Anarchy and libertarianism

If you were asked to distinguish between anarchy and libertarianism (are they different?), how would you approach it? From an economic viewpoint or a law and order position? I would start with economics because that is where I see the most massive intrusion by government. This is very apt in view of the "Occupy (fill in blank) Protests" that have sprung up in North American cities over the past few weeks, where economic ignorance abounds.

Whenever I try to explain to someone that a free enterprise economy is self regulating (given a chance), I invariably get asked a series of "what if" type questions. What if an entrepreneur has a monopoly, charges exorbitant prices and rips people off? What if an employer is exploiting his workers with low wages and long hours? Shouldn't government step in and regulate the price, or the hourly wage or do something? My answers range from a curt "no" to a pointless attempt at explaining Austrian Economic theory in 30 seconds. My answers invariably leave the listener thinking that I am an anarchist, even though nothing could be further from the truth. The big problem is, that this disagreement often shuts down any further discussion.
True laissez faire capitalism, the kind advocated by most libertarians, has an uncanny resemblance to anarchy for any one who believes that economies must be regulated, that governments must intercede to control prices and wages; in other words for anyone who advocates a "mixed" economy such as we have. This is true of anyone who is a socialist, or fascist, a Liberal, or Conservative, all of them are statists of some form or other. All would agree that some level of coercion is necessary for governments to function. In general, libertarians don't agree. So it's no accident that the libertarian idea is confused with anarchy. 

The spontaneous order of a free market is as impossible to understand for a brainwashed statist, as evolution by natural selection is for a brainwashed theist. 

Notice I haven't even mentioned the "law and order" aspect of government yet, the statists usually can't get past our economics to even hear about our ideas on a military, police, courts, and justice system that includes restitution.

 
Virtually all libertarians of my acquaintance including myself are minarchists of some sort, not anarchists. 

Minarchists believe in limited government, government whose sole purpose is to protect the negative rights of individuals, life, liberty, property, and personal security. These are the rights we were born into or were created by our own individual effort, and to a libertarian these are our only government entitlements. 

Libertarian anarchists believe the state is immoral and they would advocate stateless societies, just voluntary associations without a hierarchy. Doesn't that sound like some regular libertarians you may know? It does to me.   

My point is, there is some difference between a libertarian minarchist and a libertarian anarchist, but I would venture to say they are more similar than most libertarians are to conservative statists.

If we libertarians are attempting to bring about a new world order, one person at a time, then we must include everyone within our fold, anarchists, statists, and collectivists of all stripes, and everything in between. Libertarian persuasion should be universally applied.   

Warp Factor

“We don’t allow faster-than-light neutrinos in here,” says the bartender.

A neutrino walks into a bar. (That's a joke circulating on the web - explained below)

There was nothing more confusing than a Star Trek story where time travel was used as a plot device, and there were lots of them. 

Of course TV and movie screen plays and books don't need to conform to reality. So the idea of time travel has been very common in science fiction plots from the days of Jules Verne to well, the other night on TV.

This is an example of reality that doesn't conform to theory. A major scientific group discovered that neutrinos "seem" to travel faster than light, that seems to break some "theoretical rules" discovered by Prof. Einstein over there.

Relativity theory predicts that things that approach the speed of light develop infinite mass. Neutrinos aren't very heavy to begin with - mass is non-zero, so, that leaves lots of room for speculation. 

This discovery, if its true, is not yet support for Star Trek's warp speed, but it makes you wonder about neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered, and it upsets most of modern-day physics.

