No Exit: Libertarianism is Anarchy for Rich People.

Yes. It is.

no.
libertarians are just repuglicans who want to smoke dope.

It's precisely the same. The only difference is that anarchists think that there's no problem that can't be solved with anarcho-syndicalist co-ops, and libertarians think that there's no problem that can't be solved by free-market competition. They're both delusional, and in surprisingly similar ways.

Libertarians believe that corporations with the most money should rule over the rest of us. If your company can pay for it, they can do it, and you have no unions or government to stop these corporationss. Anarchists believe in unions but not corporations. There are real differences.

Libertarians would like to eliminate all authority except the unfettered, sovereign right to property, which in fact, makes them despotic governors of their own property. Anarchists would eliminate not only centralized government, but also sovereign property rights.

Both systems, though, require some way of enforcing the rules, which mandates the need for a government, otherwise you end up with a simple might-makes-right form of anarchy, which is not really what either side wants.

Cute, but useless...

Libertarians are typically hard-working and smart people who don't like their money taken from them and wasted (on wars for example). I'd venture that most silver-spoons are fantasy land liberals...

I don't appreciate working for the government for 4-5 months out of the year, having them tell me what to do...

I live in South America (but have to pay taxes for government services I don't use). Let me tell you that their socialist policies have been fantastically successful... tongue in cheek...

Anything is funny if you purposefully misunderstand it badly enough. If you can't understand the difference between anarchists and libertarians (the author of this cartoon apparently does not), then you'd find this pretty funny. Then again, if you actually took 5 minutes out of your day to read up on libertarianism, rather than going on what the popular stereotype is, you'd find the comic rather imbecile.

"libertarians think that there’s no problem that can’t be solved by free-market competition"

Again, ignorance is bliss. So is mischaracterizing a position in order to dismiss it out of hand. What you said above is unequivocally untrue for every libertarian I've ever encountered.

Most libertarians (like Ron Paul) believe in LIMITED government, and agree that there are things (like national defense) that are better handled by the government. There are varying degrees of libertarians---some are closer to liberals/conservatives, some are closer to anarchists---and you'll see a range where, for example, some libertarians think that privatizing the roads would be a good idea, and others don't.

But to claim that libertarianism is "anti-government", when clearly, the vast majority of libertarians accept and embrace the constitution and bill of rights (both of which are formwork for a GOVERNMENT) is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

But, like I said, it's easy to just construct a straw man argument ("libertarians are anti-government just like anarchists!") in order to dismiss them as crackpots. Only problem is...it's not true, and you know it (or you're really, really ignorant).

Ok, I get the humor here, but seriously, libertarianism still advocates a government at the very least, and anarchism is the absence of government entirely. The links to the wikis will clearly show that. At first glance of the two political philosophies though, this comic makes an interesting point.

I do not agree with this at all. Libertarians believe in limited government. They do not want to do away with it, they just want to limit the powers of the government so that they do not take away our liberties and our rights defined in the Constitution.

Also, the Libertarians I know are not property owners and are far from being rich.

"I do not agree with this at all. Libertarians believe in limited government. They do not want to do away with it, they just want to limit the powers of the government so that they do not take away our liberties and our rights defined in the Constitution.

Also, the Libertarians I know are not property owners and are far from being rich. "

^exactly. the cartoon is intentionally simplistic and misleading. Either the illustrator wants to deceive the viewer, or more likely fails to understand libertarianism, possible a combination of both.

Libertarians believe that government is not the ultimate solution to every problem in this country. For those who think otherwise, Republicans or Democrats, I suggest you look at the world we live in and ask yourselves just how well your cure is working out.

Josh, you nailed it!

There are really ignorant people posting on this illustration. I hope some of you did/do not vote. Get educated on these issues first.

No, of course not. Libertarianism encompasses a wide range of beliefs. I consider myself a Green Libertarian. Protecting the environment and the rights of citizens while reducing taxes and eliminating tariffs maximizes liberty for all people.

Anarchism is very misunderstood, and indeed quite a complicated concept which most people have difficulty accepting. Libertarianism is in my opinion a form of anarchism, purely because it is about limiting the power of government.

