The Rebranding of Libertarianism

[helgibelgi]

Other people become libertarians for various reasons: Natural law, Constitutionalism, self-ownership, etc., and these don't all logically lead to ancap.

I kind of disagree about the self-ownership principle. I think that logically leads to AnCap.

Other than that small thing, I agree with you 100%. I think I became libertarian, myself, because of logically following the economic argument. And by that I mean what you learn soon enough (even with the Keynesian bs) that the market "almost" always performs better than the state at maximizing "well-being". (of course free markets always outperform the state at maximizing "well-being" simply because of voluntary actions as opposed to violent force)

[Aegidius]

I guess I don't get how you guys are using libertarian then. If its not about politics I don't understand how it is different than ancap.

I think the source of the confusion may be the Libertarian Party.  

Libertarian != libertarian

[Coltan L.]

You are free to think of it that way, but I consider market anarchism to fall under the umbrella of libertarianism. In fact, I prefer both the terms "market anarchist" and "anarcho-libertarian" over "anarcho-capitalist."

Yep.  Not all libertarians are ancaps, but all ancaps are libertarians.

I guess I don't get how you guys are using libertarian then. If its not about politics I don't understand how it is different than ancap.

In some cases, it's not different from ancap, but people don't usually become ancap over night.  I became a libertarian when I discovered the NAP, but it still took me a few more years of thought to realize that the NAP logically implies ancap. 

Other people become libertarians for various reasons: Natural law, Constitutionalism, self-ownership, etc., and these don't all logically lead to ancap.  All libertarians believe in the general ideas of personal liberty and individual rights, or as Wikipedia puts it:

Libertarianism refers to the group of political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.

...which is actually a pretty good way to describe it, all things considered.  Obviously, many of those who believe in minarchism will believe that engaging in electoral politics will be the way to achieve their desired government. 

Some will outgrow that.  As for the rest, it's up to us to convince them on the silliness of minarchism. 

 

That seems to confirm what I'm getting at.  If you believe in any coercive political system, even just a little bit, you definitively believe that there needs to be some structural oversight of people being people.

Libertarians are awesome compared to everyone else ever, sure. But they still need just a little bit of state. The statist issue that gets to me more than any other is cops. Or Kawps as like to call them, it seems more like the name of the gang which is what they are. The Bloods, Crypts, and Kawps.

Anyways, if you have men with guns walking around establishing their bosses' subjective notion of order.  I just don't think you really buy into spontaneous order.

And in my mind any notion of politics implies a hierarchy, which implies enforcement, which implies Kawps, which I'll never accept.

Not to make waves or anything.

[Agrarian_Agorist]

I think what is confusing for people is that the terms AnCap and Libertarian have changed over the years.  I believe it was Rothbard who coined both terms, and at the time -in the '70s- they were synonymous with each other.  But then Libertarian became a blanket term used to house both AnCaps and Agorists.  The one main difference between AnCaps and Agorists of the '70s was their form of action.  AnCaps believed in getting involved in politics to get elected and thereby dismantle the state via the repealing of laws -this is like Ron Paul of today.  The Agorists believed that the system was illegitimate and therefore any means of acknowledging the State would provide legitimacy -therefore the Agorists didn't vote, and they interacted with State apparatuses as little as possible.  This was the the reasoning for using the Black Market and Grey Market as much as possible and using the White Market as little as possible; the Agorists wanted to starve the State of Legitimacy(by not voting) and Power(by paying as little taxes as possible) -by doing both it was thought that the Agorists could force the State to expand(raising everybody's taxes to a point of discomfort) and then collapse(because the expansion would be unsustainable).  The Agorists haven't changed that much over the years; however, the definitions for AnCap and Libertarian has.

In the '90s Rothbard left the Libertarian party -from what I understand it was due to the Party losing its way.  I believe this is where the new definition of AnCap emerged from.  The new AnCap seems to be in-line with the Agorists thinking that voting gives the State legitimacy and therefore it is undesirable to vote.  While this was happening the term Libertarian was being redefined to include those who desire to use the State to pass 'good' laws.  The modern Libertarian Party seems to be more in-line with Gary Johnson than Ron Paul or even Murray Rothbard on this issue; because if we look at Gary Johnson he wants to pass 'good' laws, he doesn't want to repeal 'bad' laws.  GJ wants to legalize drugs -while RP and MR would want the law repealed which criminalized drugs -there is a difference between the two points of view: one reduces the power and influence of the State while the other at the very least acknowledges the power of the State.  It appears that the modern Libertarian Party wants to legitimize the State by using it for a 'force' of 'good' as apposed to a 'force' of 'bad' like the Republicans and Democrats and others.  This is the point of contention which created the small (l) libertarians and the capital (L) Libertarians: one group (l) believe -at most- in using the State apparatus to repeal laws until the State no longer exists aka Ron Paul, while the other group (L) believe in using the State apparatus to pass favorable or 'good' laws, which will keep the State in existence.  Then there are some people who classify themselves as libertarian but are more-so Minarchists because they believe in some government -but they believe it must be confined to a minimal role.

I certainly hope this makes sense because it did when I was thinking about it.

[macsnafu]

I think what is confusing for people is that the terms AnCap and Libertarian have changed over the years. 
...
I certainly hope this makes sense because it did when I was thinking about it.

Hmmm... well, your distinction makes sense, but I'm not sure this is historically correct.  As far as I know, the Libertarian Party has always been minarchist, since its creation back in 1971.