Something is wrong - Occupiers with no Occupation

I became an adult in the 1960's (although some may argue). During those years, protests were served up on the nightly news as frequently as people had cereal for breakfast. It was standard fare. Anti-Nuke, anti-war, anti-draft, pro-choice, pro-life, femme-lib, racial strife, assassinations, just-society, war on poverty, war on drugs (still happening) we had it all, day after day after day. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot to complain about, and interestingly, in almost every case I tended to side with the protestors, never with the government program or solution. That hasn't changed.
What is going on in the Occupy Wall Street Protests, well, I sympathize with that too, maybe not the way you think. Something is wrong, the protestors know that, I know that, if you don't know that, well its time to wake up and smell the coffee. This is not a simple issue, there will be no simple fix, no bailout to make it go away, and make no mistake, there will be blood. The system is broken.
The protestors are themselves products of the broken system. Most went to typical state-run schools, and were indoctrinated by people of my generation with the progressive-collectivist bullshit ideas common these days. The neo-cons and conservatives in the media are criticizing these young people for biting the hand that has fed them. I understand that view, its well illustrated in the picture (top left) that has made the rounds of social media. If that saying: "you are what you eat" is true, then surely you are what you wear, carry, play with, or use to communicate. The conservatives or Republicans, whatever you call them, look at these protestors as a whining minority. Well, so were the anti-draft, anti-Vietnam war protestors, look what happened.
The protesters bought into the broken system and are expecting the system will somehow care for them, you know, like we are all supposed to care for each other. Help each other realize our own potential, stay in school, get that degree in Psychology, Women's Studies or English Lit. But now we just have school debt, no job, no prospects and we're tired of living in our parent's basement. Something is wrong. Why aren't we getting that job, big salary, big benefits, why? They lied to us!

My friend Rod Rojas, knows something is wrong and in a recent article published in Mises.org he tries to pin the blame in this phrase: "The big problem with the honest Left is their absolute and obstinate refusal to learn the most basic economic principles." I like that. We're not talking financial literacy folks, we're talking Economics, one of the youngest and least understood of the sciences. It needs to be explained, Rod's article is simple and an excellent start. Who better to continue the explanation than Tom Woods, Misean Scholar, interviewed by Stefan Molyneux:

Libertarian Election results and the future

That chart is an unofficial tally of the Oct. 6, 2011 election results for the Ontario Libertarian Party. Compared to the last election in 2007 when the Party had 25 candidates, this time there were 51 candidates, and we received 19,695 votes, slightly more than twice the vote count of 2007.
Many of us were satisfied that we had made progress, the party had grown, more members, twice the candidates and more interest. Three of our candidates even beat the Green Party candidate in their particular ridings. Yes, we made inroads, but if looked at in perspective, our provincial total was roughly the same as the winning candidate, the incumbent Liberal, in my own riding. One person, the same as our total. We still have a long way to go.

Many of our Libertarian candidates took comfort in the fact that we beat the Freedom Party (FP), our disaffected and embittered kinfolk. Yes, they were once libertarians, and yes we beat them by a large margin (more than two to one), even though our real differences (based on those members that I know) are virtually nonexistent. They took a different approach in this election, deciding to pander a little more to popular appeal, and thus make themselves look less scary. Their leader was aggressive, obnoxious, a bit of a braggart, and not very nice to us (he called us "a scraggly bunch of anti-government protestors" even though he has the full beard). He got lots of free press (as you can see in the previous link), they had more candidates (57), a flashier website, more money, generally more exposure than we had, and yet, very disappointing results compared to us. I wish them no malice, their goal is very similar to ours, but when you act, and look just like a conservative, people will vote for the conservative party or candidate they feel has a better chance to win, in this case the oxymoronically named Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. That's what happened to FP, and they will need to rebrand themselves or rejoin us, because we are not going away.
There is a lesson for us here, we can't make ourselves less scary, because we lose what little credibility we have now, and we no longer become an alternative protest vote. The Libertarian brand is becoming established here in Canada, just as it has been in the US. This is not the time to change the formula or the packaging. Nor is there any chance we will be elected, not in the near or even distant future. We can change the conversation, and the Overton window in Ontario, without getting elected. Our socialist friends have done exactly that.
In 4 weeks we have a Convention, where new leadership may be chosen, and where we decide our future. There are noises among some of our new members that the time has come to get serious, to cast off our "debating society," modus operandi, and become a "real" political party. See that chart up there, we are real, we are also not the same as any other party, its time to accept that fact. Maybe thats what the noises are about. Is it time to look and act like the other parties, maybe? However, for a scraggly bunch of anti-government protestors, I think we are doing as well as can be expected, given how few of us are actually doing something, and how little our resources are. Size does matter folks, and we can only grow if people start pulling in the same direction.