Nixon was America’s last liberal President, according to Chomsky. He created OSHA and the EPA, signed Title IX, went to China, ended a stupid quagmire of a war, and did all manner of the kinds of lefty things Establishment Republicans were capable of before Reagan’s Conservative Movement shoved them out of the party. He had wonderful policy right up to the point he went absolutely bugfuck on paranoia and lust for power.
He also won 1972 in the biggest landslide (margin of popular votes) anyone alive then is ever likely to see in a Presidential election, making Watergate utterly pointless. (The man carried 49 states!) He threw his entire career away trying to rig something that was already a sure thing for him to win.
So I probably come off as Nixon’s last supporter here; my point is, there are a lot of people who are thoroughly flawed and fallible human beings who are still amazing at their jobs. Nixon was one of them. Maybe if he’d had a better circle of advisers…
And this is why I only had two options: I explicitly said “In your mind”. The alternative was for me to ferret out a long list of possible definitions, try to cogently distill them to however long poll options here can be, and spend the thread attempting to explain Bakunin and Proudhon while ducking criticism for all the definitions I missed.
We’ve had several threads like that on this board, you’re welcome to search for them, I for one am not going to rehash them again, except suffice to say global anarchism isn’t currently workable.
Except for the fact we already have it, if you define it correctly…
[spoiler]Think at the level of sovereign states, which are (pretty much by definition) beholden to no higher powers and act entirely on their own, possibly under the influence of treaties they entered into voluntarily and can revoke unilaterally without having to face consequences any worse than what their peers impose on them, as opposed to having to submit to the jurisdiction of a court the way one of their citizens would.
This is a debatable proposition, but I don’t know that it’s been refuted.[/spoiler]
I was giving Rand Rover the benefit of the doubt by not saying, “everyone to the left of* Reagan.*” I guess I should have used a less demonized figure, like Eisenhower or Geo. H.W. Bush.
Oh, and I agree that “anarchy” in the sense of a lack of legitimate or controlling authority, is the reality at the top level. But idealistic egalitarian anarchism is quite different.
In many ways libertarians have similar perspectives to conservatives (i.e. limited governmental role in citizens’ daily lives) but with a twist that strikes me as more liberal, as they tend to support personal freedom and choice.
If anything, anarchy is a subset of libertarianism, not the other way around. Anarchy is the point where libertarianism’s small government is taken all the way to the extreme a non-existent government.
But, really, they are different philosophies that just happen to share some of the same problems in common. The only real way to make libertarianism work is to remove a lot of what makes it special. Most people who call themselves moderate libertarians could easily be otherwise classified as moderate something else, or that same something else with libertarian leanings.
I voted no. While the concepts can be somewhat fuzzy (even among anarchists and libertarians) I feel that overall there is a significant difference.
Libertarians, in general, want a functioning government that is able to enforce a small set of laws. Anarchists are opposed to all government and laws.
IMHO, the biggest difference between (the most common interpretations of) libertarianism and anarchism is that libertarians are strong individualists, while anarchism is collectivist. Or to put it another way, anarchists believe no one should have property while libertarians believe everyone should have property; sort of what Hilaire Belloc described as Collectivism vs. Distributism.
let’s just make one thing clear - when anarchists say “Property” we mean real estate, not your television. No-one should outright own land, or the resources on it, kind of thing. But your stuff is still your own stuff.
You lease the land from the common weal as long as you use it for your house - or, hell, even to build your for-profit business premises on. But you never own the land.