One of the things I find interesting is that advocates of anarchism believe that libertarianism is the same as anarchism. I'd like to get a better understanding on how people perceive the two to be related to each other. What do they have to do with each other? How do they relate to each other? Feel free to discuss how other political structures of society, such as minarchism and socialism, also fit into the picture.
It is really difficult to say in positive terms. For example, ask a room of 100 Christians to define their faith and you will typically get at least 101 different responses. What may qualify as anarchistic for one may seem statist for another - this is the simple truth about an aspect of how humans operate.
From my POV I would say they differ in one element that I can readily identify off the top of me pointy - WHO administers governance. OK perhaps, PERHAPS two - the metes and bounds of governance... maybe. Lets forget that last bit for this conversation.
In my vision of an anarchistic land, or what I like to call an "autodiathist" culture (from the Greek for self-determination) and unlike the ignorant belief of most people that death-chaos reigns supreme, governance is discharged by one and all in accord with the Fundamental Principles of Proper Human Relations as embodied in the Canon of Individual Sovereignty and similar documents.
In my view of a libertarian society, those functions are vested in dedicated governors whose roles as such are to discharge the functions in question, their actions pursuant to such discharge answerable to "the people". So basically we are speaking minarchism, though perhaps not quite - at least in my opinion; there is always room for some wiggle room in definitions from person to person. That aside, the idea is in theory not bad in itself - rather good in fact, but in order for it to work properly, two conditions must be satisfied: those occupying said offices must be trustworthy and competent, and the rest must be competent judges of official conduct and must be very actively engaged in government activity.
In other words, in a libertarian "government", division of labor is generally NOT a good thing because it seduces people into trusting what thousands of years of history apodictically prove cannot be trusted to the door: government officials. The same can be said of anarchistic societies as well, but a difference here is that in anarchies the tendency is for individuals to settle their differences without outside interference. You rob me, I take matters into my own hands and the rest keep their noses to themselves. In a libertarian society, if you rob me the "government" intervenes and settles the matter, often with someone taking it in the neck. The problem here, of course and beside the fact that in reality people CANNOT be broadly trusted, government intervention (or that of any third party) introduces all manner of hazards WRT the truth of the matters over which they preside. What if the robber is a better liar than you are a truth teller? Injustice may occur, whereas if you robbed me, we both know what happened and in an anarchy I may then freely choose to let it go, or not. If not,I am at my own devices to settle the matter as I see fit, rather than being subjected to a third party's flawed understand and almost certain questionable trustworthiness.
Each approach has its advantages and its disadvantages, depending upon one's standpoint. Most people are far and away too timid and afeared of the responsibilities of living truly responsibly. That is why they repine anarchism with such venom and clamor for the division of labor as imposed upon them by rulers, their inherent corruptness telling them it's OK because Theye can be trusted. And here we are. This would almost certainly be not that much better even in a libertarian society - certainly not with the insistence of that aspect of the division of labor. In time people would always drift toward just that division precisely because the Meaners are of low and readily corruptible character. It's a damned shame but there you are. This may be a reason why some rulers of antiquity were so harsh on some of their people - they may actually have been men of high character and of low tolerance for the corrupt - we have no way of knowing, yet virtually any opinion may be written about such a ruler and it does not have to be truthful, so who can say for sure whether King This or Emperor That was really the vile scum made out by an author or if the pen hand belonged to some lowlife vermin who resented being held to a higher standard of conduct, the written word his cold revenge.
In any event, it is precisely this proclivity to corruption that drives humanity, particularly when gathered in large numbers in cities, to ALWAYS drift in time toward tyrannies. The conditions seduce them into wanting something for nothing and there is always some cretin willing to tell them precisely what they want to hear, to promise them the moon in exchange for their consent, and their testicles on a shiny silver platter.
It is interesting to observe the tendency of people to become morally bankrupt as their material wealth grows - and this is no damnation of wealth, but a clear indicator of the inherent and ready corruptibility of the vast majority of humanity; indication of just how low the mean human character really is. Given this, I am given pause to wonder whether some of the saints were so elevated precisely because they fought tooth and nail not to comport themselves just like everyone else. Imagine how difficult it must have been for the REAL ones - like putting a 15 year old boy in a whore house alone with the cats and expecting him not to indulge his most primal impulse. I know I would not have even considered it. I'd have thought, "holy SHIT... I AM going to get laid before I leave this place. WOOHOO!!"
This is the sad truth of the human race, at least as of this writing. It may change tomorrow, but if it does will the transformed creature still be human? Who can say?
