Libertarian Vs. Minarchy Vs. Anarchy

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, April 4, 2025 20:27
VIEWED: 1668
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:08 AM

Hello,

This is a discussion that reaches out to the friendly minarchists and anarchists out there, and to any Libertarians as well. I know Frem counts himself in one of these categories, as do online debating friends who have referred me to enlightening online articles and political comics.

I have spent most of my political life registered Independent. I have frequently (though not always) voted Republican, because some of their stated ideals had overlap with my private ideals. Lately, though, it has become apparent that Republican performance has strayed far from supposed Republican values.

As an Independent, my personal value system rides close to the Libertarian ideal, and I have supported Libertarian causes and politicians from time to time. This year, after changing affiliation briefly to Republican to support Ron Paul, I decided to move from "Undeclared" or "Independent" firmly into the Libertarian camp.

I'd say that the Libertarians and I agree on about 80% of everything, and that's a lot to have in common with any political party. When I scrape up the dough, I actually intend to pay dues to support the organization. (I had never invested my green into any political party before this year. That was for Ron Paul. As events continue to upset me in this nation, my interest in 'more than words' support is heightened.)

Now after this lengthy preamble, I come to the point of this post.

I am interested in reaching out to Anarchist and Minarchist brothers and sisters to find out how your philosophies differ from the Libertarian ideal. Also Piratenews, (God help me) I'm interested in your own political views, and how they relate to the Libertarians, Anarchists, or Minarchists. Finally, I'd love to hear from Libertarians who want to speak about the party.

For reference, I include the Libertarian platform after my signature.

--Anthony

***********************
***********************
***********************

National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado

Preamble
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must n

SERGEANTX

Saturday, September 27, 2008 3:12 AM

I was involved with the party pretty heavily through the late eighties and early nineties. Even ran for local office once (county commissioner). But over time I became disillusioned with both the system they were up against, and the party itself. My falling out had nothing to do with their platform or philosophy, but more with the approach and with their willingness to stay on the periphery.

The majority consensus in the party at that time was that our best hope for growing the party lie in reaching out to disaffected Republicans. Even before the Neo-cons took over, I felt that it was a mistake to focus our efforts solely on Republicans. Not only were we missing opportunities to draw independents and Democrats, many in the party were outright derisive toward them.

I found this particularly frustrating because I thought, and still do, that at the core, liberals were more likely to embrace libertarian ideology than conservatives. The reason is that conservatives are, well, conservative. They're leery of radical thinking and in general aren't open minded. Liberals, on the other hand, seem more willing to listen to fringe arguments and frankly, more susceptible to reason. So, even though conservatives agreed with more of our philosophy at the outset, the were less likely to embrace the core values of true libertarianism.

That perception has played out in my personal dealings as well. I've had more luck convincing liberals of logic of fundamental libertarian ideals than I have conservatives. And, as an admittedly biased and personal opinion, I came to see Republican 'libertarians' as little more than conservatives who wanted to seem 'edgy' and didn't want to pay taxes.

I still feel like they keep themselves on the fringe by refusing to reach out to a broader audience. They routinely present the most outrageous seeming aspects of libertarian thinking to people who are first introduced to the concepts. They smugly rebuff the concerns that liberals have for minorities and the underprivileged. They refuse to accept that different people have different concerns and consider it beneath them to repackage their message to address those concerns.

At this point I think that all players not enamored with the Republocrats need to join forces and bust up their fixed game. None of the other parties or independents are going to get anywhere until that happens. After things are opened up, we can engage in real debate with a wide range of candidates and ideas.

That's why I was so pleased to see Ron Paul joining forces with Ralph Nader, The Greens, The Constitution party and the Libertarians to focus on real change. Ron Paul saw first hand how the Libertarian party works against itself and, even though they come the closest to his own political convictions, has distanced himself from their losing ways.

This year's Libertarian candidate is a relatively poor choice in my opinion, though still much better than any other candidates that I know of. Bob Barr has only recently "seen the light". He voted for the Patriot Act, supported the Iraq War and expressed a great many non-libertarian views in the not-so-distant past. He claims to have come full circle and now follows a straight up libertarian line of thinking, but he has yet to convince me. He certainly doesn't have anything like Ron Paul's record to stand on. Furthermore he's been openly resentful of Ron Paul's refusal to sign on as his vice-presidential candidate and of RP' attempts to reach out to the broader third party movement.

If I was going to vote, it would probably be Libertarian. But really, until we can change the way the process runs, there's not much point.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Saturday, September 27, 2008 3:25 AM

Quote:
The majority consensus in the party at that time was that our best hope for growing the party lie in reaching out to disaffected Republicans. Even before the Neo-cons took over, I felt that it was a mistake to focus our efforts solely on Republicans. Not only were we missing opportunities to draw independents and Democrats, many in the party were outright derisive toward them.

