> I've heard the "Libertarians are one step away from anarchists" argument multiple times before, but I've honestly always found it perplexing. At least with re

> I've heard the "Libertarians are one step away from anarchists" argument multiple times before, but I've honestly always found it perplexing. At least with regards to my own libertarian views, government is essential. Perhaps I haven't been clear, but I'm pretty sure I'm (mostly) agreeing with you. U.S. Libertarianism is incompatible with most forms of anarchism espoused by those who use the term. The term "libertarian," however, has a much longer history in Europe, associated with the spiritual heirs of the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, and so forth. Which is, to me, a fascinating transition in the commonly-accepted meaning of the word. Also, I would note that: > Without the government, you would have anarchy, which is a rule by force by intrinsically dishonest people resulting in the exact opposite of the upholding of contract law and rights. is your editorializing. No self-described anarchist would accept that definition, and neither would most political scientists. If you mean, on the other hand, that any form of anarchy as espoused by those who self-identify as such would lead to the kind of scenario you describe, then there's a whole other issue. I was operating under the notion that we were discussing political philosophies as espoused by those who advocate them, not the plausibility of those philosophies as they might be plausibly implemented in the world.