What are the differences and similarities between the libertarian and anarchist values? I heard a libertarian on NPR today, and among other things, he was advocating that we get rid of the education system, the IRS, all drivers’ licenses, legalize marijuana and cocaine, as well as other things. Can someone please clarify the differences in these ideologies?
Hopefully Liberal or another “philosophically orthodox” libertarian will be along to spell out in more detail the distinction. But as someone interested and with some libertarian tendencies but not doctrinaire about it, I can provide the following:
An anarchist argues that we can exist quite comfortably without government of any sort, resolving differences by dispassionate means such as mediation.
A libertarian holds that government’s role is real and valid but very limited, functioning solely to protect the free citizenry against force, coercion, or fraud. In such cases, it is a positive good; when it exceeds that limited authority, it becomes evil. The Wiccan Rede, “An it harm none, do what thou wilt,” summarizes the ethic underlying libertarianism; government exists to ensure that the subordinate clause in that formulation is honored.
There’s probably a great deal more to be said regarding this – particularly in Lib’s “Objectivist Libertarianism” which takes a property-based approach to defining rights. But that gives a fairly quick summary of the differing perspectives.
[Broad Brush Alert]
Libertarians tend to conceptualize the market economy and the currency system – the money system, if you will – as something akin to oxygen. A natural resource, inevitably just there, something that would continue to be there in the absence of a hierarchical authority (coercion, people with the authority to tell you what to do). They also tend to assume that ownership of property and the process of accumulating it would work more or less the way they do in the current system, minus governmental-jackboot interferences.
Anarchists are more inclined to conceptualize the money system as an offshoot of the authority hierarchy, and tend to assume there will be no money and no market economy in an anarchic environment. They tend to assume that ownership of property is a shared notion, and if the people in your environment don’t share with you your notion that you own something, then unless it’s the kind of thing you can grasp firmly in your hand while glaring at them, you probably don’t.
Anarchists are more likely to visualize or describe people cooperating smoothly and participating in communal life, very interdependent, and to gloss over the possibilities of serious strife or disagreement breaking out and not just getting worked out through good communication and people’s “natural” desire for a stable free community.
Libertarians are more likely to posit fiercely independent people staying out of each other’s hair, with “Don’t Tread on Me” posted on every chain-link fence and serious strife or disagreement getting worked out via pistol duels at dawn, with no need for jackbooted law enforcement authority types to intervene.
[/Broad Brush Alert]
You’re right, though, there are huge similarities in ethical and political worldview.
Where do people consider either anarchist or libertarians on the political spectrum? Some ideas, like less (or zero) government and taxes seem to be extreme versions of the right, where as others like legalizing drugs and less (or zero) personal property rights are more in line with the left.
Some anarchists (Noam Chomsky comes to mind) refer to their worldview as “libertarian socialism.” These anarchists believe that the state should be dismantled and that people should interact as free individuals, but they also believe that voluntary collectivism is the best—and the natural—way to organize society. They often point to the anarchist collectives that sprung up in Catalonia during the early period of the Spanish Civil War as an example of the type of organization that they advocate—relatively small, autonomous collectives that share property internally, and that interact and trade with one externally. The prinicple of the movement is voluntarism.
For those who think that “libertarian socialism” is some sort of oxymoron, it’s worth noting that, as far as i know, most libertarians have no problem with the concept of socialism, as long as it is undertaken voluntarily by all participants.
This is an example of why a one-dimensional map of political views doesn’t really work very well. Several attempts at a two-dimensional map have been offered (the best-known being the one that uses two axes representing levels of freedom vs. government control in “social” and “economic” spheres of activity).
They don’t fit the one-dimensional Left vs. Right spectrum as it’s customarily conceived. Google “Pournelle axes,” or do a search here for the phrase, for a two-dimensional system that adequately represents their position.
Capitalism, basically. Specifically, whether one rejects it or demands it.
A libertarian or an anarchist can be socialist or capitalist.
The “true” libertarians and anarchists just don’t take sugar on their porridge!
Found a great site to answer my own questions:
IANA political scientist, but I like this particular theory of statehood. It rejects the two dimensional spectrum in favor of a triaxial grid.
The three critical ingredients of a robust democratic state are freedom, equality, and order. It is the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee each of these.
One’s political philosophy may be gauged by determining how one ranks the importance of the three core values:
- Those who value freedom as the highest good may be described as Libertarians.
- Those who value equality as the highest good may be described as Liberals.
- Those who value order as the highest good may be described as Conservatives.
When any one of the three core values becomes dominant on a national scale, to the point of overpowering the other elements, the state is thrown out of balance (actually, yes, I *have * heard the name Plato mentioned once or twice – why do you ask?).
- Anarchy is when freedom dominates at the expense of equality and order.
- Communism is when equality dominates at the expense of order and freedom.
- Fascism is when order dominates at the expense of freedom and equality.
Very interesting answer. Most political scienticist don’t think of this stuff, but hopefully political theorists do. 
I think Libertarian, in your system, would be when Freedom is believed to provide order something close enough to equality. Anarchy is when Freedom is believed to provide equality and self-ordering. Anarchists aren’t into wild inequalities, but Libertarians think that is just the way some people choose to be and the natural result of the market. As AHunter3 put it: Libertarians think the market is the natural state of freedom. Anarchists think communal cooperation is the natural state of freedom. Socialism, Liberalism and Conservatism all want varying kinds, degrees and ways of experimenting with government as expression of various conflicts of communities and elites in negotiations over the direction of society, economy, defense, etc.
Fascism, in my mind, has less to do with any of this than the dictating of a certain moral or ethnic order selected by the powerful. One can have authoritarian or dictatorships that are not Fascist.
This post was intended to provide a comprehensive listing of major libertarian threads:
This is the thread it came from. There are additional links as the thread continues.
Anarchists tend to be 16 year old punk rockers and libertarians tend to be 45 year old middle management. 
Sounds a lot like my quip when I was active in the Libertarian party: The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist seems to be about ten-grand a year.
Here are the Wikipedia entries for:
You’ll notice the As are more voluble than the Ls.
DD