I don’t think that you can measure importance by the number of postings to a BLOG. Since this whole thing began, I have received over a hundred personal e-mails supporting the positions that I have stated on this BLOG (I stopped counting at 100). These individuals often state that they didn’t post because I had already said what they would have.

I guess I would go along with you if I were to see support from other states’ LP’s. However, I have only witnessed a debating society bogging down to who’s dictionary says what. This went on for 36 hours. I can only imagine what it will be like with 900 delegates shouting for time to be heard.

So to end where I began. If the LP principles are not clearly defined, where is the massive outcry. I would have expected thousands of postings, not 87.

The dictionary is a good authority to have, but sometimes one can do
better (or worse) than the dictionary. In the case of anarchism, I think the term has become something of a term of art in libertarian policy scholarship, so it shouldn’t be abandoned because of how it is popularly perceived.

Other anarchists and I claim the term anarchy is because at least 1) its
Greek origin “anarchos” meaning “without a ruler” (which
does NOT mean “without rules”) is an accurate description of a concept the anarchist is trying to describe and communicate, and 2) to do otherwise allows our detractors to define us out of existence (Mr. Randall wrote: “As to what MY preferred term would be for someone who favors
voluntary governments and opposes monopoly governments (as you defined them)... I find no word in the English dictionary for such a person.”) .

George Orwell wrote about those who would attempt to control thought
by attempting to control language.

“Seek first to understand. Then to be understood.”—Stephen Covey

By denying that one who opposes monopoly government but supports voluntary governments is neither anarchist nor libertarian, I’m concerned that those who claim that anarchists are not libertarians may not understand the vision that market anarchists who consider themselves members of the libertarian movement are trying to communicate.

And in light of Brian Holtz’s statement that “Market anarchists are libertarians,” I want to say “Thanks, Brian!” As an anarchist I have been impressed with the work of the Platform Committee. Although I don’t favor a few of the proposed planks, I have been pleasantly surprised with inclusive language contained in most of the proposed planks that I read and voted in favor of in the survery distributed earlier this year.

Fini.

From Bryan Caplan’s “Anarchist Theory FAQ”:

Is anarchism the same thing as libertarianism?

This is actually a complicated question, because the term
“libertarianism” itself has two very different meanings. In Europe in the 19th-century, libertarianism was a popular euphemism for left-anarchism.

However, the term did not really catch on in the United States.

After World War II, many American-based pro-free-market intellectuals opposed to traditional conservatism were seeking for a label to describe
their position, and eventually picked “libertarianism.”

“Classical liberalism” and “market liberalism”; are alternative labels for the same essential position.) The result was that in two different
political cultures which rarely communicated with one another, the term
“libertarian” was used in two very different ways. At the current time,
the American use has basically taken over completely in academic political theory (probably owing to Nozick’s influence), but the European use is still popular among many left-anarchist activists in both Europe and the U.S.

The semantic confusion was complicated further when some of the early
post-war American libertarians determined that the logical implication of their view was, in fact, a variant of anarchism. They adopted the term
“anarcho-capitalism” to differentiate themselves from more moderate
libertarianism, but were still generally happy to identify themselves with the broader free-market libertarian movement.

Source: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

The libertarian Cato Institute also spent some time hosting a respectful
discussion of anarchism last year.

Source: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/august-2007/

Part Two

Richard Randall asks:

Are you trying to make the Libertarian Party smaller by limiting it to anarchists?

No. I think the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement is broad
enough to include anarchists, minarchists, limited government advocates,
constitutionalists, and basically anyone that wants to reduce the power of any government.

(By the way, although I think that anarchism and statism are mostly
mutually exclusive, I think an anarchist would have a hard time opposing a state government that was formed by unanimous consent.)

To quote upcoming convention speaker Anthony Gregory, “If anarchism means anything, it is a rejection of the state, meaning, a rejection of an
institution claiming and maintaining a monopoly on violence.

Source: http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory/gregory13.html

Why was it not there before?

Apologize for the clutter.

I’ll try to break it up.

Part One:

Richard Randall asks:

Are you suggesting that there is either one extreme or the other? Where there is either anarchy or totalitarianism – with no possibility of a limited government?

No. I accept that individuals can hold a range of policy preferences from, say, no-government anarchists to no-monopoly-government anarchists to libertarians to constitutionalists to democrats to monarchists to totalitarians. I also accept that governments can also operate within this range (excluding the one contemplated by no-government anarchists, although I wonder what that would look like and why any kind of organization that came about voluntarily wouldn’t be considered some kind of government and why and how no-government anarchists would combat that).

Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.

“By denying that one who opposes monopoly government but supports voluntary governments are neither anarchists or libertarians, ...”

Are you suggesting that there is either one extreme or the other? Where there is either anarchy or totalitarianism – with no possibility of a limited government?

No. I accept that individuals can hold a range of policy preferences from, say, no-government anarchists to no-monopoly-government anarchists to libertarians to constitutionalists to democrats to monarchists to totalitarians. I also accept that governments can also operate within this range (excluding the one contemplated by no-government anarchists, although I wonder what that would look like and why any kind of organization that came about voluntarily wouldn’t be considered some kind of government and why and how no-government anarchists would combat that).

Richard Randall asks:

Are you trying to make the Libertarian Party smaller by limiting it to anarchists?

No. I think the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement is broad enough to include anarchists, minarchists, limited government advocates, constitutionalists … basically anyone that wants to reduce the power of any government.

(By the way, although I think that anarchism and statism are mostly mutually exclusive, I think an anarchist would have a hard time opposing a state government that was formed by unanimous consent.)

To quote upcoming convention speaker Anthony Gregory, “If anarchism means anything, it is a rejection of the state, meaning, a rejection of an institution claiming and maintaining a monopoly on violence.”

Source: http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory/gregory13.html

From Bryan Caplan’s “Anarchist Theory FAQ”:

Is anarchism the same thing as libertarianism?
This is actually a complicated question, because the term “libertarianism” itself has two very different meanings. In Europe in the 19th-century, libertarianism was a popular euphemism for left-anarchism. However, the term did not really catch on in the United States.

After World War II, many American-based pro-free-market intellectuals opposed to traditional conservatism were seeking for a label to describe their position, and eventually picked “libertarianism.” (“Classical liberalism” and “market liberalism” are alternative labels for the same essential position.) The result was that in two different political cultures which rarely communicated with one another, the term “libertarian” was used in two very different ways. At the current time, the American use has basically taken over completely in academic political theory (probably owing to Nozick’s influence), but the European use is still popular among many left-anarchist activists in both Europe and the U.S.

The semantic confusion was complicated further when some of the early post-war American libertarians determined that the logical implication of their view was, in fact, a variant of anarchism. They adopted the term “anarcho-capitalism” to differentiate themselves from more moderate libertarianism, but were still generally happy to identify themselves with the broader free-market libertarian movement.

Source: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm

The libertarian Cato Institute also spent some time hosting a quality discussion of anarchism last year.

Source: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/august-2007/

The dictionary is a good authority to have, but sometimes one can do better (or worse) than the dictionary. In the case of anarchism, I think the term has become something of a term of art in libertarian policy scholarship, so it shouldn’t be abandoned because of how it is popularly perceived.

Other anarchists and I claim the term anarchy is because at least 1) its Greek origin “anarchos,” meaning “without a ruler” (which does NOT mean “without rules”) is an accurate description of a concept the anarchist is trying to describe and communicate, and 2) to do otherwise allows our detractors to define us out of existence (“As to what MY preferred term would be for someone who favors voluntary governments and opposes monopoly governments (as you defined them)... I find no word in the English dictionary for such a person. “) .

George Orwell wrote about those who would attempt to control thought by attempting to control language.

“Seek first to understand. Then to be understood.”—Stephen Covey

By denying that one who opposes monopoly government but supports voluntary governments, I’m concerned that those who claim that anarchists are not libertarians may not understand the vision that market anarchists who consider themselves members of the libertarian movement are trying to communicate.

And in light of Brian Holtz’s statement that “Market anarchists are libertarians,” I want to say “Thanks, Brian!” As an anarchist I have been impressed with the work of the Platform Committee. Although I don’t favor a few of the proposed planks, I have been pleasantly surprised with inclusive language contained in most of the proposed planks that I read and voted in favor of in the survery distributed earlier this year.

What if the majority of legitimate libertarians someday did not view a child under the age of 5 as possessing human rights merely because it could one day become a human adult capable of living outside the parent’s control? Hhhhhhhmmmmm. Slippery slope when humans attempt to define life—their reasoning is so flawed.

All this arguing about the final destination when the train is still in the station and the tracks go to both stops is just pointless.