the word libertarian comes from anarchists (eg. libertarian socialists) however right wing anarchists (anarcho capitalists) have claimed the term, so now a libertarian is a right wing anarchist
I say co-opt it back to its original leftist roots. I don’t mind calling myself a libertarian instead if I’m talking to a right winger who’s scared of anarchists and then just say “the socialist kind”. It’s a conversation starter to introducing a right winger to how one can believe a market free from capitalists (the best kind of free market) is actually not the worst idea ever
Capitalist anarchism doesn’t exist. Capitalism is a form of unjust hierarchy (or if you want to stick to the literal meaning of “anarchism”: capitalism is a way to create rulers)
There are capitalist anti-statists, bit being against states isn’t sufficient to make you an anarchist for above reasons.
It’s a form of hierarchy through economic accumulation. The problem of justice is in the privative accumulation. When we start the game playing from a stacked deck, only a handful of people ever have an opportunity to accumulate new capital, while the rest of us are bound to serve through debt.
Leveling the playing field allows people to accumulate within their lifetimes, and incentivizes capital development broadly, without allowing intergenerational accumulation to stagnant the system.
But wealth redistribution is incredibly unpopular among the people with the most political capital, necessitating some kind of social or economic revolution to achieve change.
there are also people like me who are in the middle and think both the left and right have valid economic points and arguments but that authoritarian rule is gross.
Libertarianism is a spectrum just like authoritarianism.
And this is why I am a minarchist ultimately, we know that there must be a monopoly on violence, preferably that would be held by a state of elected peers that can be impeached for transgressions against the public trust. I am 100% personally for protections and social safety nets, a strong system to protect and enrich the lives of citizens so that they can be productive and have better outputs in the long run benefits all of us. And it turns out it’s generally cheaper to fix problems then let them fester and rot.
Personally, I would love modern societies bring back banishment as a punishment for being a corrupt official. Imagine if election day lets you vote somebody out of the country for being a huge dick head and a detriment to your life and rights.
We know what the alternative looks like. pops open a stack of history books on various civil wars
I am 100% personally for protections and social safety nets, a strong system to protect and enrich the lives of citizens so that they can be productive and have better outputs in the long run benefits all of us.
I think that’s an easy idea to sell at the top line. But as soon as you get into the messy details, you’re going to run into disputes between rival ideologues. And when tensions flare, resources run short, and people panic, those disputes can turn violent… resulting in civil war.
I would argue that the number one job of a state government is to avoid civil war. When you go back to the Spanish Civil War (every ideology nerd’s favorite bone to pick) and you talk about the various sides, their ideologues, and their relative successes, what you are ultimately asking is which faction was most successful in ending the war and reestablishing a peaceful order.
Anarchists and Communists love to bicker over who screwed over whom. But the dirty bottom line of it all is that Franco’s highly authoritarian bloody-handed military, backed by a host of private profit-motivated interests, brought an end to the chronically unstable Republican Era.
it’s generally cheaper to fix problems then let them fester and rot.
When you’re working with limited resources and you have a variety of stakeholders at play, which problems get fixed and which are ignored can often come down to which stakeholders can form a lasting functional coalition.
The problem with authoritarianism as a system of government is that it does a great job of placating a coalition of powerful patrons, stabilizing an erratic popular system through a campaign of military terror. You win the support of capital by making a region profitable. And then you’ve got a ahem “virtuous” self-reinforcing cycle of profits expanding the scale of resources afforded to the authoritarian state.
Minarchy might be attractive ideologically. But if the system can’t stave of domestic conflicts by placating powerful opposed interests, it isn’t a system people can participate in safely or sustainably. Nobody wants the job of Minarchist Government Official if they’re just going to be the whipping boys for popular discontent.
the word libertarian comes from anarchists (eg. libertarian socialists) however right wing anarchists (anarcho capitalists) have claimed the term, so now a libertarian is a right wing anarchist
I say co-opt it back to its original leftist roots. I don’t mind calling myself a libertarian instead if I’m talking to a right winger who’s scared of anarchists and then just say “the socialist kind”. It’s a conversation starter to introducing a right winger to how one can believe a market free from capitalists (the best kind of free market) is actually not the worst idea ever
I still don’t believe that anarcho-capitalists exist. The ideology just loops back into fascism most of the time.
