CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
6
Minarchist. Anarchist.
Debate Score:20
Arguments:13
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Minarchist. (7)
 
 Anarchist. (6)

Debate Creator

SitaraMusica(536) pic



Is the Libertarian Party minarchist or anarchist?

I say that it is minarchist in nature because it supports minimum government while anarchists support no government. I am a former anarchist. I used to oppose all forms of government. I am a minarchist now.

Minarchist.

Side Score: 14
VS.

Anarchist.

Side Score: 6
4 points

The Libertarian Party can particularly be both. I hold myself to be more of a Minarchist in regards to Libertarianism. Anarchist who deem themselves as Libertarians can be fitted with the term "Anarcho-Capitalist" which is pretty much eliminates the State (government) in exchange for individual leadership or ascendancy, open market controlled solely by the consumers and producers, and private property. A Minarchist would still like the have the State present, but it's power would only be used to regulate small infrastructural works such as police, roads, education, etc, but do keep in mind that these can also be privatized.

Side: Minarchist.

Agrees. I have spoken to Libertarians who are anarchists, but I myself am a minarchist.

Side: Minarchist.
3 points

Minarchist because it empowers the wealthy and corporations over the people of the country. Just enough government to protect corporate property and just enough government to enable commerce, but not enough to regulate corporations, protect workers rights, or care for veterans, disabled or unemployed people. They want government as long as it acts in the interest of the aristocracy, but not enough that it hinders the aristocracy in any way. In other words: limit the power of the people, empower corporations.

Think of how much government we had in the 19th century; that's about how much libertarians want. Now think of how horrible the 19th century was for everyone except wealthy landowners and corrupt robber barons. It doesn't sound like something I'd like to revisit, but that's just me.

Side: Minarchist.
1 point

You are confusing minarchists with conservatives. .

Side: Anarchist.
Stickers(1037) Disputed
2 points

It applies to conservatives, (to some extent) but it's still an extremely spot on assessment of minarchism.

Side: Minarchist.
Rotbart(101) Disputed
1 point

No I'm not. There is a reason you see more former Republicans (and not very many, if any, Democrats) moving to be Libertarians like I did when I was younger. The end result, though, is the same. It's just that the Libertarian movement has re-packaged Reaganomics as something new and exiting, with the promise of weed and guns (except corporations also have "liberty" to take those things from you, so what's the point?).

This "Libertarian" movement is not a new idea. It is Reaganomics all over again (and that has never worked in history). It is the same Classical Liberalism that was prevalent in the 19th century; that's why the Koch Borthers love it so much. It is a philosophy whose end result is the same as the "conservative."

The thing is, "conservatives" have become irrelevant by espousing absurd things like: science denial, religious theocratic ideals, proven-false economic philosophies, and so on. "Conservative" think tanks know that they have to repackage the Republican Party in order to stay relevant after my father's generation is no longer voting in any appreciable numbers. So this "Libertarian" craze, is just trying to make being a Republican "hip" again. Instead of being racist elitist bigots who deny science, they are now "in favor of liberty (of corporations)," and want to "legalize weed and gay marriage (but don't mind if a corporation does not hire you for having THC in your system, or because you're gay, because "free market" means the corporations, who hold the cards, have the "liberty" to hire whoever they want)." They even claim to want to pull us out of the constant war we've been in for 60 years (but only for money reasons, not because Americans die needlessly).

It is very clever how this was done. They tell people like us that we get freedom, and then the only people who benefit are the ultra wealthy. History has shown repeatedly that when there is no functioning government, or a weak government, localized governance takes place (is that not the Libertarian aim? I know it is. I used to be one). When localized governance takes place, it's really the next runner-up that takes charge. Big money has a lot of sway over small municipalities (they will threaten to leave and "take all these jobs" if the mayor does not comply with their wishes; that has happened repeatedly in history when there was no centralized power in the region). So, the end result of "Libertarianism," is corporate feudalism in pretty packaging. That is the aim. It is sold to you and I as individual liberty, but we do not benefit from it (if at all) NEARLY as much as the Koch brothers do.

Side: Minarchist.
1 point

Both. Minarchist principles are essentially anarchistic in nature.

They seek to significantly limit the power of the state in favor of individual freedoms.

Side: Anarchist.