You see Anarchism is about getting rid of government as much as possible, but like any other political ideal just where you draw that line means you get to call yourself something different. Anarcho-syndicalism is about cooperative decision making and control. But then, at least in theory, so is representative democracy.

Some Anarchists embrace total individualism, some embrace different forms of community decision making, some just rail against real or imagined injustices and demand an end to "the system"

Some "left wing" Anarchists take an even greater emphasis on property than classic Libertarians, especially Anarch-environmentalists who demand that corporations pay true costs for use of common resources and enviromental damage.

Outside of political philosophy books if you are interested in anarchism try reading
distress by Greg Egan
or
the moon is a harsh mistress by robert heinlein

Agree with them or not they both provide interesting thought experiments on what an anarchic system might look like

Anarchism = freedom + solidarity.
Libertariansm = freedom + money.

In a truly free world, there should be space for both.

This could bridge the gap between the two:

Mutualism: Free Market Anti-Capitalism

http://www.mutualist.org/

Libertarians in the U.S. are libertarian-capitalists. The word "libertarian" outside of the U.S. often refers to libertarian-socialists, which is where anarchists fall.

Whoever made this cartoon has no idea what he/she is commenting on. Libertarianism is not about get rid of all government, it is about having a small central government there is a HUGE difference between those two concepts. Libertarians believe in solving problems at the state and local level (as the framers intended). This way people are do not have "one size fits all" laws forced upon them. This doesn't mean that there would suddenly be no restrictions on corperations. Current federal laws would not jsut disappear and it is rediculous to insinuate that. From the libertarian point of view, if you don't like walmart you would go to your state legislature and try to pass a law restricting the things you think wallmart is exploiting. That way states where people like wallmart can have their wallmarts and states that don't like big business can restrict it. Libertarians basically believe in old school American freedom and the benifits (and dangers) that come with that. We are so far from that right now it is scary.

Wow... if any thing capitalist statism is what rich people want. Thus they can pass laws to keep their powers over the poor in the name of some dumb ideology.

libertarianism = freedom

Libertarianism is truly scary. I live in Vermont and This American Life did a bit aboiut how libertarians wanted to work their way up the political ladder in VT eventually turning VT into a libertarian utopia.

When asked about the public City Hall park, the interviewee said that there would be no public lands. All lands would be sold to private people and they could do anything they wanted on those lands with no zoning restrictions. Think about that. No public parks. No State forests.

They also suggested that services like snow removal and paving would be privatized. Could you even begin to imagine the price gouging that would occur?

gfnord: it is freedom + money. However, it means the freedom to do whatever you want and whatever you think you need to do to make more money. If you think corporations run amok now, think about corporations with no governmental control at all: Burn tires without pollution controls? Sure! Pollution controls cost money! Clearcut rather than manage woodlots? Sure! Managing takes time, and time is money! Raise prices when people need services the most? Sure!

Who is richer, the man in the suit or the guy with the piercings, hairdo, chains, boots, and clothes?

Libertarianism is just selfishness masquerading as democracy.

Republicans AND Democrats are fascists masquerading as democracy; they don't care about us. Why do we keep re-electing them? They're both equally worthless.

Get your history books out, young fellows, and read before commenting.

Some believe that there is a natural progression from libertarianism to anarchism. This is because the basic principles that lead a person into libertarianism in the first place, will eventually lead them to anarchism when they are followed to their logical conclusion.

Republicans and Democrats will try to sell you lemonade made with 50% urine. This is what leads many to be libertarian. But libertarian lemonade still has 5% urine. Anarchist lemonade is urine free. To remain libertarian is to learn to like or ignore the urine.

The founding fathers were basically libertarians. Not exactly anarchists, were they?

I'm just amazed at all the ignorance on display towards Libertarianism. The defense of the 10th ammendment is ignored and all people want to talk about are corporations.

And to the person complaining about state parks, not every libertarian wants to do away with public lands. Just like not every republican wants to do away with the right to abortion. Get a clue.

The founding fathers were libertarians? I guess it depends on the type of libertarianism, but seeing as how they gave the government the power to tax and allowed Congress to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." I don't think most libertarians would approve of this.