[Tom J]

Yeah, how could we forget Stossel. I think he'll make it all the way to ancap.  He's reading Rothbard and he hates the state because he was regular state worshipper so long and he watched it fail from the inside. He also says "spontaneous order" like 5 times a show. Libertarians don't really buy into spontaneous order.

His segment on Fox of “What’s Great About America?” on the military is the antithesis of libertarian or anarchist. This is the only place I could find the video now; it starts at .52:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU1jpWB4-OM

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Wait...did I just read that Rothbard coined the term libertarianism?

[MAM]

Wait...did I just read that Rothbard coined the term libertarianism?

Yes because he did.

[Tom J]

Wait...did I just read that Rothbard coined the term libertarianism?

Yes because he did.

It long predates Rothbard: "The Origin of 'Libertarianism'"
http://archive.mises.org/18385/the-origin-of-libertarianism/

[AutodidacticJoe]

Yeah, how could we forget Stossel. I think he'll make it all the way to ancap.  He's reading Rothbard and he hates the state because he was regular state worshipper so long and he watched it fail from the inside. He also says "spontaneous order" like 5 times a show. Libertarians don't really buy into spontaneous order.

What do you mean by "Libertarians don't really buy into spontaneous order."?

What do you mean when you say 'libertarian'?

Libertarians are different from ancaps because libertarians believe in politics still. A night watchman state is still a state.  Libertarianism is a political philosophy. If you have a state court and a state police force that means you have state taxes.  You don't have spontaneous order. You have martially imposed order.  You have a monopoly on order. 

Spontaneous order as it is often used favors the free market and not a mostly free market. Or that's my take.
 

You are free to think of it that way, but I consider market anarchism to fall under the umbrella of libertarianism. In fact, I prefer both the terms "market anarchist" and "anarcho-libertarian" over "anarcho-capitalist."

same here. i never use the term anarcho-capitalist. but i defend the word capitalism when its attacked. Ancap throws people off everytime.

[macsnafu]

Yeah, how could we forget Stossel. I think he'll make it all the way to ancap.  He's reading Rothbard and he hates the state because he was regular state worshipper so long and he watched it fail from the inside. He also says "spontaneous order" like 5 times a show. Libertarians don't really buy into spontaneous order.

What do you mean by "Libertarians don't really buy into spontaneous order."?

What do you mean when you say 'libertarian'?

Libertarians are different from ancaps because libertarians believe in politics still. A night watchman state is still a state.  Libertarianism is a political philosophy. If you have a state court and a state police force that means you have state taxes.  You don't have spontaneous order. You have martially imposed order.  You have a monopoly on order. 

Spontaneous order as it is often used favors the free market and not a mostly free market. Or that's my take.
 

You are free to think of it that way, but I consider market anarchism to fall under the umbrella of libertarianism. In fact, I prefer both the terms "market anarchist" and "anarcho-libertarian" over "anarcho-capitalist."

same here. i never use the term anarcho-capitalist. but i defend the word capitalism when its attacked. Ancap throws people off everytime.

Don't the conservatives get confused when you tell them that you're pro-capitalist and anti-state?

 

[assasin7]

counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants

I shot mac and cheese out my nose after reading this (painful, don't do it), and couldn't talk for several minutes first because the mac and cheese hurt and then because I read it again and started spluttering

[BobRobertson]

counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants

Welcome to the Fascist United States.

I shot mac and cheese out my nose after reading this (painful, don't do it)

Did the same with spaghetti many many moons ago.

The worst pain was when someone made me laugh while eating strawberry jam. Jam and nasal membranes do NOT go together. I cannot imagine how anyone could do cocaine after that experience.

[Argus]

I suppose that, once information systems become more open to a diversity of people groups and a wider demographic, a key problem will emerge in trying to agree on terminology of certain words -- especially words that often reflect political or philosophical connotations.

As someone who is an agnostic, for example, I often find it difficult to have a discussion with people about god beliefs because we often cannot even begin the conversation with a working definition of this proposed entity called god.

While I am wallowing in my newbie status, I was not even aware the word minarchism existed until recently.  I find it often helpful (as someone mentioned) to delineate between capital letter use of words as opposed to lower case.  For example, I think most Republicans are democrats (in that they support a system of democracy) while most Democrats are republicans (in that they support a representative democracy).

I tend to avoid identifying with capital lettered belief systems because they usually involving adopting a one-size-fits-all mentality. I am still somewhat a student of ancap and while I agree that it offers the most personal freedom, I am still trying to work out how the Hypothetical Ancap Society would work on a practical without a very bare minimum of some agency to guarantee contracts and defend borders. It's not that I don't think it is possible, I just don't understand the nuts and bolts.

Having said that, I suppose that places me somewhere in a murky, No-Man's Land straddling the Ancap Ideal with some semblance of libertarian thought. Perhaps I am simply a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic when it comes to all schools of thought.

Am I the only one who feels stuck in this area?

[macsnafu]

I tend to avoid identifying with capital lettered belief systems because they usually involving adopting a one-size-fits-all mentality. I am still somewhat a student of ancap and while I agree that it offers the most personal freedom, I am still trying to work out how the Hypothetical Ancap Society would work on a practical without a very bare minimum of some agency to guarantee contracts and defend borders. It's not that I don't think it is possible, I just don't understand the nuts and bolts.

Well, I have a pretty good idea of how it might work, but of course, the point is that it's just my idea, and I can only really present it as one possible way it could work. 

Ancap in reality will depend upon each person in the marketplace deciding how to handle their own business and their own problems in relation to others.