Hey there.  I’m pretty sure you should research what the primary axiom “libertarianism” is based on is: the non-aggression principle.

shoveitupyourpipe:

Just do a simple definition search on the word Libertarian and you will see.

That libertarianism is based on minimization of the State?  No.  Libertarianism is based on not initiating force against anyone, including their “property” (which we could argue about what is defined as property.  Personally I feel property encompasses simply tangible creations and trading such goods).

It is those who wish to MINIMIZE the role of the state, not eliminate it.

Libertarians are those who wish to minimize illegitimate force (the initiation of force), preferably to eliminate it.  The State is first and foremost founded on the confiscation of  property, both communal and private, to fund its existence, regardless of what the owners of said property wish to be done with it.  The State is, at its inception, a violation of liberty.  Furthermore, the State holds a monopoly on certain activities in society and prosecutes others, even if they voluntarily organize to provide such activities, for doing what the State says it is to do.  So, it’s a restriction on the liberty of association, regardless of whether or not the activity is mutually-beneficial.

Libertarians are a softer (and in my opinion more realistic and responsible) version of Anarchists.

No, libertarians are anarchists if they are to be principled in the Non-Aggression Principle, the axiomatic basis of libertarianism.

You clearly are having trouble differentiating between the two.

You clearly don’t know what libertarianism entails.

Libertarians understand that, in order to maximize freedom for all, you have to have some authority, you have to have some limitations, you have to have some necessary “evils” in order to secure the freedom for everyone.

You have to have some slavery in order to have some liberty?  You have to have some theft in order to have some philanthropy?  I’m pretty sure you’re equating two opposites as if they’re the same.

I’m a utilitarian.  I understand utilitarian arguments for the State.  And I understand the flaws therein.  Do you believe in Free Markets?  Explain to me how the State’s monopoly on sectors of human interaction is not in conflict with free-marketism.

What you advocate is NOT libertarianism. It is purely anarchism.

Libertarianism is anarchism.  Minarchism (that which you profess) is watered down libertarianism.

You advocate for a society with no authority, with no restrictions and limitations on what you can do.

No, I don’t believe any sane anarchist or libertarian advocates for such a society.  Authority exists.  Restrictions of actions exist.  And those are natural within society.  You do something to someone in a way that the community disagrees with, even in anarchism, and you face penalties (ranging from ostracism to expulsion, maybe even death depending on the views of the culture and agreements within the society). 

You are an anarchist. Please quit dragging Libertarians through the mud. There are gradient levels that you’re ignorantly disregarding. Please learn something and quit repeating the misinformation. 

Please, learn something and quit being misinformed.

And yes, from the anarchist position, Libertarians are still statists - even though the state they advocate for is minimal. This is obvious. This is a fact. Libertarians are NOT for the eradication of the state. So your own reply proved my point and shows your own flaw in your propaganda. Thank you.

No, libertarians are anarchists.  Minarchists are “statists” (I really dislike that pejorative though).  Libertarianism is for the eradication of the State.  Minarchism is more closely tied to Classical Liberalism than Libertarianism.  Though, their mothers are the same.  The primary distinction lies in the continuation of knowledge in Libertarianism (from private security agencies argued by Gustave de Molinari in the 19th century to denationalization of currency argued by F. A. Hayek and continued with by George Selgin).

Please, do some research before spouting. 

(via hob-nob)

I really enjoyed this.

My friends,

In the last week or two, I have heard frequently from you that the current financial mess has been caused by the failures of free markets and deregulation. I have heard from you that the lust after profits, any profits, that is central to free markets is at the core of our problems. And I have heard from you that only significant government intervention into financial markets can cure these problems, perhaps once and for all. I ask of you for the next few minutes to, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, consider that you may be mistaken. Consider that both the diagnosis and the cure might be equally mistaken.

Consider instead that the problems of this mess were caused by the very kinds of government regulation that you now propose. Consider instead that effects of the profit motive that you decry depend upon the incentives that institutions, regulations, and policies create, which in this case led profit-seekers to do great damage. Consider instead that the regulations that may have been the cause were supported by, as they have often been throughout US history, the very firms being regulated, mostly because they worked to said firms’ benefit, even as they screwed the rest of us. Consider all of this as you ask for more of the same in the name of fixing the problem. And finally, consider why you would ever imagine that those with wealth and power wouldn’t rig a new regulatory process in their favor.

Read More

—Steve Horwitz

[W]hy not talk about how regulations and licensing laws restrict the liberty of average citizens to live out their dreams in meaningful ways? Running one’s own business is not just “economic behavior.” It is part of what the philosopher Loren Lomasky means when he talks about how liberty enables us to be “project builders,” creating meaning in our lives. For many, especially members of groups that historically have been deprived of such opportunity, creating and running a business is a source of immense pride and accomplishment, inseparable from the broader goals of one’s life. We should focus on the importance of that liberty, not just the damage done by the State.

We might also talk about the ways in which businesses in freer markets effectively serve their consumers rather than meeting the preferences of politicians and regulators. By providing consumers with more variety, higher quality, and lower prices, businesses in more competitive, less regulated markets make it that much easier for their customers to create and execute their life projects. The liberty that producers gain when government lets them alone enables the rest of us to exercise our liberty in powerful and meaningful ways. Simply shifting our rhetoric from the negatives of the State to the positives of liberty might persuade people that we, rather than just being complainers, have a vision of a better society.