Newbies

Re: Anarchy, what's the difference?

thepaintballer45 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:02:15 GMT

lol... I'm sure they could if you let them. The first time I saw the title "anarcho-communism" I knew that socialists really could pervert anything if you let them. I mean, how is anarcho-communism not an oxymoron? The two simply cannot go together unless you're using a very incorrect and perverted definition of anarchy.

Edit: I say that... assuming that "communism" is not simply a community working together. A community willingly working together and providing for each other is all fine and dandy, but if they're doing it freely and willingly, then it's not really "communism", right? I think anarcho-communism doctrine is quite against personal property, so, again, not very anarchish in the sense that I use the word in.

Re: Anarchy, what's the difference?

Conza88 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:59:29 GMT

thepaintballer45:

Thanks for the link to the article, Conza88. I really like that article. I guess, regardless of what I call myself, I just need to remember that I don't really fit into any stereotype and that I should probably always define what I mean regardless of a words "true" meaning.

Edit: Well, I've decided to change my "political views" to "fu** if I know what to call it". I think it will probably stay there a while. I think I'd be incorrectly stereotyped regardless of how accurately I fit into any political idealology, so I might as well not try to define my political views with merely one word anyway.

I mean... If you completely specifically defined any political view, you'd ultimately end up with one person in the world who had that political view, because almost no one will agree on absolutely everything. Thats one of the reasons I kind of liked thinking of myself as an anarchist... The lack of definition gave room for disagreeance. So long as you agreed on a few fundamentals, it didn't really matter what you believed. And then if you didn't agree, I suppose it'd come down to how far along you got before common agreeance overcame you. If you didn't believe that killing was wrong, it'd just be a matter of how many people you murdered before you were killed in self defense or prosecuted in private court. And I'm rambling again... So I'll stop.

What about anarcho-capitalist? I used to think the same thing, i.e there is no ideology that fits mine, got a bit of everything. Well anarcho-capitalism, hits it on the head. All the logical goodness, in one label. I'd also love to see the socialists try corrupt that word!

Re: Anarchy, what's the difference?

Stranger — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:25:38 GMT

thepaintballer45:

Stranger, thanks for the quick reply as well. Let me see if I understand you correctly... You're saying that Libertarians in the American tradition were actually conservative independents, meaning they had a great concern for security of liberty, property, and established civilization, but didn't necessarily believe that elimination of an established government was necessary for this, so they were not anarchists in that sense?

Well if you read a lot of Rothbard, you'll eventually run into the story of how he became an "anarchist", and the argument he heard went along the lines of if you allow an exception to the market for security, then why not also allow an exception for medical care or television? That's how he was converted, but beforehand he was entirely a conservative and champion of the American revolution.

Re: Anarchy, what's the difference?

thepaintballer45 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:58:38 GMT

Thanks for the link to the article, Conza88. I really like that article. I guess, regardless of what I call myself, I just need to remember that I don't really fit into any stereotype and that I should probably always define what I mean regardless of a words "true" meaning.

Stranger, thanks for the quick reply as well. Let me see if I understand you correctly... You're saying that Libertarians in the American tradition were actually conservative independents, meaning they had a great concern for security of liberty, property, and established civilization, but didn't necessarily believe that elimination of an established government was necessary for this, so they were not anarchists in that sense?

Edit: Well, I've decided to change my "political views" to "fu** if I know what to call it". I think it will probably stay there a while. I think I'd be incorrectly stereotyped regardless of how accurately I fit into any political idealology, so I might as well not try to define my political views with merely one word anyway.

I mean... If you completely specifically defined any political view, you'd ultimately end up with one person in the world who had that political view, because almost no one will agree on absolutely everything. Thats one of the reasons I kind of liked thinking of myself as an anarchist... The lack of definition gave room for disagreeance. So long as you agreed on a few fundamentals, it didn't really matter what you believed. And then if you didn't agree, I suppose it'd come down to how far along you got before common agreeance overcame you. If you didn't believe that killing was wrong, it'd just be a matter of how many people you murdered before you were killed in self defense or prosecuted in private court. And I'm rambling again... So I'll stop.

Re: Anarchy, what's the difference?

Stranger — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:48:45 GMT

Libertarians in the original sense of the word is a cover name for outlawed anarchists. Libertarians in the American tradition recovered this name but what they are in reality are conservative independents; people whose principal concern is the security of liberty, property, and established civilization.

Re: Anarchy, what's the difference?

Conza88 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:33:36 GMT

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray Rothbard

Anarchy, what's the difference?

thepaintballer45 — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:28:40 GMT

So what's really the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? Doesn't seem to be much of a difference, so why go by a different name? I know that the term "anarchy" carries some negative.. myths that are commonly associated with it even though they're wrong.

To me it seems as though whenever I look at libertarians they're basically anarchists but sometimes when I look at groups that call themselves anarchists, they aren't really anarchists, they're something else using the name just because they happen to be against some sort of establishment. I guess that's how anarchy got it's bad name and all of the myths associated with it.

I guess my question is, am I missing some sort of important difference between libertarianism and anarchy? I keep feeling like I'm some sort of mixture between libertarian, anarchist and juris naturalist. I can't seem to settle on any name that fits me. :( I've been calling myself a New Anarchist because that way I can simply define it however I want and don't have to worry about being stereotyped.

Also, if libertarians are more or less anarchists, then how is there a libertarian political party that has a man run for president. If they're more or less anarchists, then how could they participate in a government?