i know only a little bit about each philosophy. they seem so similar, and i wonder, are they really just the same thing in spirit? or would you make certain distinctions? i'm seeking more understanding. i know that each has a different history, but i am asking about the philosophies themselves, separate from their manifestations.
additionally, are there other titled philosophies that are more or less the same as these?
i have read some definitions of so-called "classical liberalism" and they vary. some say that it is a philosophy that isn't attached to any political agendas, but other definitions bind it to certain political agendas. i presume that so-called anarchism and libertarianism are also defined in different ways depending on who you ask.
it seems to me that many of the terms people use to categorize each other are too ambiguous, over-simplify, become perverted over time, and cause too much misunderstanding. maybe we should rid ourselves of these category conventions altogether, but that's a conversation for another time; my primary question is enough of a topic for this post's discussion.
Anarchism is an-archos in Greek, or no-hierarchy-ism. It is a political philosophy centered around creating free ways of living without hierarchies and domination.
Classical liberalism is a statist political philosophy where a state supposedly guarantees safety alongside political and economic freedoms. Of course anarchists contest that the state actually provides these safeties and freedoms. We believe that the state usurps the natural safety and freedom of individuals and communities to impose its own order.
Libertarianism comes in two main flavors, the classical libertarianism or left-libertarianism, and the post-classical or right-libertarianism. Classical or left-libertarianism is the same as anarchism. When the French government outlawed anarchism in the late 19th century, anarchists in France developed a new word to describe themselves and their political philosophy. They began to call themselves libertarians instead of anarchists. In the middle of the 20th century, some authoritarian economists around and including Murray Rothbard rebranded their right-wing anti-state pro-big business political philosophy as "libertarianism" or what anarchists call as right-libertarianism or right-wing libertarianism. This "libertarianism" isn't libertarian at all because it promotes the freedom of corporations from accountability while leaving people and communities increasingly unfree at the mercy of corporations.
I'd argue that "natural safety" is pretty dangerous, and safety is the main argument in favor of ceding freedom to the state.
Nice writeup btw.
Well, I come from an abolitionist perspective, and from abolitionist theory, we understand that the state doesn't give safety, it instead perpetuates harm.
The way I read it is as follows:
E.g., not that the safety is a property of nature, or that we need to go back to a "natural" state. My view is that people are social creatures, and that without a state bearing down on us all time, we are likely to organize into groups and conduct our lives relatively peacefully.
I cannot guarantee that there would be absolutely no conflict in a stateless society and that all people will be entirely peaceful always, but any ideology that promises that is lying to you. Furthermore, the idea that people are always peaceful or even mostly rational is not necessarily a fundamental assumption in formulating our views, as it often claimed by those who scoff at our "idealism".
Lastly, it is my view that the state and its enforcers are the biggest impediments to safety in most communities. What genocide ever occurred without the blessing and help of the government of the victims? How much violence do police inflict upon our communities by enforcing the law as it is written, harassing and killing minorities and the poor, breaking up protests and movements? How much ill-will has your country's military generated on your behalf destroying other communities and plundering them for resources? The state gives an illusion of safety because that's what it is designed to do. I suppose that for some people that look is enough, but I am a practical, results-driven person and I'm not willing to pretend that the state materially keeps us safe from anything.
The prospect of individual's having "natural safety" doesn't sound as dangerous in a society that can distinguish where "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. As we face the inextricable amalgamation of corporate and state power I think it's important to take note when technology companies frequently demand permission for location and other personal data, then attempt to justify this by telling us it's for our "safety." Obviously it's almost always for the same reason corporations exist in the first place, to perpetuate wage slavery and further the interests of the authoritarian oligarchs that control them.
I know that many anarchist use an-archos like no hierarchy, but i use it like without a ruler
Additionally i disagree that post-classical libertarianism promotes the freedom of corporations from accountability. It supports private property, so if a corporation harms your property in any way without your consent, it's like any other individual.
Uhuh, that doesn't track. I've seen plenty of communities have their property harmed by corporations, regardless of their private property. This happens all the time in countries like the Philippines. It's also the case in the US. You don't really have to travel far.
I'm talking about post-classical libertarianism, every state, and corporations with the backing of states, violate the private property of individuals. This happens in all countries because none of them is a post-classical libertarian country.
Rothbard and Hoppe are anarchists in the sense of no ruler, so no state is compatible with that philosophy.
But the solution isn't the universalization of private property, but its complete and total abolition. Private property is scourge on this earth that has created nothing but poverty and misery. It's much more consistent to reject private property as a hierarchy and domination outright.
Without private property how do you solve that we both want to use the same resource at the same time for different purposes?
I know this is gonna seem wild, but... you talk to each other?
Bro people have been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years. Read Elinor Ostrom and her book Governing the Commons. As Ostrom says “if it works in practice, it works in theory.”