Libertarianism is often misunderstood. It is not anarchy. Of course there are laws, but they are simple and well defined, and they all drive from basic principles:
1 You own property (your land, your person, your stuff), and you get to do with it as you please.
2. You can not tell/force/control what someone else does with their property.
3. You cannot steal or harm other people's property, directly or indirectly
4. You cannot INITIATE force against anyone for any reason.

Arkonbey implies that if anybody could do anything they want with their land, anarchy would result. Remember that what you can do with your land cannot harm your neighbors land. This is a self-check on abuse, rather than the untold number of current laws and loopholes we have currently.

He is also concerned about gouging if snow removal is privatized. My friend, gouging occurs when you have an arbitrary monopoly (ie, govt agency) that prevents competition. If snow removal were privatized, you would have options of doing it yourself, hiring the lowest bidder, forming a collective to pool resources, etc.

At the end of the day, there will always be laws. The question is whether you want a small number of easy to understand laws, or hundreds of thousands of hard to understand laws filled with exceptions, loopholes, and contradictions. Libertarians would like a return to the constitution for the basic set of laws.

Bullshit. As a libertarian I can tell, that I'm neither rich nor an anarchist. I support a minimal state (also known as "night-watchman state", a small government, but nevertheless a government. There are the so-called "anarcho-capitalists", but they are only a small minority within the libertarian movement, so you can't label the whole movement as "anarchist".

So-called "Libertarianism" is the back door to even more power for a bunch of dejected want-to-be-monarchists. In other words, it is about legitimating privilege and rebelling against the fetters placed on their private power by democratic government. They (or their primary ideologues, anyway) are anti-democratic, elitist and their satisfaction with self-consistency as proof of what they would like to believe (as recommended by their beloved Mises) leads them to talk about "Natural Elites" and push ideas that border on eugenics. See this as an example:

http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp

Of course, these private tyrannies will still have conflict and will want to retain enough government to enforce the property "rights" on which their power is built.

Most anarchists are not looking to disband the government all at once, but view that as an ideal. (Many believe that education is key ingredient to social change.) The underlying values are the opposite of the self-styled "Libertarians", in many ways. Anarchism is egalitarian and democratic. It is opposed to domination by state, corporation, church or thug. People should have a say over things that effect them to the extent that they effect them. Any authority must be thoroughly justified as a necessary evil, the need for which we should actively attempt to eliminate.

The point is this: anarchists want to minimize domination (and hence power structures) to maximize liberty; "Libertarians" want to minimize power structures other than the property-based one which they tend to dominate themselves.

Note: this does not mean that anarchists are completely opposed to property rights either. Most favor a use and occupancy-based, traditional view of property, rather than the exploitative capitalist model. In other words, sure you own your car and your house, but if you own other people's cars and houses, liberty is jeopardized.

Compared to where we are today, the founding fathers would be considered libertarian if they were around today. They never believed in standing armies or income tax (directly apportioned tax is directly forbidden in the constituion unless it is returned directly to the people). America of the first 150 years would also be considered libertarian, as would have pretty much all of the political parties' positions compared to today. Even the republicans of only 40 years ago would be considered libertarian by today's standard.

In america's most properous period it was essentially libertarian (compared to today, it's least prosperous period- at least in terms of economy and freedom). The problem is that federal government has been bloated out of recognition to where the only option now for a consitutional government is libertarian. It's hardly a radical idea, it's been around since 1776, but we didn't need a libertarian party until about 50 years ago when the feds started bloated no matter who we voted for.

Contrary to ignorant views, both libertarians and anarchists believe in government. Libertarians believe essentially in the constitutional american government of the founders, and anarchists want to do away with the federal government (and even most state type government) and only have essentially what amounts to county government. There are all shades in between and at the outside, but that's the gist.

"Also, the Libertarians I know are not property owners and are far from being rich."

And most of the Republicans I know are blue collar. Republicanism (in its current practice) still represents the interests of certain rich capitalists against the working class. Aren't identity politics and manipulative mass media campaigns grand?

Libertarians are not corporatists. Most would prefer to abolish the special government granted priviledges that corporations enjoy and make them fully liable for their actions.