I found this particularly frustrating because I thought, and still do, that at the core, liberals were more likely to embrace libertarian ideology than conservatives. The reason is that conservatives are, well, conservative. They're leery of radical thinking and in general aren't open minded. Liberals, on the other hand, seem more willing to listen to fringe arguments and frankly, more susceptible to reason. So, even though conservatives agreed with more of our philosophy at the outset, the were less likely to embrace the core values of true libertarianism.

There ya go. For what it's worth, I tend to vote pretty consistently Democratic, but the Libertarians have got my attention lately.

Don't know if it makes you feel any better, but I'm one person who's somewhat validated your theory.

I've just gotten so frustrated with the status quo that at this point, I'd have to label myself as an "Anti" - whatever party you've got in power, I'm pretty much against them. I'm ready to shake things up, and if that means voting AGAINST the major parties, so be it.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, September 27, 2008 3:46 AM

I am a Kropotkinist, with leanings toward Mutualism in the Contract form.
However, I am not in agreement with socialism as a base model foundation.

Basic Tenets ?

1. I own me, not the State, nor any person or collective thereof - what I do to and for myself is my own business if it has no substantive impact* on another and is therefore beyond the realm and scope of anyone else to interfere with in any way, and to do so constitutes an act of violence against me.

*And I MEAN substantive impact, don't bring in arguements like my presence lessens the available oxygen for others or similar petty ridiculousness.

2. Anything I produce with my own labor and materials belongs to me - I don't care if it's your goddamn design or your patented concept, it's MINE, I built it with my own labor and materials, and what I do with it, up to and including sale is my own right, and nobody is "entitled" to a cut of the production or proceeds because they did not lend their labor or materials to it's construction.

Attempting to collect such by force or coercion is an act of violence against me.

Now, if I CHOOSE to offer a cut in exchange for other services or product, that is wholly MY decision - if I CHOOSE to offer a collective a cut of my income in order to produce and maintain infrastructure, for example, that is operationally under the mutual-contract philosophy.

3. Anything I produce with my own labor and your materials, you owe me a cut of the proceeds relative to how much my labor increased the value of those materials, and to short me on that is both robbery and an act of violence against me.

4. Anything you sell me, that I bought and paid for, I now own - what I do with it, is my business alone, and any attempt to control how I view or use said product is an act of violence against me.

5. I reserve the right to defend myself, my property or respond to acts of violence against me with force, up to and including lethal force if in my sole judgement the situation calls for it, and provided the engagement is between me and those in aggression against me or my property, no one else has the right to intervene barring collateral damage to their property caused by me personally.

In practice, for reasons already expressed, the Libertarian ideal is acceptable so long as the five tenets above are fully respected, cause for a fact humanity as a whole is just not socially, mentally and emotionally adapted well enough to go around removing the structures on which they have based their civilizations.

Perhaps some day, but not this day.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, January 2, 2022 5:41 AM

'I Predicted the Culture Wars Would End in 2021. Oops.'

https://news.yahoo.com/predicted-culture-wars-end-2021-120045615.html

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, August 14, 2022 8:07 PM

So how did Fagboy Fremdfirma turn into the islamist apologist who would make Death Threats to his fellow Americans because they would not vote for Hillary?

Is Cancel Culture Toxic? Intelligence Squared Debate
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/07/19/is_cancel_culture_t
oxic_intelligence_squared_debate.html#!

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, August 29, 2022 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
'I Predicted the Culture Wars Would End in 2021. Oops.'

https://news.yahoo.com/predicted-culture-wars-end-2021-120045615.html

The culture wars will never end until Social Media is destroyed. And that's only going to happen if The People decide they want it outlawed.

Check out the studies on polarization due to the rise of social media. Not only will it never end, but it's only going to get worse.

What a dumb prediction. Read a book.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, April 4, 2025 8:27 PM

in Canada the Anti-Bush anarchy crowd jumps the shark as they join BLM riots and anarchists in Quebec City

'Soft Power' is over?

Tangled Live-Action Remake Put on Pause at Disney
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/tangled-live-actio
n-remake-pause-disney-1236180940/

Ian Bremmer: the british didn’t understand what brexit meant for their economy. but they wanted it, they voted for it, and they’ve gotten it. now it’s the Americans’ turn.
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1907777067673870552

Israeli Lawsuits Target Americans
https://consortiumnews.com/2025/04/02/israeli-lawsuits-target-american
s/