Whats exactly the main differences? Anarchists are totally against government what so ever while Libertarians are just for a very limited government that can protect natural rights? Or is there more to it?
Anarchism is radical libertarianism. You meant to say anarchism vs minarchism, I think. Both are forms of libertarianism.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
While it is true that the derivation of the word libertarian is essentially as a code word for an anarchist after some of the more violent parts of the history of the labor movement, I think that there is a sense in which there is a distinction between libertarianism and anarchism. In my understanding, libertarianism is a social philosophy or set of social philosophies that logically leads to the conclusion of anarchism. Anarchism as a phenomenon is a state of interpersonal relations that is consistant with the ethical norms involved in libertarianism. Or, to put it another way, libertarianism is the philosophical framework out of which order is established in conditions of anarchism. Libertarianism is a like a meta-theory of justice.Technically, there is such thing as a non-libertarian anarchist. There are both libertarian anarchists and non-libertarian anarchists. Non-libertarian anarchists generally lean towards some kind of ethical nihilism, and hence they tend to see libertarianism as kind of useless (although some may be mildly tolerant of libertarian anarchists), or they are moralists of some other sort who bundle libertarianisn with all sorts of values that blatantly undermine it, to the point where their philosophical framework actually justifies authoritarianism (this can be seen in some of the attempts at libertarian-conservative fusionism).Also, it is possible for someone to be a libertarian at least nominally and not be an anarchist. So there are both libertarian anarchists and libertarians who are not anarchists, which generally describes the classic anarchist vs. minarchist split. The existance of libertarians who are not anarchists is a consequence of either too narrow or an interpretation of the principles or the superimposition of principles that create tension with libertarianism. Non-anarchist libertarians do not see the existance of a state or any fundamentals of a state as violating the libertarian principles, or they do see that but pragmatically endorse a minimal state anyways.
What Brainpolice neglected to mention, while strangely continuing to perpetuate the conservative-anarchist mythology, is that good examples of non-libertarian anarchists are syndicalists and communists. Both far left groups are not libertarian, but qualify as anarchistic for opposing the state (in it's current form).
All non-libertarian anarchists are socialistic.
I find libertarian is the better term to use. There are far too many pseudo/closet statists that hide within anarchism as a label.
Brainpolice:(this can be seen in some of the attempts at libertarian-conservative fusionism).
Oh.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sometimes anarcho-capitalists call themselves libertarians just to distinguish themselves from anarchists of the violent, Marxist, "workers' revolution" variety (and other not-so-good people, like eco-terrorists, and wackos like anarcho-primitivists).
We anarchists are a mixed bag.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:(this can be seen in some of the attempts at libertarian-conservative fusionism). Oh.
At least the antagonism among some of he anarcho-capitalists proves that we don't engage in group-thinks!
I think GilesStratton's definition of conservative values is too board though. I am a cultural liberal yet I probably qualify as a conservative because I am a frugal person and that I don't follow an icky alternative lifestyle.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Strict anarchists (no libertarian/Capitalist viewpoint) usually have no regard for property rights (i.e. communists), but tend not to truly follow their "anti-state views". Libertarians are Anarchists with strong appeal to property rights (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism). Though I usually refer to myself as an Anarchist, and then elaborate from there.
liberty student: What Brainpolice neglected to mention, while strangely continuing to perpetuate the conservative-anarchist mythology, is that good examples of non-libertarian anarchists are syndicalists and communists. Both far left groups are not libertarian, but qualify as anarchistic for opposing the state (in it's current form). All non-libertarian anarchists are socialistic. I find libertarian is the better term to use. There are far too many pseudo/closet statists that hide within anarchism as a label.
Stop misrepresenting me. It's getting really old and lame. My post has nothing to do with the left-right controversies, I merely point out that there is both libertarian anarchism and non-libertarian anarchism, and non-anarchist libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism. Note that it is almost always you who tries to turn it into a left-libertarian vs right-libertarian controversy, not me. None of my statements are directly germaine to that question, with the exception of my off the cuff sentence in paranthesis using libertarian-conservative fusionism as an example of libertarianism being fused with values that undermine it. Note that this was being used as one example out of many possible ones.
I fully agree with the statement that 99% of communists are not libertarians. Communists tend to advocate mob violence and engage in knee-jerk anti-propertarianism (although where I differ with your average anarcho-capitalist is that I would equally critisize capitalists for tending to engage in knee-jerk anti-leftism). The statement that "all non-libertarian anarchists are socialist", however, is simply false. Nihilistic perhaps, but no, you are setting up a sweeping generalization yourself now. I know of numerous anarchists who are neither socialist or libertarian. Stirnerites, for example, are quite hostile to secular humanism, socialism and marxism, yet they also reject natural rights and ethics.