Furthermore, large government primarily benefits the large corporations that support the current system with their money. Government subsidies to corporations are just one of many forms of political payola. More serious is the "fox ruling the henhouse" effect that we see in virtually every government agency that was created with the concept of protecting the public from big business.

If Libertarians were mostly about helping big business, then the party would be rolling in dough. But it is not because we are about protecting individual rights and combating the concentration of power in the hands of any single entity be it governmental, corporate, religious, media, union, affinity groups, or other.

There can't be anarchy for only a certain set of individuals (rich people, workers, etc). The tricky thing with freedom is, you have to give it to everyone. Otherwise, you have none.

Right. Everything the federal government does it does cheaply, effectively, and efficiently. They should be in charge of everything--free of any competition. You guys are geniuses. I'm sure all politicians have our best interests in mind. If anything, they should be given MORE power.

:P

Anarchy is libertarianism for the politically ignorant!

:)

well, its as true as this cartoon!

Alibertarian:
You said "Remember that what you can do with your land cannot harm your neighbors land. This is a self-check on abuse, rather than the untold number of current laws and loopholes we have currently."

Really? If there is no government (federal, state or local), whom do I call if I have an issue? With no zoning laws or noise ordinances, my neighbor could turn his residence into a night club if he wants and who will stop him?

You also said" My friend, gouging occurs when you have an arbitrary monopoly (ie, govt agency) that prevents competition. If snow removal were privatized, you would have options of doing it yourself, hiring the lowest bidder, forming a collective to pool resources, etc."

I'm not talking about driveways, I'm talking about roads. If all of us neighbors want our road cleared, we have to form a collective? Isn't that just a form communism? What if one guy doesn't or can't help pay, what then? For that matter, who hires people to plow non-residential areas of roads? The interstate?

Anarchism- the elimination of all government. In a tribal world, our ancestors, this was the way of life. The blood that flows through us today flowed through humans that were anarchists. Every one of them. Problems were immediate, obvious, not clouded by lobbyists, rules were rules because it was a consensus of people who had faces to you. A rule, for example, might have been: don't chop down the trees in the grazing field nearby otherwise the herd that you feed on might find somewhere else where there is shade to cool themselves while grazing. It was a rule that made sense and it was a rule that was kept because people with faces you loved and knew wanted them kept and therefore they became inherent in you. There was no need for a faceless organization to keep check on you. There are always rules but in anarchism it is formed by those you know.

Libertarianism- The recognition that things should be closer to anarchism with the understanding that we don't live in tribes anymore. With the understanding that when you mix cultures of almost 7 billion people that anarchism does not flow in the blood of many anymore and that we have desperate or exploitative people roaming the Earth that can move on and away easily when they have ruined something enough or have stolen enough. Libertarianism recognizes that people, no matter what your background, anarchist, Christian, conservative, liberal, communist, Muslim, even tribal... all have rights. They all have the right to have personal liberties. People have the right to leave a situation where they're getting exploited unfairly or to have someone to go to when a more powerful person or group tries to muscle their way in to an area. They have the right to keep their money and choose what it goes to instead of going to the faceless people everyday that you may or may not be willing to support.

As a Libertarian myself I see the creator of this comic as more liberal than anarchist because in a way it's saying that money should still be taken from the rich for social programs that they may choose not to endorse. Libertarians today, believe it or not, are not corporate elitists, there is no money in libertarianism... corporation lovers most certainly blindly support the party or person who will give governmental money to their corporation of choice.

Undoubtedly Libertarianism has the ability to become corrupt. However it is so vast in its range that there are a lot of positive avenues to be taken with it. I don't believe I am the average libertarian but for right now libertarians are fighting for similar beliefs as me and as long as they do I will support them.

However I am extremely anti-corporate. I believe in breaking down corporations to where they are not as powerful or more powerful than most countries. I believe most things should be run so that the most bottom level worker knows the highest level worker to some physical degree and the larger something is the more regulated it must become so as to promote competition and ingenuity instead of something like the RIAA just rolling over college students and suing them for not physically doing a thing to them.

