I think it is
I got into a discussion about it with a person on some forum and he doesn’t believe me when I tell him that Anarchocapitalism is Libertarianism and asked me this:
Perhaps I am wrong — please define and explain anarchocapitalism and how this is a part of libertarian theory. Please do not cut and paste from Anarchocapitalist sources to accomplish this. Show me how the libertarians recognize these people as within the tent.
How do I convince this person that it is?
Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion ends up with no involuntary authority. This is essentially anarcho-capitalism, although all libertarians are fine with voluntary mutual or social societies. They might think it economically unsound, but they will have no problem with it, so long as it doesn’t involve coercion.
So yes, most Anarcho-Capitalists would describe themselves as libertarians as well.
I said something along those lines earlier, I think the key here and what I need help with is
“Show me how the libertarians recognize these people as within the tent”
If he is so closeminded as to only believe sources from a certain group of people, there is not much you can do
How is he defining Libertarianism?
No, but it’s close. Just as anarcho-capitalism is a subtype of anarchism, it is also a subtype of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the belief that liberty is the primary political virtue, conjoined with the belief in capitalism. But libertarians don’t necessarily deny the legitimacy of the State as an institution - most believe that a minimal State is necessary to provide defense services. This minimal State, sometimes called “the nightwatchman State,” is a government that provides only three things: police, courts, and defense against foreign invasion. This means that no government redistribution of wealth or regulation of the market is allowed. Anarcho-capitalists, therefore, hold the same values as minarchist libertarians, but take it to the logical conclusion: even a minimal State is too authoritarian. If government monopoly is bad for all other services, how can it suddenly be okay for the provision of defense? In short, an anarcho-capitalist is a radical libertarian. He rejects minarchism for anarchism.
I would be more likely to argue the opposite, namely show me how anything other than anarchocapitalism is truely libertarian. I’m not saying I feel that way it’s just I would lean more in that direction than I would in the direction of your internet-adversary. I suppose I’m just trying to point out that this guy is quite clearly being closed minded and seemingly illinformed about a few things.
Um, Rothbard, i.e. Mr Libertarian, the guy who popularized the term, was an anarcho-capitalist. Is your fellow discussant ignorant, malicious or stupid? Libertarianism/Objectivism, as in respect for property rights and allowing only thoroughly voluntary transactions to be enacted, logically entails anarchism.
I wouldn’t call it “Libertarianism/Objectivism”
Objectivists believe one can ethically initiate coercion in some circumstances
Anarcho-capitalism is an economic organization of the production of security. It implies that free individuals, households, corporations and so on, will purchase security from specialist capitalists who will make investments in increasing security and peace.
What I posted was lazy.
It is a form of Libertarianism, yes. Anarcho-Capitalism came out of it.
Libertarianism is built on the foundations of the non aggression axiom and Lockean homesteading private property rights.
So is Anarcho-Capitalism. Except it is consistent, whilst Libertarianism is not.
Just as you are not a Libertarian if you support war (violate non aggression axiom and private property), the State also violates both these consistently.
There is forever a war against the people.
I guess you could claim they’re not real libertarian’s? lol. Anarcho-capitalists fit the profile.
Actually anarcho-capitalism is as old as classical liberalism. As a matter of fact ancap is radical (classical) liberalism.
Gustave de Molinari - The Production of Security - 1849
Yeah, in the case of tyrannic regimes. I’m not sure that counts as “initiation” of coercion though. The problem is what they tend to count as that, rather than the legitimacy of the concept, and they often use it as a pretext to jusitfy any and every war they like.
They seem to have missed the basic libertarian insight that war requires central planning and is a form of socialism. Oh, but never let logic and reality
interfere with your desires.
Well Rand believed it ought to be financed voluntarily. I’m not sure about her disciples’ views.