No, western idealized Libertarianism is not anarchism. That is the same kind of generalization that creates an ignorant public, of which, established power thrives on. Libertarianism is a word that covers a lot of different prospective. Anarchism too has a large umbrella that covers a lot of different schools of thought, however, some of those schools of thought are not based in traditional anarchist principles. Anarchism, like a lot of alternative forms of government, is misunderstood because of the established reactionary system that creates exaggerated misconception of a well-grounded principled system of government that has much more to do with the democratic process, than the American form of limited representative government. Anarchism has been presented to the public in an almost cartoonish form of free for all survival, bomb throwing and spiked purple mohawks, that is far from what traditional anarchism represents.

There are few examples of established Anarchist government in western society. Spain in the 1930’s, the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution along with a lot of pockets anarchism in Russia during that same time. A lot of propaganda was distributed by all forms of established government capitalist, fascist and communist all against anarchism. There was a collective effort among these established popular governments to crush the Spanish Anarchist during the Spanish Revolution. Anarchism biggest crime against established power is the fact that it asked the question. Can institutions of power be justified? The answer is normally no and that leads to all kinds of desperate attempts by power to eradicate that idea from the collective mind of the masses.

Western Libertarianism, the Ayn Rand Objectivist school of thought, has hitched its wagon to this anarchist principle of illegitimate power. They either misunderstood the concept or have deliberately bastardizing the principle to suit their own purposes. I think it’s the latter. Regardless of how Libertarians comes to their conclusions on the principles of government, the huge difference between the two forms of government is simple. Libertarians only ask the question of justification to specific forms of power like taxes, regulation, social benefit and mostly financial restriction, which is reflected in its leadership. Anarchist ask the much broader question of legitimization of all institution of power not just the state but unaccountable private power as well. Libertarians challenge some state institution but rarely challenges private forms of power, which should reveal their seriousness in following the anarchist principle of justification.

If you really want to understand the fundamental different between Anarchism and westernized Libertarianism, I suggested you read works by actual Anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and others on the real principles of anarchist thought and theory. Then compare their collective works against the writings of Libertarian heroes like Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Ron Paul. You’ll find a vastly different ideology, with some superficial comparisons, but the overall governmental theories of the two systems could not be more different.

Libertarianism has open contempt for majority rule (Ayn Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness). Anarchism is based on collective consent (Anarchism – Noam Chomsky). I use the word “traditional” just to clarify that Anarchism has a background based in philosophy, theory and academics and not just some wild notion that exist just to arbitrarily undermine power.

Apparently, Thom Hartmann is too stupid to read the results of a study. He claims "A new poll from Pew Research found that only 11% of those surveyed who identified themselves as libertarian were correctly able to identify the very basic meaning of libertarianism as “someone whose political views emphasize individual freedom by limiting the role of government.'"

What does Pew actually say? "About one-in-ten Americans (11%) describe themselves as libertarian and know what the term means" AND "On the self-description question 14% said they were libertarian. For the purpose of this analysis we focus on the 11% who both say they are libertarian and know the definition of the term."

So, actually, 78.6% (11 out of 14) of the people who called themselves libertarians knew what it means.

Of course, he also blames Medicare Part D, which libertarians were AGAINST, as an example of private business taking unfair profits in health care. Funny that characterizes it that way, since most libertarians call it "the biggest entitlement expansion since the Great Society." http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/19/happy-birthday-medicare-part-d

And he equates abolishing or reforming the FDA so "Big Pharma and Big Ag can make even more money," while neglecting that government pays for 40 cents of every dollar spent on health care in this country, which is hardly indicative of an adversarial relationship. Oh, and Big Agriculture HATES libertarians, because we are uniformly against farm subsidies, which are the worst kind of welfare today. http://www.cato.org/blog/five-reasons-repeal-farm-subsidies

Also, libertarians support phasing mandatory Social Security contributions out, and letting people invest their own money. Perhaps he is confusing libertarians for George W. Bush? If so, that's a pretty serious conflation error.

In short, Thom Hartmann himself is the one who doesn't know what libertarian means. Either that, or he does know and has a vested interest in not telling the truth. But that just COULDN'T be the case, could it?

Quote Howard Laverne...:Religion is like a ship with a broken rudder sailing in circles.

I had always been taught that religion was like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Great, another religion-based controversy.

Alison Grimes represents no real challenge to Mitch. Normally, a comment like this would have a strong impact, and despite the local media's efforts, there won't be any serious damage done.

The legislation is intended to render a phone worthless if it is stolen. I am sure the government is already capable of turning off our home, cell, and business phones. Even without a "switch," all it would take is to turn out the power at some key computerized switching stations.

Things would be dire if the government turned off our phones. People would take to the streets if they could tweet, text, or post to Facebook about their otherwise pointless and ill informed lives.

next

next

I would like to think it would hurt him, but voters are very dumbed down in those states.

I never thought that this kill switch could cause a blanket cut off of a certain area. To do that, you would shut down the cell tower. To me, kill switch means your cell provider would call your number and turn your phone off. One phone at a time and only by your provider.

My biggest concern over the government being able to turn off cell phones is that a situation may arise where, because of a protest in one place, the government turned off cell phones, while nearby someone is in dire need of emergency medical help and can't get it because their cell phone has been deactivated and they die because the government turned off their phone. It will happen, mark my words. And the gorvernment will deny any responsibility for it.

As far as the government is concerned, human life is a disposable commodity.

Alison Grimes is giving everyone a lesson on how to face off with an opponent. Her strength of conviction, smart answers to questions, and honest approach are working.