However neither Libertarianism nor Anarchism addresses the necessary rules of how humans and the environment should interact. Because it is most obvious those who control the environment control the liberties of the people within that area. Pollution as well as mining, deforestation, pumping water, poaching, hunting, fishing etc all need to be addressed as those who create it are responsible to those who depend on it in a way that is as reliable as the environment surrounding it. The real issue is when are libertarians, greens, and anarchists going to stop fighting with each other and start realizing they can interlock with each other and fight for the real causes against corporate manipulation and a capitalist-demanding society.

Libertarians are NOT in the pockets of corporations. Far far from it. at least today it's true.

Green, Libertarian, Democratic, Republican...it does not matter. All Americans can band together under the banner of LIBERTY! Real American Liberty. Maybe, just maybe, if we all agree on that, we can overcome the propaganda.

I hope.

Arkonbey

Whether talking about republicans, democrats, libertarians, liberalism, conservatism, etc; you'll never get two people to agree on exactly everything.

However, when people like myself say "I'm a libertarian", what I mean is that I want this country to return to the original intent of the constitution. Jefferson, Madison, etc were some very smart guys who setup our government with LIBERTY as their foremost principle. The constitution and the bill of rights were specifically designed to prevent the state of affairs that we have today. In the last 50, 100 years politicians in this country have eroded the constitution bit by bit.

Each person who calls themselves a libertarian has their own pet peeves, and has read their own version of history.

For many of us the problem is that the United States has been engaged in a number of 'wars', yet the last time Congress officially and legally declared War was in 1941. Today, not only are we in an undeclared War, but a PREEMPTIVE war. Whether or no this war is unpopular or winning is irrelevant. Our presidents are trying to act more and more like a King or Dictator, and that must stop.

The 10th ammendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." This was to prevent the FEDERAL government from gaining too much power, which today many of us feel it has.

Please don't think that libertarianism means "no government". It means "return to the constitution".

I'm a libertarian and I found this funny.

Yes, technically the difference is that libertarians advocate a small government, anarchists advocate no government. But compared to the massive government that we have today, they're pretty similar.

Under libertarianism, individuals are free to do business with "capitalist" mega-corporations or with neighborhood collectives and unions, but neither has the ability to force you to associate with them or do business with them in any way.

Most 'Anarchists' believe in government even Proudhon and Bakunin believed in government. They just called it something else. Generally, think of a government that maximizes democracy, federalism, and socialism that allows people to secede from the system so long as they don't engage in capitalist property relations (you can work for yourself or as an equal part of an independent group). Personally, I think 'Anarchism' would make the best government, but the idea is mislabeled. It isn't really anarchism if there is a government.

Really, the only real anarchists are pacifists, since every time you exert violence (force or coercion) over somebody else you're governing them even if it's completely justified(self-defense).

libertarianism and anarchism are two entirely distinct political philosophies.

anarchism seeks immediate remedy for perceived ills, as opposed to libertarianism, which advocates indirect actions such as electing representatives who promise to provide remedy at some later date.

it's direct action vs indirect action

both sides want to dismantle the system as we know it. everybody wants to dismantle the system, we just disagree how to go about doing it.

ps - also, today's anarchists and today's libertarians differ widely on one area: patriotism. libertarian's believe they are the true patriots because they defend the Constitution. they regard many of the founding fathers to have been philosophical libertarians. in the campaign of Ron Paul, the grassroots campaigns focused heavily on what they perceive to be symbols of true freedom. the American flag, the US Constitution, and other symbols are nearly held sacred.

anarchists do not generally display or support the notion of patriotism whatsoever. they see symbols such as the American flag to represent imperialism, and libertarians see the American flag as representing liberty. interesting.

who gives a fuck, it's a cartoon, it's art, art can be seen in many ways, ways totally different than the artist intended. I'll kill all of you.

NO.
ANARCHY DOES NOT MEAN NO GOVERNMENT!
it is the realization of what true harmony should be and that we as humans can make a difference to find it. it is realizing that the government does not always know what is right for us and that we need to take a stand when we know that they are wrong!
it is true humanity.
dumbasses only think it means no governmet because of how the media incorrectly portrays it.

