti-statists, possibly due to the massive in-fighting, as the debates and/or disputes on these forums are evident of.Such a thought certainly doesn't ease my cynicism, though.
There are a LOT of people who claim to be libertarian, and yet to claim to be totally different in ideology than other libertarians.
It's very annoying. Like the anarchists who claim they are for socialism with the NAP. I mean....
I dislike socialism because it offends my values. It always ends up in authoritarianism and democracy (inconsistent and unprincipled mob control of property rights). It usually ends up with a lot of people dead.
It's no mistake that as the west has become increasingly democratic and socialistic it has become increasingly dangerous. Regimes like those in Africa and Asia have nothing on the destruction and murder America can provide anywhere in the world on 24 hours notice (without nukes).
But the beauty of Mises and Austrian economics, is that it provides a rationale for why socialism is unworkable. So it's not just a case of not being implemented properly, but the entire notion of anti-capitalism is badly flawed.
Juan:Sorry, by definition pre-judice is irrational. 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
I wonder why, when you searched on dictionary.com and posted the answer you didn't include the following: any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
GilesStratton: Juan:Sorry, by definition pre-judice is irrational. 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. I wonder why, when you searched on dictionary.com and posted the answer you didn't include the following: any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
preconceived: to form a conception or opinion of beforehand, as before seeing evidence or as a result of previously held prejudice.
I'm a German Catholic post-Paulian Hoppean secessionist nonarchist in the Rothbardian tradition. I also like pizza.Will I be purged in anarchy?
Give me a break. Your attempt to just pretend that there is no such thing as libertarian-conservative fusionism and libertarians who openly identify as right is outright disingenous. Yes, Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are just two out of many examples. Ron Paul is the most popular example. Most of the minarchist segment of libertarianism identifies more with the political right by default to begin with. Your attempt to outright deny this is silly.
It's amusing how you just assert your prejudices like this, asserting an institutional monopoly on libertariansm that excludes anything that deviates from the party line as incompatable, and then claim you're neutral to the left/right distinction. That's disingenous and orwellan on your part here.
That side-steps the point, which is that the elimination of the state is a goal, that the desire to eliminate the state implies that one does not favor the condition that is that state. Your nitpicky arguments are always side-tracking from the point.
Sorry, these blanket statements fail when it comes to the subtleys of specific people's ideas. Not all feminists are collectivists. The same disingenous argument could be made against any "ism".
That's a ridiculous argument. A comprehensive libertarian concept of liberty is a concept of justice. Denying that you have a concept of justice is simply deceptive, a mere value-free mask.
Your implication that me and others are merely subverters is ridiculous. You're an intellectually dishonest piece of shit.
liberty student:There are a LOT of people who claim to be libertarian, and yet to claim to be totally different in ideology than other libertarians. It's very annoying.
Sphairon: I'm a German Catholic post-Paulian Hoppean secessionist nonarchist in the Rothbardian tradition. I also like pizza.Will I be purged in anarchy?
Pizza is the food of the oppressor class. Do you really think you could get 2 Medium pizzas delivered for $10 without state roads?
Juan:Indeed it is. For instance, there are people who barefacedly claim that libertarianism is conservatism and feudalism. Up is down and war is peace.
Dude, I been telling you up ain't down!
Juan:As to socialism with the NAP, while it may not work even in a very small scale, at least it's not an idea as absurd as equating conservatism, the historical arch-enemy of freedom, with the freedom movement itself.
It not only doesn't work on a small scale, it doesn't make any rational sense.
BP will insist there can be different interpretations of property rights, different systems, but that doesn't change that property is what it is. You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Property is what it is, and within that, we try to deal with it in the most rational manner. Just because a bunch of people band together and decide to create a system, be it Christianity or Marxism, doesn't change the fundamentals of the universe.
Brainpolice:Denying that you have a concept of justice is simply deceptive, a mere value-free mask.
How so?
Brainpolice:A comprehensive libertarian concept of liberty is a concept of justice.
Why don't you argue that then? That's far more interesting than your strawmen and trolling.
Brainpolice:Sorry, these blanket statements fail when it comes to the subtleys of specific people's ideas. Not all feminists are collectivists. The same disingenous argument could be made against any "ism".
Ah yes, the subtlety. I'm wrong, because there are subtle nuances only you can perceive. That's truly classic. I wonder how you developed this style of argumentation. Are people on YouTube really that retarded?
Feminism by definition is collectivism along gender lines. To argue otherwise is pretty embarassing for you.
Brainpolice:our attempt to just pretend that there is no such thing as libertarian-conservative fusionism and libertarians who openly identify as right is outright disingenous. Yes, Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe are just two out of many examples. Ron Paul is the most popular example.
Can you source the following for me? One where Ron Paul claims to be a libertarian, and two where Hoppe and Rockwell claim to be right libertarian.
Otherwise, you're just posting more projections of your right-left paranoia.
liberty student:You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Property is what it is, and within that, we try to deal with it in the most rational manner. Just because a bunch of people band together and decide to create a system, be it Christianity or Marxism, doesn't change the fundamentals of the universe.
Giles pulls your strings. And you love to cry monarchist at someone.
People can do whatever they want. I am totally for that. They can be Calvinist fanatics or communist artisans. If Giles insists that Byzantine address him as Duke and likewise Byzantine wants to be an Earl, and they walk around with scepters and crowns on their head like they escaped an SCA meeting, then more power to them.
Women are a historically oppressed group, and continue to be in many places. It makes sense for a group undergoing a similar phenomenon to have a common cause to unite in. So it's misleading to paint feminism as collectivist, as much as it is misleading to paint any group with a common cause as such. Their means tend to be collectivist, but that's just a sign of intellectual confusion.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Since I'm getting the impression that some people mix things too much, I'll say this: libertarianism is a goal, anarchism is a means of achieving that goal, although they overlap a lot. Let's have a simple example. Libertarianism may imply that eating pizza is a negative right that should always be there (not that someone should enforce them), while anarchism simply allows the possibility (and to some extent the probability) of protecting that right. So libertarianism is an ideal, not a mechanism.
If I got it right, BP might be talking about such ideals and principles and the others dismiss him as being an egalitarianist, believing he wants to enforce that equality in rights somehow. It may be an unintentional straw man from their part.