There is no critique of capitalism so it’s incompatible with anarchism.
They’d be actual anarchists if they didn’t conflate capitalism with markets.
If they use the term themselves, it’s just a synonym then
A rebrand, if you will
I see it more like feudalism with extra steps
Capitalist anarchism doesn’t exist. Capitalism is a form of unjust hierarchy (or if you want to stick to the literal meaning of “anarchism”: capitalism is a way to create rulers)
There are capitalist anti-statists, bit being against states isn’t sufficient to make you an anarchist for above reasons.
It’s a form of hierarchy through economic accumulation. The problem of justice is in the privative accumulation. When we start the game playing from a stacked deck, only a handful of people ever have an opportunity to accumulate new capital, while the rest of us are bound to serve through debt.
Leveling the playing field allows people to accumulate within their lifetimes, and incentivizes capital development broadly, without allowing intergenerational accumulation to stagnant the system.
But wealth redistribution is incredibly unpopular among the people with the most political capital, necessitating some kind of social or economic revolution to achieve change.
there are also people like me who are in the middle and think both the left and right have valid economic points and arguments but that authoritarian rule is gross.
Libertarianism is a spectrum just like authoritarianism.
I’m not clear how you have privatization without authoritarianism. Property claims without enforcement aren’t worth much.
And this is why I am a minarchist ultimately, we know that there must be a monopoly on violence, preferably that would be held by a state of elected peers that can be impeached for transgressions against the public trust. I am 100% personally for protections and social safety nets, a strong system to protect and enrich the lives of citizens so that they can be productive and have better outputs in the long run benefits all of us. And it turns out it’s generally cheaper to fix problems then let them fester and rot.
Personally, I would love modern societies bring back banishment as a punishment for being a corrupt official. Imagine if election day lets you vote somebody out of the country for being a huge dick head and a detriment to your life and rights.
We know what the alternative looks like. pops open a stack of history books on various civil wars
I think that’s an easy idea to sell at the top line. But as soon as you get into the messy details, you’re going to run into disputes between rival ideologues. And when tensions flare, resources run short, and people panic, those disputes can turn violent… resulting in civil war.
I would argue that the number one job of a state government is to avoid civil war. When you go back to the Spanish Civil War (every ideology nerd’s favorite bone to pick) and you talk about the various sides, their ideologues, and their relative successes, what you are ultimately asking is which faction was most successful in ending the war and reestablishing a peaceful order.
Anarchists and Communists love to bicker over who screwed over whom. But the dirty bottom line of it all is that Franco’s highly authoritarian bloody-handed military, backed by a host of private profit-motivated interests, brought an end to the chronically unstable Republican Era.
When you’re working with limited resources and you have a variety of stakeholders at play, which problems get fixed and which are ignored can often come down to which stakeholders can form a lasting functional coalition.
The problem with authoritarianism as a system of government is that it does a great job of placating a coalition of powerful patrons, stabilizing an erratic popular system through a campaign of military terror. You win the support of capital by making a region profitable. And then you’ve got a ahem “virtuous” self-reinforcing cycle of profits expanding the scale of resources afforded to the authoritarian state.
Minarchy might be attractive ideologically. But if the system can’t stave of domestic conflicts by placating powerful opposed interests, it isn’t a system people can participate in safely or sustainably. Nobody wants the job of Minarchist Government Official if they’re just going to be the whipping boys for popular discontent.
But minarchists are also libertarians. Libertarian is quite wide term. It also may include left-libertarians (anarchists).
I tried to simplify it, also I don’t think OP meant those other groups with the clown shoes