Furthermore, despite your aesthetically based dislike for anything that is labeled or associated with "socialism", there is such thing as a libertarian socialist. Some of these self-proclaimed libertarian socialists indeed may be just closet statists at best (like Chomsky and Zinn), but this by no means should condemn all libertarian socialists by guilt through association or by mere similarity in labels. My analysis, in fact, is quite neutral, while yours is biased. I only distinguish libertarian anarchism from non-libertarian anarchism and libertarian non-anarchism from libertarian anarchism. I made no endorsement of any particular view in that post. So your riculous motivatd attempts to slander me whenever I post something is really getting dumb here.
JackSkylark: Strict anarchists (no libertarian/Capitalist viewpoint) usually have no regard for property rights (i.e. communists), but tend not to truly follow their "anti-state views". Libertarians are Anarchists with strong appeal to property rights (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism). Though I usually refer to myself as an Anarchist, and then elaborate from there.
See, I reject a conflation between libertarianism and capitalism, and fully support property rights. So your analysis cannot possibly be accurate when it is blatantly defied by numerous people in the anarchist movement who are neither commuinists or ancaps. To act as if one's choices are between ancom and ancap is misleading. There are mutualist criticisms of marxism and communism and there are anarcho-capitalist criticisms of corporatism, so it's not as black and white as some may be lead to believe.
Then I believe we are arguing semantics.
We can define anarchy in three ways (at least as far as I can see). 1) apeal to property 2) the absence of property, or 3) the demand of people acting as a pendulum between the two. As to what we call these, I don't really care, but I see that definition must be determined on the lines of property. Unless, of course, I missed the whole point of your post.
JackSkylark: Then I believe we are arguing semantics. We can define anarchy in three ways (at least as far as I can see). 1) apeal to property 2) the absence of property, or 3) the demand of people acting as a pendulum between the two. As to what we call these, I don't really care, but I see that definition must be determined on the lines of property. Unless, of course, I missed the whole point of your post.
While property is certainly an important aspect of a free society, it sounds to me like you're using it as the first principle when it clearly is not. Defining anarchism as either "appeal to property" or "the abscence of property" both make no sense to me. The total absence of property as a phenomenon is essentially equivolent to the total absence of survival, and the appeal to property can vary from authoritarian to libertarian in its nature. One can appeal to property to justify authoritarianism and one can appeal to property to justify liberty. One can appeal to the property of a thief and one can appeal to the property of a producer. Hence, both "pro-property" and "anti-property" as absolutes are nonsensical.
Frankly, alot of the tension is semantics and unecessary conflict. For example, Proudhon's mutualism favors worker's ownership of the means of production in terms of an individual worker owning their own means of production (put in simple terms: I own my own tools, hence I don't need to rent your tools), which is technically a form of individual proprietorship. Note that this differs significantly from communism which either advocates collective worker ownership (which roughly describes Bakunin's anarcho-collectivism) or goes further and advocates absolute collective ownership instead of worker ownership (which roughly describes Kropotkin's anarcho-communism). A base (contextual) support for private property is actually quite explicit in the mutualist view. Proudhon explicitly rejected communism and marxism and thought that in a certain context private property is the only counterweight to arbitrary power.
In either case, there is nothing about this (mutualism, or even anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism per se) that contradicts libertarianism so long as it isn't used as an absolute norm enforcable through the initiation of violence, and hence is treated as one possible option to pursue out of multiple options in a voluntary society. In turn, this probably means on a smaller scale, not as something applicable to an entire society or community per se. The problem comes into play when people do advocate them normatively and violently, at which point it devolves into statism all over again. This problem applies equally to anarcho-capitalism, which should be regaurded as only one possible model for a free society or one possible model representing a particular segment of a free society, not that society as such.
Brainpolice:One can appeal to property to justify authoritarianism and one can appeal to property to justify liberty.
Equivocation.
Brainpolice:In either case, there is nothing about this (mutualism, or even anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism per se) that contradicts libertarianism so long as it isn't used as an absolute norm enforcable through the initiation of violence, and hence is treated as one possible option to pursue out of multiple options in a voluntary society.
There is, in the sense that without the state these individuals would have to choose between their favoured form of organization and prosperity, as opposed to say, merely blogging about it. Since we all know where anarcho communism would lead (clue: not to a post scarcity society).
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:One can appeal to property to justify authoritarianism and one can appeal to property to justify liberty. Equivocation. Brainpolice:In either case, there is nothing about this (mutualism, or even anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism per se) that contradicts libertarianism so long as it isn't used as an absolute norm enforcable through the initiation of violence, and hence is treated as one possible option to pursue out of multiple options in a voluntary society. There is, in the sense that without the state these individuals would have to choose between their favoured form of organization and prosperity, as opposed to say, merely blogging about it. Since we all know where anarcho communism would lead (clue: not to a post scarcity society).
That does not make them contradict libertarianism, it only has to do with your own preferance based on utility concerns. So long as they are pursued voluntarily, they are compatible with libertarianism, regaurdless of utility concerns. Furthermore, the mutualists in particular are not advocating anything that completely undermines prosperity. Unless you wish to conflate vertical integration as such as being the source of prosperity, which would be a ridiculous claim.