libertariansim vs. Anarchy

So I might as well blab about this. So this blog post is making the rounds.

I’ll build my thoughts up around what was said by McThag and a little bit said by Sean in this week’s Gunblog Variety Cast.

Here’s the money quote that really rubs me the wrong way:

Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we’re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We’re trying to end them, not win them.

…Libertarians are anarchists, whether they realize it or not. Even the ones who are delusional enough to think that they are going to get elected and restore the bloody republic, are little more than useful idiots who are repeating anarchist propaganda for us through channels normally reserved for government.

First up let’s look at Anarchy. From Webster’s:

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

I think we all know what we’re talking about when somebody says “Anarchy” or “Anarchist”, still it’s always nice to read a dictionary definition so we can step away from any ambiguity or confusion.

Now just so I can continue this post in an earnest fashion, let’s look at Libertarian, again from Webster’s:

1
: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2
a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

Ok to dive all the way in we need to look at Liberty:

1
: the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Ok, that’s out of the way, let’s dive into the similarities and differences of both ideologies. First up, personally I don’t see much similarities on their face. Still there are many people who claim to be both libertarian and anarchists, so why is that?

Simple, nothing happens in a vacuum. I think both ideologies will agree that on a very gross level our current government is an enemy to our freedom and individual liberty.

Still look at those two, and even at this level they aren’t that similar. Anarchists see government, and really social order as the “enemy”, while libertarians look to preserve or restore liberty. In the case of a oppressive government they seek for LESS government, but in a state of anarchy a libertarian quests for MORE government.

Now let’s look at anarchy in a real-world way. Honestly I see Anarchists on the same level of child-like naivete as Communists. Now I think we all know any state claiming to become “Communist” quickly stops at a military dictatorship where the ruling class lords over, and lives at a much higher comfort level to their working-class “equals”. Anarchy is the political equivalent to a vacuum in nature. They practically don’t exist. A Vacuum is the absence of matter, Anarchy is an absence of social order.

Now imagine a situation of social anarchy. Society has collapsed, and there is no government. Be this a military attack, or a pandemic, or some such thing. Now as a lone survivor you’ll be in your Anarchy “Utopia”, but let’s face it you won’t be happy. Humans are social animals, there’s a reason why most of us put up with the bullshit of living in a city, and also why so much of this nation is filled with empty wilderness. A lone human will seek other humans, and generally when a lone human finds another loner, or a small band of people they will naturally want to join them. Even a fickle lone person who won’t just join any group WILL be seeking out others. Hell even the “Anarchist” who wrote this post has roommates, friends, and political allies.

Now you have a band of people living in the “Anarchy”, but is that true Anarchy? Probably not. What we’re really looking at in the social sense is a tribe. When people live, work, or travel together in an absence of other social influences will quickly come up with rules for the tribe. They’re forming a government, and it is rapidly looking a LOT less like Anarchy. Somebody hordes food, or refuses to help the group they will quickly lose social favor and could be abandoned by the group, or worse, harmed or killed.

Now on the small scale ANY form of governance will work. Most households work on a true Communist system. Small children contribute almost nothing to the home due to their lack of maturity and skills, but reap HUGE benefits. The adults shoulder most of the burdens of the home because they have the most to offer. Older children chip in with chores and tasks, but still they are benefiting more than they put into the system. This is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, and in a household it works great!

But what about on the larger scale. Well the pitfalls of communism/socialism has been very well documented. In the large scale a communist/socialist government can’t be run by the individual members, it’s just too big for that to be done efficiently. It is more efficient and logical to have a group of people who’s job is to oversee the system. You can witness this with the formation of a union. Unions generally form (free from outside influence of course) when workers discuss and band together as one to negotiate with their employer as a collective. Still when this becomes more than say a hundred workers, the individuals managing the collective becomes like herding proverbial cats, so they hire union representatives and bosses who are NOT workers within the collective to take on the large task of managing the collective, and speaking for the collective in negotiations.

Well once you get to this point the system almost immediately stops running like a well-oiled machine and immediately finds the pitfalls. Now the workers start sneaking behind the overseers, they start limiting their own production, and they start taking advantage of the system. Communists/Socialists get only what they “Need” (boy we could add another thousand words just talking about THAT loaded term) so going the extra mile at your job has ZERO benefit over working JUST enough to avoid reprimand. On the other side the overseers begin to abuse their power to take more than they are entitled to. Next up comes bread lines and mass execution for government, and bankruptcy for the employer and unemployment for all in the union.

Now let’s go back to our merry tribe in the world of anarchy. If they can they will continue to add members to the tribe, more people means more power and more resources, but once the tribe becomes large enough, it’s no longer a band of individuals. Eventually somebody will seek, or be chosen for a leader. This is inevitable, but often overlooked as most people preaching anarchy are people who see themselves as a leader, but not all people are born leaders, so leadership and hierarchy will always happen in larger groups.

This is certainly NOT Anarchy, and it really happens without effort. Now how this tribal leadership can go in any direction. Dictatorship, democracy, socialism, or a libertarian government are all possibilities.

Still in the early days of the tribe there is no liberty. You are constantly at a battle to assert your interests and liberty while keeping your fellow tribesmen happy with you so they won’t give your ass the boot.

And then there are all the problems McThag talks about. What happens when there is a dispute in the tribe? With no leadership or rule of laws there really isn’t even a way to DEFINE the dispute in terms of fault and damages, and generally it will fall down to might = right, which is the OPPOSITE of liberty. If there is leadership, rules, and a constabulary to settle disputes peacefully and justly, there very well can be liberty, but there is no anarchy.

So yeah, libertarians may call themselves, or associate with anarchist, but really the two ideologies couldn’t be different. You can CALL yourself a libertarian AND an anarchist, but you’re just showing you don’t understand the two terms and how they work in reality.