They are branched from the same idea but when you get down to the tooth and nail part of it libertarian’s are the rich snobby people just like bush and every other dumbass that is out there for his/herself and cares little for the way the world is going as long as it doesn't take money from their pocket

Anarchy. The absence of a state/government. That's all it means.
Liberalism (libertarianism). That people have the right to to own their life, liberty and property. (what a horrible concept, eh?)

The difference between an anarchist and a libertarianist with regards to the state, is that while libertarianists sort of trip on the finish line, anarchists wants to go all the way.
A 99% v.s. a 100% state free society situation.
Libertarians want a smaller government (because a government always infringe on life, liberty and property), and anarchist want no government at all.
How to actually make a society work alternatively is a whole different matter and subject to a lot of discussion and theories.

I don't really see what the problem people have with libertarianism is.
Do you think it's morally right to steal? I guess not.
Do you think it's morally right to murder? I guess not.
Do you think it's morally right to rape? I guess not.
This is also what libertarians think.
The difference is that libertarians actually take it seriously.

You can't have different rules for different people.
If it's wrong to steal and murder for me, then it's wrong to steal and murder for everyone.
Then it's wrong for the "government" (a group of people, just like me) to steal money (taxes).
Then it's wrong for the "military" (another group of people) to murder (war).
This is just the logical extrapolation of basic axioms.
Just because people are defined as a group doesn't mean they're not people and suddenly have other moral rules.
Try to point at "your family" without pointing to any member of that family. It's impossible. Groups do not exist in reality.

As for anarchism:
The biggest source of death, poverty and destruction in the history of mankind is not petty or organized crime, but governments.
Every mafia and petty criminal combined since the dawn of time can not even begin to compare itself to the magnitude of what the various governments or the world have managed when it comes to murder, theft and slavery.
I mean, communism itself is responsible for over half a billion dead in less than 100 years. How could you possibly match that?
So, is removing this humongous plague upon humanity really such a bad idea?

Yes. Libertarianism is just modern feudalism. Beware of these wolves in sheep's clothing. They are pretenders, they are NOT Constitutionalists at all, they are quite the opposite because they despise government by, of and for WE THE PEOPLE. Ron Paul fools many, but not me.

If you want to see a Libertarian in action, watch Governor Crist bleed Florida dry.

I only went through about 12 comments when I realized that there probably weren't any good answers here.

Firstly, Yes - in a political cartoon, haha kind of way, Libertarianism and Anarchism could be compared as such. But we must realize there are many factions of both ideologies.

Here's a few facts:

1.Anarchism (from the words 1.AN 2.ARCHONS - None above, no archs, no leaders etc.) can be thought of in general terms (i.e. No Gods, no masters - at all, no matter what), or Literal/Sensational terms (ANARCHY! FIREBOMBS! SEX PISTOLS! EAT BABIES!), Or a political party or organization (i.e. The American Anarchist Party), or it can be looked at in one of it's so called "offshoots" such as Anarcho-Socialism, Anarcho-Capitalism/Free market anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Green Anarchism, and of course (to make it more confusing) Anarcho-Libertarianism.

2.Libertarian (the U.S. version anyways) can be described as an ideology which became a party. A libertarian is someone who believes in Liberty as a fundamental base in society. So the comment that Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke dope is both obnoxious and completely misguided. Libertarians generally believe in the Smallest government possible, little or no government intervention into business and/or personal matters, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, dissolution of cesorship, removal of religious influence on politics, self reliance, lowered or eliminated taxes, legalization and/or decriminilization of drugs and narcotics, and the abortion issue is split, because Libertarians believe it to be a moral issue, not a political one.

Libertarians could be described as Oligarchists, since they do not promote NO government, they promote MINIMAL government with the eventual goal of not having one at all.

Anarcho-Socialists are usually pro communist ideals such as communes and communal farms etc. They are usually very pro union, anti capitalism etc. This is the anarchist of the BAKUNIN variety. These 'Anarchists' usually came from poor Eastern European countries where communism was beggining to take hold.

Anarcho-Capitalists/Free Market Anarchists/Anarcho-Libertarians - Though these terms are not completely synonomous, they cover a growing branch of Anarchism (i.e. Murray Rothbard) which believes that Capitalism, even though failed in the modern world, is the only market system which can go with the ideal of a free, ungoverned society without being hypocritical, and that the free market when left untouched by government can and does function very well.

