Question: Whats the difference between anarchy and pure libertarianism?

nbiggershaft · 11-09-2006, 05:39 PM

A couple civil court judges?

I have to go take a thermo test, I'll be back later.

motivez · 11-09-2006, 05:42 PM

libertarianism is minimizing the role of the government
anarchy in the political definition of the word is simply no government at all

lew · 11-09-2006, 05:43 PM

Pure libertarian heaven usually ends in either anarchism or minarchism. I'd be fine with either.

lew · 11-09-2006, 05:44 PM

And by anarchy, I of course mean anarcho-capitalism.

Most other forms of anarchy view capitalism as despotic as the state.

Publius · 11-09-2006, 06:23 PM

libertarianism = minimal government, but government none-the-less with a role in enforcing contracts, natural rights, etc. A very minimalist government, very close to a Lockean state of nature but with some authority.

anarchy = a state with no government. every man for himself, kill or be killed ... basically, a Hobbesian state of nature.

nbiggershaft · 11-10-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Pure libertarian heaven usually ends in either anarchism or minarchism. I'd be fine with either.

So essentially you ok with no community police, firemen, roads, disaster control, water, electricity, military, education, healthcare.

You want to arrange all those things yourself? Seems like a hell of a lot of bills and angry peasents with pitchforks.

Phantom · 11-10-2006, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

So essentially you ok with no community police, firemen, roads, disaster control, water, electricity, military, education, healthcare.

You want to arrange all those things yourself? Seems like a hell of a lot of bills and angry peasents with pitchforks.

Not all libertarians share the same views. Most would approve of government courts (rule of law), police, military and maybe firemen. The rest of that stuff can be taken care of without government intervention.

lew · 11-10-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

So essentially you ok with no community police, firemen, roads, disaster control, water, electricity, military, education, healthcare.

You want to arrange all those things yourself? Seems like a hell of a lot of bills and angry peasents with pitchforks.

No, all of that stuff is fine. It will just be better if it was privatized and not government controlled.

And it'd actually be A LOT cheaper than it costs now, and they would be more effective.

hsmith · 11-10-2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

So essentially you ok with no community police, firemen, roads, disaster control, water, electricity, military, education, healthcare.

You want to arrange all those things yourself? Seems like a hell of a lot of bills and angry peasents with pitchforks.

there are no private security firms? Are there no private fire companies? are there no toll roads? are there no disaster cleanup services? wells? private developments? government doesn't create electricity, private schools, health care is private

so, what is your point again?

ballz2wallz · 11-10-2006, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I have to go take a thermo test, I'll be back later.

Oh I love thermo

Scrum · 11-10-2006, 11:59 AM

How would a private fire company work?

Would I have to pay them every month like another utility or would I need a check on hand when my house catches on fire?

ballz2wallz · 11-10-2006, 12:06 PM

I don't believe police work, fire fighters, or any kind of security or military efforts should be private. Those truly are the responsbility of the government, I believe.

Publius · 11-10-2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How would a private fire company work?

Would I have to pay them every month like another utility or would I need a check on hand when my house catches on fire?

Volunteer fire departments exist across the nation. They function on donations from the public. If no one donates and so they can't save your house when it burns down, you have no one to blame but yourself and your neighbors.

Scrum · 11-10-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Volunteer fire departments exist across the nation. They function on donations from the public. If no one donates and so they can't save your house when it burns down, you have no one to blame but yourself and your neighbors.

So if I have donated and my neighbors haven't, i'm just screwed?

No thanks. I like the current system over that.

Publius · 11-10-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So if I have donated and my neighbors haven't, i'm just screwed?

No thanks. I like the current system over that.

And that's fine, pretty much every libertarian except hard-core fringe people think that police and fire protection are legitimate roles of government. And I agree.

Stylerod · 11-10-2006, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Volunteer fire departments exist across the nation. They function on donations from the public. If no one donates and so they can't save your house when it burns down, you have no one to blame but yourself and your neighbors.

Yeah, volunteer fire departments exist either in very small towns, or they exist along side professional fire departments. You think a city like NY could have good firefighters that were all volunteers? They would have a shitload of them on weekends and not even close to enough during the week.

No, all volunteer fire departments across the country would be a disaster (pun intended).

lew · 11-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So if I have donated and my neighbors haven't, i'm just screwed?

No thanks. I like the current system over that.

No, not at all. There already are volunteer fire departments all over the nation. There has yet to be one case where they couldn't put a fire out because of a lack of funds.

Publius · 11-10-2006, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Yeah, volunteer fire departments exist either in very small towns, or they exist along side professional fire departments. You think a city like NY could have good firefighters that were all volunteers? They would have a shitload of them on weekends and not even close to enough during the week.

No, all volunteer fire departments across the country would be a disaster (pun intended).

I agree, as do most mainstream libertarians.

hsmith · 11-10-2006, 12:20 PM

and how is that your problem?

more than likely you wouldn't be able to get a mortgage or housing insurance if you didn't pay for the fire protection

Publius · 11-10-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by lew

No, not at all. There already are volunteer fire departments all over the nation. There has yet to be one case where they couldn't put a fire out because of a lack of funds.

While true, I don't want to be in a situation where I would have to rely upon the charitability of my fellow citizens to protect my home.