If you have "no place to go," come here!

Economists on Ron Paul

Al Jazeera interviews five. At least they'e not the usual suspects. Julie Matthaei, Professor of economics at Wellesley College:

"From the Marxist perspective, we agree with Paul that the government is corrupt and it's problematic. But again, we don't need to get rid of government, we need to transform it and make it really democratic - whereas now, it's bought off by the moneyed interests … If the current Congress controlled the Fed, it wouldn't be that much better. That's the problem."

From the anarchist perspective, we do need to get rid of the government.

Or from the libertarian perspective? Help me out here, anarchists! What's the difference? For example, if I think about the code enforcement guy at the local level:

1. Current system will be corrupt in twenty years max (this is a small town, not Manhattan)

2. Libertarians would have no code enforcement?

3. Anarchists would have no code enforcement?

No votes yet


propertius's picture
Submitted by propertius on

the way to prevent official corruption is to return to the ways of our pagan ancestors and sacrifice them every Lammas to insure a good harvest. It would certainly reduce the problem of self-aggrandizing, institutionalized elites.

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

Or as Confucius said (summarizing via wiki): "The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven (?; Tian) would bless the authority of a just ruler, as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best. The mere fact of a leader having been overthrown is itself indication that he has lost the Mandate of Heaven....

"The Mandate of Heaven had no time limitations, instead depending on the just and able performance of the ruler. In the past, times of poverty and natural disasters were taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement."

Submitted by Alcuin on

Well, as a recent convert to anarcho-syndicalism who will be learning for a long, long time, I'll go way out on a limb and say that a libertarian wants to abolish government so that s/he can pursue his/her self interest while an anarchist would abolish government in favor of consensus groups. My take is that anarchists are more community oriented than libertarians but I'm sure there are others here who can offer a better answer.

Using your code enforcement example, a libertarian would go it alone and build whatever s/he wanted. If the roof collapsed, the remaining libertarians would say that it was his/her fault. Anarchists would gather together and arrive at a consensus and if the roof collapsed, everyone would be at fault, there would be a gathering, and collectively, they would move on.

Submitted by hipparchia on

they range from very minimalist - govt is only for national defense, leave everything else to the markets - to govt should provide military, police, maybe some roads, maybe a few other things.

in the rest of the world "libertarian" has a meaning closer to what you're thinking of as "anarchist."

of course, there's more than one flavor of anarchism too.

lawguy's picture
Submitted by lawguy on

Maybe it is that anarchist seem to be more, oh I don't know maybe anarchistic, while libertarians loves them some authoritarians. So perhaps anarchits think we should all do our own things while libertarians believe that people will just follow the really wealthy because they know it is better that way.

Not that either group is going to be much at running a continuously operating enterprise, whether it be a business or country (but I repeat myself). On the other hand anarchists are great shock troops for revolution. Libertarians not so much.

Finally, since they are anarchists is it possible to actually get an agreed upon definitation from them?

Submitted by Alcuin on

Anarchists aren't the only group who defy definition - the definition of a libertarian is equally difficult to determine.

Submitted by lefttown on

Ron Paul supporters are Libertarians. Many are simply anti-war.