Anarchy

[atrasicarius]

I think the word "anarchy" is too close to a complete abolition of the government, which yes would invariably lead to chaos. What I like about Libertarianism is it seeks to create a small form of government that increases civil and economic liberties whilst eradicating the parts of government that simply should not play a role. So whilst in an anarchic system you wouldn't have a "government" to speak of, in a Libertarian system you would. They would be elected to their positions just as we elect people today.

Yep we seem to differ in understanding/agreement of both terms;

I see anarchy as the natural form of society at a relatively simple level ,such as hunting and gathering or survival-level agrarian societies with no large population centres. Large concentrated populations (say a city,which is defined here as 10,000 people) invariably leads to the establishment of formal hierarchies.



I see Libertarianism as the thinking man's conservatism. As explained by Americans I've come across it seems to be the logical extension of laissez faire capitalism..Libertarianism seems to me to be an ideology of individualism, based on what I see as the human tendency to self interest. It's main weakness seems to be a lack of emphasis on social justice,relying on the notion of the trickle down effect,which is dubious at best.

I think people are a little unclear on what anarchy is. Consider what happened during the Spanish Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution Without any kind of central government, people formed small communities based on socialist principles. Not only did this happen in urban areas as well as agricultural ones, but factories run with this system were much more productive than they had been under capitalism. Inefficiencies were cut hugely by taking out jobs like the manager and the owners and letting the workers run the factory themselves.