To my understanding Libertarianism is a fairly simple concept. At its core is the principle of only allowing the federal government the powers directly given them by the constitution and give all others to the states, allowing them free rein to manage as they see fit, thus no federal war on drugs or income taxes for example. This would, theoretically, allow states the freedom to make their own decisions on these issues, and if you don’t like the way things are run in the state where you live, you’re free to move to a one that’s more to your liking.
Of course the problem with this, putting corruption aside, is civil rights, which the federal government does have the right to intervene in, and left to their own devices states WILL discriminate against their own citizens in horrific ways. We’re seeing it today.
This also doesn’t take into account the way libertarianism has morphed from their core tenets to a much more virulent and intolerant menace today either.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is mostly a confusion between Federalism and Libertarianism. Libertarians aren’t just against federal overreach—they're against any government overreach, whether it comes from Washington or a state capital. They might prefer federalism in practice—because decentralization limits the power of any one entity—but that’s secondary. A true Libertarian would object just as strongly to a state law infringing on gun rights, property ownership, trade, or freedom of movement as they would if the same law came from the federal government.
For a Libertarian, the fewer laws and regulations, the better—period. Whether it’s federal or state power, they see government as something to be restrained, not relocated.
libertarians in the classic sense would object to any states overreach if it impacts anything specifically addressed in the constitution, such as gun rights, but not something like abortion, which they would view as the states prerogative.
Your last sentence more accurately describes an anarchist than a libertarian.
"Your last sentence more accurately describes an anarchist than a libertarian."
I completely disagree.
A libertarian seeks to restrain government power; an anarchist seeks to abolish it altogether. Libertarians see a limited role for government—such as protecting private property and enforcing. Anarchists see no legitimate role for government at all.
Furthermore:
- Private property—which libertarians expect the state to protect—is generally sacred to libertarians. Anarchists, by contrast, often view it as a form of coercion—especially productive property like land or factories.
- Voluntary contracts—which libertarians expect the state to enforce—and the free market—which they expect the state to facilitate through minimal, non-intrusive means like protecting trade routes and enforcing property rights—are embraced as expressions of individual freedom. Most anarchists, by contrast, view these institutions as inherently coercive, even when participation is voluntary.
- Libertarians favor legal reform within a constitutional framework—which, by definition, establishes a government and a state. Anarchists aim to abolish the state, its laws, its structure, and any underlying constitution entirely.
- Libertarians generally support capitalism; anarchists overwhelmingly reject it as a system of exploitation.
So no, the description of libertarianism as seeking to restrain government, is perfectly apt and in no way overlaps with anarchism. Restrain inherently precludes extermination, which is precisely anarchism's objective as it relates to the state.
If your reason for comparing my description of libertarianism to anarchism is that it sounded extreme, unreasonable, or unconducive to a functional society—then I won’t fault you. After all, like anarchism, libertarianism is extreme, unreasonable, and unconducive to a functional society—just slightly less so, and for entirely different reasons.
I see Libertarian philosophy to be like Marxism: An idealogy with valid moral points but one that naively ignores the reality of a world full of individual uniquely imperfect humans that will always fail in practice as it can only be functionaly applied on either an extremely small scale or in such a perfect world scenario that it would no longer be relevant.
Precisely, and like Marxism, it is so incredibly easy to corrupt those ideals for just about every negative purposes imaginable, and our current state of affairs in the US is perfect proof. Libertarian ideals have facilitated everything from Corporatism, to Christian Nationalism, to even fascism as we see now.
As you put perfectly, it “will always fail in practice”.
Unrestraint for the powerful to consolidate power.
Unrestraint for the wealthy to rewrite the rules.
Unrestraint for private actors to govern without consent, oversight, or consequence.
- Libertarians oppose all government power except that of the police to protect them from their slaves. -Kim Stanley Robinson
To my understanding Libertarianism is a fairly simple concept. At its core is the principle of only allowing the federal government the powers directly given them by the constitution and give all others to the states, allowing them free rein to manage as they see fit, thus no federal war on drugs or income taxes for example. This would, theoretically, allow states the freedom to make their own decisions on these issues, and if you don’t like the way things are run in the state where you live, you’re free to move to a one that’s more to your liking.
Of course the problem with this, putting corruption aside, is civil rights, which the federal government does have the right to intervene in, and left to their own devices states WILL discriminate against their own citizens in horrific ways. We’re seeing it today.
This also doesn’t take into account the way libertarianism has morphed from their core tenets to a much more virulent and intolerant menace today either.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this is mostly a confusion between Federalism and Libertarianism. Libertarians aren’t just against federal overreach—they're against any government overreach, whether it comes from Washington or a state capital. They might prefer federalism in practice—because decentralization limits the power of any one entity—but that’s secondary. A true Libertarian would object just as strongly to a state law infringing on gun rights, property ownership, trade, or freedom of movement as they would if the same law came from the federal government.
For a Libertarian, the fewer laws and regulations, the better—period. Whether it’s federal or state power, they see government as something to be restrained, not relocated.
libertarians in the classic sense would object to any states overreach if it impacts anything specifically addressed in the constitution, such as gun rights, but not something like abortion, which they would view as the states prerogative.
Your last sentence more accurately describes an anarchist than a libertarian.
"Your last sentence more accurately describes an anarchist than a libertarian."
I completely disagree.
A libertarian seeks to restrain government power; an anarchist seeks to abolish it altogether. Libertarians see a limited role for government—such as protecting private property and enforcing. Anarchists see no legitimate role for government at all.
Furthermore:
- Private property—which libertarians expect the state to protect—is generally sacred to libertarians. Anarchists, by contrast, often view it as a form of coercion—especially productive property like land or factories.
- Voluntary contracts—which libertarians expect the state to enforce—and the free market—which they expect the state to facilitate through minimal, non-intrusive means like protecting trade routes and enforcing property rights—are embraced as expressions of individual freedom. Most anarchists, by contrast, view these institutions as inherently coercive, even when participation is voluntary.
- Libertarians favor legal reform within a constitutional framework—which, by definition, establishes a government and a state. Anarchists aim to abolish the state, its laws, its structure, and any underlying constitution entirely.
- Libertarians generally support capitalism; anarchists overwhelmingly reject it as a system of exploitation.
So no, the description of libertarianism as seeking to restrain government, is perfectly apt and in no way overlaps with anarchism. Restrain inherently precludes extermination, which is precisely anarchism's objective as it relates to the state.
If your reason for comparing my description of libertarianism to anarchism is that it sounded extreme, unreasonable, or unconducive to a functional society—then I won’t fault you. After all, like anarchism, libertarianism is extreme, unreasonable, and unconducive to a functional society—just slightly less so, and for entirely different reasons.
I see Libertarian philosophy to be like Marxism: An idealogy with valid moral points but one that naively ignores the reality of a world full of individual uniquely imperfect humans that will always fail in practice as it can only be functionaly applied on either an extremely small scale or in such a perfect world scenario that it would no longer be relevant.
Precisely, and like Marxism, it is so incredibly easy to corrupt those ideals for just about every negative purposes imaginable, and our current state of affairs in the US is perfect proof. Libertarian ideals have facilitated everything from Corporatism, to Christian Nationalism, to even fascism as we see now.
As you put perfectly, it “will always fail in practice”.
It it literally crypto-fascism: decode it and it's absolute power for the few and enslavement of the many.