For hundreds of years, political groups have used language to maneuver around each other. One group, claiming the mantle of “ideological purity,” would become fed up with what they viewed as inconsistency or inaccuracy of the ideas of the main group and split away from it. However, they would continue to call themselves by the same name of the original group in order to preserve their credibility.

Currently,
there is a lot of debate going on in the libertarian and anarchist
circles. You have classical liberals, constitutionalists,
paleolibertarians, minarchists, anarchists, libertarian anarchists,
anarcho-capitalists, left-libertarians, bleeding-heart libertarians,
and socialist-libertarians, among others, all claiming to be true
libertarians. Likewise; communists, anarcho-communists,
anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian anarchists, anarcho-capitalists,
voluntaryists, and mutualists all claim to be true
anarchists.
The
recent attempt by left-/social-/bleeding-heart libertarians to hijack
the meaning of the term “libertarianism” is easily resisted if
you understand what actual libertarianism is all about: the proper
and improper use of force against someone else. The core of
libertarianism is the non-aggression
principle (NAP):
one may not initiate physical force or fraud upon someone else.
That's it. Despite what the “thick libertarians” claim, real
libertarianism has nothing to do with combating racism, poverty,
economic inequality, sexism, or any egalitarian crap like that
because doing so requires
aggression
and force. The bottom line is: if you oppose aggression against
people or their property, whether through force, fraud, vandalism, or
theft, you are a libertarian.
However,
there is an important logical extension of this true
libertarianism: anarchism. You can't claim to believe in the NAP yet
advocate for exceptions to it such as government-controlled courts,
police, armies, emergency services, etc., because government is a
monopoly of force. A “government” in a libertarian society could
not use force. Without force, a government has no means of paying for
itself (through taxation) or enforcing its “laws,” which instead
become mere “suggestions.” If a government can't enforce its laws
and people are free to choose which ones they follow and which ones
to ignore, it's no longer a government but something more like a
“mutual defense company,” now reliant on the good will of its
voluntary customers. We find ourselves in a state of anarchy,
or “no rulers.” Thus, it can be said that anarchism is
libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

Moreover, as there will obviously be at
least some people who object
to having everything they own stolen from them and then
redistributed, anti-capitalist anarchism necessitates a monopoly of force – government – to enforce itself because it is
impossible to enforce collective ownership of all resources without
force; otherwise people would be free to keep their property (bodies
and all) and do what they please and we'd find ourselves in a
libertarian-anarchist/anarcho-capitalist society. This is also the
reason why every single “socialist” state that has ever existed
has turned into a dictatorial nightmare world.
![]() |
Like this. |
To
finish, libertarianism and anarchy are so compatible, they're almost
synonyms. Almost: one
is a moral stance on the proper and improper use of force and the
other is a political philosophy. Really, libertarianism and anarchism
need each other to
exist. Without anarchism, libertarianism is logically inconsistent
with its own principles; without libertarianism, anarchism defeats
itself by way of its implementation.
Related posts:
Related posts:
- Libertarian Vs. Authoritarian: The Real History Of The Left/Right Paradigm
- When I Was A Liberal: Statist To Anarchist
- Economic Freedoms Vs. Personal Freedoms
- Socialism Is Incompatible With Liberty
- Legal Theft
by Lysander Spooner
by Murray Rothbard
by Lew Rockwell
Please share!
If you can't use force how can you enforce private property?
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking! However, I'd like to clarify that the NAP does not prohibit all use of force; it prohibits the aggressive use of force. Libertarianism doesn't equate to pacifism specifically because it allows the use of force in cases of self-defense, or the defense of one's property. But don't take that to mean that you could shoot a man for not picking up after his dog. There a pretty common-sense balance to it.
Delete