Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Who can help me out?

For most of my life it was important to distinguish between totalitarians of the Fascist variety and totalitarians of the Communist variety. I admit that at first it looked like a distinction with no difference, but with some effort the differences became clear.

However, with only Castro, Kim and possibly Chavez (and maybe Big_Bird on a bad day) being the last living Commies, I have begun to feel I need my political philosophy updated.

When the anarchists started waving their black flags around and tearing down Seattle, I was more or less comfortable with them. I know something of Prudhomme et al rambling on about tearing down governments, naturally good people forming spontaneous little neighborhood committees to deal with local issues on a temporary basis and paradise blossoming all over. I could see where that dot connected with the bomb-throwing anarchists blowing up czars and shooting crown princes. That always seemed like a reasonably good idea, regardless of political philosophy.

I�ve more or less always been aware of the concept of limited government from my study of American history. Over the years I�ve run across John Birchers, survivalists and various antigovernment types all running around claiming to be libertarians, but have never paid them all that much attention since they seemed like fruitcakes, a la Lyndon LaRoushe or whatever his name was. Timothy McVeigh did little to change my opinion of that crowd. All of them spout the word �Constitution� but seem to describe Somalia as their ideal. With the recent tsunami of Ron Paul threatening to take over the US and from the sounds of it, Canada as well, I think I need some help.

Who can help me out? In 25 words or less (my attention span is not what it used to be), who can delineate a useful way to separate and identify the various kinds of anarcho-libertarian antigovernment groups out there--

(I'm really not interested in a doctoral thesis written in acadamese and jargon. Just plain-speak.)

[mithridates]

Check http://www.capitalism.net and go to the bottom of page 73 of the huge pdf document there. That's probably one of the best places to see a clear definition of why libertarianism and anarchy are not similar to one another.

[mistermasan]

you really think commies are dead? these days, big govt/brother folks are commies. everyone else is a libertarian, even if they don't know it.

[thepeel]

Outside of American and somewhat in Canada, a libertarian is called a 'classical liberal'. And no, Somalia is not our goal. Freedom from government oppression is. The government should ensure liberty, not steal it. It is a very simple idea.

The people who want no government are called anarcho-capitalists. David Friedman, Milton's son, is the most prominent of these. I think they're nuts.

If you want to know why this idea is getting popular, maybe look at the government the "non-fringe" "non-kool aid drinking" respectable parties made. 50 trillion in looming debt. Non-stop war. The criminalization of ethnic minorities via the war on drugs. No-knock drugs raids. Lobbyists have bought and paid for the government. If you want to know why people want meaningful change, you have to look at the mess that has been made. You spend way too much time worrying about the only honest candidate and far too little time with the fact the country is broke, in two-four wars (depending on how you count Columbia and the drug war) and government expanding massively.

[Kuros]

Libertarian: a supporter of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank.

[thepeel]

There is CATO, FIRE, IHS and others. Reason Mag is "beltway libertarian" and The Economist describes itself as classical liberal, though I might dispute that.

Reason's tag-line sums it up for me. "Free minds and free markets".

[Ya-ta Boy]

And how does Timothy McVeigh fit into all this?

[soviet_man]

Let me break down the *communist* part of this equation.

The problem with equating communism to totalitarian and fascist 'variety' as you put it, ignores the fact that communists are currently part of the ruling governments in countries that include: Brazil, Italy, South Africa, Uruguay, Syria, Sri Lanka and Moldova (among others).

These are not the "usual suspect" countries and none of the above could accurately be defined as totalitarian or fascist.

Today in 2008, 1.8 billion (out of 6.6 billion) people live in countries that have communists in ruling coalition positions --- the strongest position Communists have been in since the demise of the USSR in 1991.

As for Anarchists, they can follow perhaps 15 or more different schools of thought. So to define *them* as being one measurable uniform bloc in *any* circumstance is akin to herding cats.

[thepeel]

Well, if you want to 'get rid of an idea' but aren't able to take it head on intellectually, you try and throw as much sh.it at it and hope that some sticks. TM has nothing to do with libertarianism, and only a fool could think he does. I suspect yata knows better, but is just trying to be controversial.

[Ya-ta Boy]

So far, people seem to be vague and maybe even evasive. I must be asking the question the wrong way.

[thepeel]

No, a libertarian is not an anarchist. An anarchist is an anarchist.

[Justin Hale]

Would a dictionary help at all?

Anarchist: a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

Libertarian: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

[huffdaddy]

[Justin Hale]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Anarchist: Governments are evil. Abolish government and people's natural goodness will be freed.

Libertarian: Governments are evil. Minimize government and people's natural goodness will be freed.

Libertarian + Courage of conviction = Anarchist

Or to put it another way, AWOG. An Anarchist without Guts.