I used to prefer the label “libertarian” to that of “anarchist” because I felt that “libertarian” implied being for the positive good of liberty, while “anarchist” implied simply being against government. This is true to an extent as there are several types of anarchism, but anarchism is more than an anti-position.

Anarchy ought to be regarded a positive state of liberty in which all types of coercion are considered illegitimate, harmful, and to be fought against. It is more than saying “there should be no government.” It is saying that “humans ought to be free.” The disagreements among anarchists largely seem to revolve around what kind of society the latter statement requires, and what constitutes an infringement on liberty. I believe that a state of market anarchism in which individualist entrepreneurs voluntarily trade with each other and with collectives best approaches the libertarian ideal. I also believe that the course of revolution will not exactly follow party lines, and that therefore efforts must be made to address different ideologies.

Strategically, orienting myself around the anarchist rather than libertarian label helps me clarify positions. For example, as chair of the Rutgers Libertarians I always tried to keep a big tent approach (though not the circus tent approach of letting every clown who mentions freedom define our position). It was sometimes difficult to be specific on issues like the existence of a government military or government regulations for government “property,” as I tried to present a minarchist-anarchist consensus or brief list of viewpoints. I feel this consensus approach led somewhat to a lack of direction in my own political thinking. Rather than spin intellectual wheels, it is simpler to say as an anarchist that government has no legitimate property and that the military is a fancy bunch of uniformed thugs financed by stolen money and organized to enforce state interests against their opponents. Clarified ideas lead to clear statements and action.

It can also be said that the libertarian label implies an opposition to certain government action (ie those that initiate force) but implies no specific solution. Rather than simply saying “government shouldn’t do that,” anarchy is a specific alternative. In this way it can be said that “libertarianism” is actually an anti-position while “anarchism” is a positive program. Regardless, all labels are useful at some time because they define positions, but one should focus on the ideas behind that label and not just the name.

I still usually describe myself first as “libertarian” because that is the direction I came from (i.e. I followed the zero-aggression principle to its logical conclusions) and because doing so makes it slightly harder for posers like Barr to connect statist positions I oppose with libertarianism. However, thinking as an anarchist helps me be a more consistent and effective advocate of liberty.

For further reading:

It’s Really Simple

The Death of Politics by Karl Hess

Praxeologically defining market by Brad Spangler

This entry was posted on Monday, July 28th, 2008 at 2:39 pm and is filed under libertarian. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.