What is your political ideology?

[erowe1]

You did include two forms of libertarianism, but they're "minarchist" and "constitutionalist." Anarcho-(anything) is not a form of libertarianism, because libertarianism holds that governmnet ought to exist, but anarcho-(anything) does not.

Anarcho- holds that the state should not exist. But that isn't the same as saying no government should exist.

Are you saying that libertarians believe the state should exist? I have trouble seeing how that could be. It would seem to me to mean they weren't libertarians.

 

[Cleaner44]

Sure it is. Local public indecency ordinances. Laws against having sex with minors, ...

I have no issue with such laws/ordinances, as long as they are kept local.

Laws that have a purpose to create moral behavior certainly exist, but the result is a failure. Morality can't be created by law. We have laws against shooting people, but no amount of legislation for gun control will stop the immoral behavior of murder. I support anti-murder legislation, but I would not be so naive to think that the government can create moral behavior from human beings. Child molesters apparently don't care about laws against having sex with minors.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Anarchorealist, and no I have no definitive definition for the term. Fr33 pretty well summed it up already (see post #131) to some degree and that's just my term for -> depends on the level of knowledge at any given number of individuals who may or may not try to make decisions for others or take advantage of others. I see most unnatural "law" as a means to take advantage of others, since the lawless will not submit but will find advantage.

The innocent/pure have no need for law, but are harmed by laws that attempt to bring the lawless to justice, for every new restriction of the freedom of the innocent only provide a new choke point for an ambush by the lawless.

 

[Neil Desmond]

According to popular definitions of libertarianism used today, anarchism can be a form of libertarianism.

Well, I can see where there is much overlap and you could say they have similar descriptions, but could you point me to something that shows this? From what I've come across from looking around they're distinct, in this context.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Anarcho- holds that the state should not exist. But that isn't the same as saying no government should exist.

A government but not state? Interesting; I've never thought of or heard of that before. I'll have to think about that one.

Are you saying that libertarians believe the state should exist? I have trouble seeing how that could be. It would seem to me to mean they weren't libertarians.

Ok, according to Wikipedia, there are different schools of libertarianism that disagree about whether or not the state should exist. In that case, anarchism could be a form of libertarianism, but there's still the libertarianism that holds that the state ought to exist.

 

[July]

The brand of libertarianism that holds that the state is a necessary evil, is still slightly different from saying that the state "ought" to exist, IMO, as it is still always regarded as an evil, something to be minimized as much as reasonably possible and eternally vigilant of. That school of libertarianism, being an offshoot classical liberalism, has specific definitions of a "state" and a "government".


A state is a coercive entity that exists for the purposes of one class to subjugate another. It arises out of conquest, uses force of violence to maintain itself, and is above the rule of law. Governments, by contrast are established voluntarily by the consent of the governed to secure liberty, and are not considered above the law (see Declaration of Independence for example). So yes, it's possible to believe in one without the other, and some would say they are in fact mutually exclusive. Some later decided that, due to advancements in economic thought, that the state wasn't as necessary as previously assumed. That the free market really can produce roads, courts, etc. They became anarchists.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Sure; and a plane ticket might be a means to Disneyland, but Disneyland ain't a plane ticket.

See Cabal's reply to fr33:

It's more like, according to logic anarchism is what follows from the consistent application of libertarian principles and philosophy.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

A government but not state? Interesting; I've never thought of or heard of that before. I'll have to think about that one.

If the government was voluntarily set up and approved without the use of force, then it is acceptable within the realms of anarchy.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If the government was voluntarily set up and approved without the use of force, then it is acceptable within the realms of anarchy.

And the refreshing of the tree is what maintains the voluntariness of such, if that is even possible?

 

[erowe1]

but there's still the libertarianism that holds that the state ought to exist.

If they believe in the state, then what makes them libertarians? Is there any unifying basic libertarian principle that they could believe and still advocate a state?

 

[fr33]

Well, I can see where there is much overlap and you could say they have similar descriptions, but could you point me to something that shows this? From what I've come across from looking around they're distinct, in this context.

Yeah type in libertarianism definition to a google search and almost all, if not all, online dictionaries will show you what I mean.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

matt0611, I thought you said you were an anarchist? Multiple times?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

A government but not state? Interesting; I've never thought of or heard of that before. I'll have to think about that one.

There's nothing inherently immoral about government. I believe in 'government', and submit myself willingly to it all the time. For instance, I will act against a particular personal desire or inclination based upon the principles of Christianity, learned through my family and faith community, which governs my behavior. I do not attack someone who has something I want because I'm willingly governed by and accept as objectively true the principle of individual self-ownership. I put my wife and son first in my life because I willingly submit to the bonds of our loving, mutual, and voluntary association. As such, my actions are to a notable degree governed by that relationship. I've learned, weeded, internalized and accepted various principles and beliefs throughout my life which guide my actions, which is a measure of self-government.