So what's the bottom line you say? American Libertarians, and the American Libertarian Party are usually a mix of ex-Republicans, ex-Democrats, ex-Anarchists, and a bunch of hillbillies in the depths of Montana who are primarily Oligarchists, whose only common beliefs are LIBERTY, SELF RELIANCE, NATURAL LAW, SMALLEST POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT.

Most American Anarchists lean to the Anarcho Socialist Side, though that seems like it may be shifting. The average anarchist wants NO government, and for everyone to live on a fucking Chicken farm with 76 other smelly anarchists, whistling while we work, and selling our smelly organic anarchist eggs to other smelly anarchists....Or something like that....The more sane variety believe we can live in a world just like we live in now, except we would be running it based on personal responsibility instead of intimidation.

So in a nutshell....Anarchists are anti government. Libertarians are anti Big/Corrupt government.

(A)

When I first met a libertarian, I had never heard of it. I come from a country where being a libertarian is the same is as being an alien, id est. Nobody knows a shit about it.

My first impression was just that one: "Ok, so you are an anarchist that wanna keep earning so much money". I honestly think that prejudices and stereotypes cannot represent the total truth about anything.However, I think there´s something logical about them, because they represent the first impression and are extremelly rich in semiotic content.

I´ve seen some people asserting here that making the link between libertarians and anarchist is basically a sign of uneducated herd. Well, the truth is that most of libertarians I directly met in the States are very well paid people, usually engineers or very intellectual and analytic people. But I do think they frequently miss something out of the equation. Libertarianism creates social layers because of astronomically different wages and especially they do createe corporate hierarchies.

And then is when they start talking about Ethics, Ayn Rand and everything gets weird and fucking scary.

neither are useful,the two type cannot oversee this:
human selfishness will fill the gap of government,if government is abolished or limited,some powerful men,like corporations, or anything else will take its powers,anarchism cannot enforce anything to a man,so a powerful man can gradually be a king

sorry for the bad english

People, it's a POLITICAL CARTOON. The purpose of political cartoons is to exaggerate and mock things. Calm down.

Well, many libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism, and look to Somalia as a shining example. http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?contentid=4994
Granted Somalia's telecoms infrastructure is far superior to Kenya's, but I know where I'd prefer to live.

Libertarians and anarchists are basically the same, they believe that only they should rule, they should control everything and that basically only they should be the government. Libertarians are for small government, the government of the minority controlling the majority, which is the ultimate goal of capitalism, one person owns everything, monarchy, the government of one, can't get any smaller than that. Anarchists are much the same, in order to be truly free from the control of others you must ultimately control all others. Co-existing, give and receive, sharing, democratic rule and ultimately all the people together decides who controls what, when and always for everyone's benefit, the opposite of both libertarians and anarchists.

Most of what's important has already been said by some some commenters but this is a growing and upsetting trend lately started by hardcore lefties:

Marginalizing anything that doesn't fit into their politics. The problem with this type of greed for power and control is that nobody (esp the liberals) are right even 60% of the time but because they act so certain and self-righteous there will be HUGE backlash and we'll probably swing way further to the Right than we've seen in years, and the liberals/democrats may actually have something of value to offer.

But again, the attitude that everything that is not your product is crap will eventually turn your own product into crap when someone tries out something else and sees that it works. The democrats should stick to their issues and co-opt some issues that might help them (drug legalization, for one) and STFU about shit that doesn't concern them.

Misanthropy Today.

They're both anarchist. Though the difference between anarcho-captitalism and anarcho-socialism is pretty clear. All the anarchy means with "without leaders" or without compulsion.

Yes they are. They are closeted free market anarchists.

Uh, "libertarianism" as a term has existed for centuries. Just because the Americans have corrupted the term to mean minarchism doesn't mean "libertarianism" is for rich people. By definition, everyone who is against authority and hierarchies is a libertarian, if you're using the word as it's always been used. All anarchists are libertarians by definition, because they are against authority and against hierarchy.

It's the Americans who need to stop corrupting the word: it's a perfectly good word.

Wow...The one thing I've learned from this thread is that Libertarians are sure thin-skinned!