The 'state', on the other hand, explicitly denies that an individual has such a right to self-ownership. The 'state' establishes non-mutual, involuntary forced/coerced 'government' within a certain physical boundary over which it claims exclusive, inviolable dominion. The personal preferences of each individual are of no concern to the 'state', in any of its manifestations, be it monarchy, oligarchy, democracy... even a constitutional republic does nothing effective in terms of respecting the individual preferences over those people it claims authority, as we have seen borne out.

I can't recall a single anti-statist here at RPF ever saying they oppose government as defined above.

 

[robert68]

Reagan was not a neoconservative.

Leaving that matter aside, he put them in positions of influence in his administration and that in turn brought them into the Republican Party.

 

[Sola_Fide]

A government but not state? Interesting; I've never thought of or heard of that before. I'll have to think about that one.

The essence of freedom is government without a state.

 

[Reece]

Looking at other RPF polls, the anti-state position does seem to be making gains, but it seems to have slowed down since 2010.

In 2008 anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism had about 13% of the vote (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=2700&do=showresults)

I couldn't find any reliable ones in 2009 (one didn't have an "other" option and the choices were poor, one just asked anarchism or constitutionalism or other, and another asked anarcho-capitalism or statist or other) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=2875&do=showresults, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=2937&do=showresults, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?197986-Are-you-a-Constitutionalist-or-an-Anarchist).

In 2010 "Anarcho-capitalist/Voluntaryist/Agorist" got about 36% of the vote (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=4010&do=showresults).

So, it seems as if it has mainly leveled off since then (assuming these polls are accurate), with maybe slight gains. The "other" percentage is much higher this time though, so it could be greater gains than I expect. It would be interesting to see a poll with maybe "anti-state," "some form of a state," and "other - please explain" as the categories, although I'm sure there would be some disagreement over the terms there as well.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Looking at other RPF polls, the anti-state position does seem to be making gains, but it seems to have slowed down since 2010.

In 2008 anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism had about 13% of the vote (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=2700&do=showresults)

I couldn't find any reliable ones in 2009 (one didn't have an "other" option and the choices were poor, one just asked anarchism or constitutionalism or other, and another asked anarcho-capitalism or statist or other) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=2875&do=showresults, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=2937&do=showresults, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?197986-Are-you-a-Constitutionalist-or-an-Anarchist).

In 2010 "Anarcho-capitalist/Voluntaryist/Agorist" got about 36% of the vote (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.php?pollid=4010&do=showresults).

So, it seems as if it has mainly leveled off since then (assuming these polls are accurate), with maybe slight gains. The "other" percentage is much higher this time though, so it could be greater gains than I expect. It would be interesting to see a poll with maybe "anti-state," "some form of a state," and "other - please explain" as the categories, although I'm sure there would be some disagreement over the terms there as well.

I, and I'm sure many others as some have already stated as much, do not define myself as an anarcho-capitalist for relatively minor reasons. One could probably convince me otherwise, though.

My main reason I do not define myself as an anarcho-capitalist is from my personal lack of understanding. That is, I have not educated myself to see the ins and outs of the philosophy and before ascribing myself a label would like to be more well-versed in what I am describing myself as. For example if I told someone I were an anarcho-capitalist and they asked me a more difficult question of a certain position, I might stumble on the answer or answer subpar to my own expectations. If I say I am a libertarian or a constitutionalist I am much more capable of defending my position and addressing their concerns about it. So for me, it is a matter of terminology as well as my own ignorance of how everything could or would work out. In due time I will be well enough versed to perhaps describe myself as such. In any case I am for the individual and maximum freedom. Whether you call me a minarchist or anarcho-capitalist or libertarian does not really matter to me. That is, I'm not offended by the labels even if I wouldn't personally describe myself with them.

 

[erowe1]

I, and I'm sure many others as some have already stated as much, do not define myself as an anarcho-capitalist for relatively minor reasons.

Same here. I wouldn't look at this poll and conclude that only 41% of the respondents are anti-state. The only ones I would assume to be pro-state are the constitutionalists and monarchists. Many, if not most, of the conservative and other categories are probably anti-state.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Same here. I wouldn't look at this poll and conclude that only 41% of the respondents are anti-state. The only ones I would assume to be pro-state are the constitutionalists and monarchists. Many, if not most, of the conservative and other categories are probably anti-state.

How can one (logically) be conservative and anti-state at the same time?

 

[Reece]

Same here. I wouldn't look at this poll and conclude that only 41% of the respondents are anti-state. The only ones I would assume to be pro-state are the constitutionalists and monarchists. Many, if not most, of the conservative and other categories are probably anti-state.

That isn't what I meant to assume in my post (which is why I said it would be interesting to see a poll asking if one was anti-state or not). I was just looking at past numbers to current ones, with as similar options as possible, while only looking at the anarcho-capitalism numbers (and voluntaryists and agorists when they were in the same answer). That's really the only thing we can take out of these polls, without looking at each individual (which can't be done in some of the past ones). I suppose it could be looked at as an assumption that the number of other anti-state people will not go up at much higher of a rate than anarcho-capitalists; but as I said, my expectation could be way off. I more just found the numbers interesting, because there has been a lot of change since the 2008 poll.