Re: "Libertarians Pursue New Goal: a State of Their Own" :-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/27/national/27LIBE.html
  which has:

“the Free State Project aims to make all of New Hampshire a laboratory for libertarian politics by recruiting libertarian-leaning people from across the country to move to New Hampshire and throw their collective weight around. ... The idea is to concentrate enough fellow travelers in a single state to jump-start political change. Members, most of whom have met only over the Internet, chose New Hampshire over nine other states
.. field candidates in elections and become active in schools and community groups, doing all they can to sow the libertarian ideals of curbing taxes, minimizing regulation of guns and drugs, privatizing schools and reducing government programs.
    one quandary for a movement of individualistic people is that it can be hard to get everyone [reading] on the same page.
    [although] Jackie Casey had voted for Wyoming, she just moved from Portland, Ore., to Merrimack ... renting a basement apartment with her cat ... and her two 9-millimeter handguns. (She wants a machine gun "or at least a rifle" for Christmas.) She has already hung one wall and her bathroom with framed posters of Frank Zappa, who was a libertarian himself.
  "I don't like to go places that don't let me have my gun," said Ms. Casey 33 ... sells memberships to a Las Vegas survivalist training institute ... "I want to be a billionaire in my lifetime," she added, "and I don't want to live among people who think that's bad."
    The Free State has its opponents here, and shoulder shruggers too.
"If you've got people saying we just want to mind our own business, keep government out of our lives, hey, we all feel that way," said Kathy Sullivan
chairwoman of the state Democratic Party. "But if they want to have a radical change in our form of government, no, you're not welcome here."”


At 09:38 AM 2003-10-27 -0600, Diane wrote (on LessIsMore): 
> ...
>David, what do you see as the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
>
>Diane Fitzsimmons
>Norman, Okla.
>
· There are several obvious similarities but you ask about differences.

· I'm happy to answer, but sorry that what I've said before hasn't sunk in.

· It's a matter of focus and time-scale, mainly.

*#* A libertarian is focussed on "me, Me, ME!", and "right NOW" or as soon as possible.

· There's a considerable similarity between the "fundamentalist" anarchist and the libertarian, in that the basic political unit is one person.
 But IMO the anarchist has their sights set on re-creating the conditions in the western part of North America before sheriffs and the US Cavalry arrived, and wants to work together with other anarchists to get that situation to work well enough so it'll continue on into the distant future.

· However, there are varieties or flavours of anarchism, and fundamentalist anarchism is only one; IMO it's the simple-minded early opinion before the person has thought much about it.

*#* A libertarian is _very_ concerned with their own private _property_; so much so that they see nothing wrong with shooting a person apparently trying
to steal it, and if the potential thief is killed by those shots, "too bad!"

*#* A libertarian can't operate without order, so they are willing to contribute just-enough to have a police service that'll come running when they or their burglar-alarm calls the police.

*#* So without realising it, the libertarian _requires_ a government to create the private-land-rights in the first place, and the police to enforce
those property rights.

{# And many libertarians _assume_ a great many other services like smooth highways for their SUVs, air transport to anywhere they want, water supplied, and food made available for purchase not too far away, and so on#}


· In contrast, even the fundamentalist anarchist relies only on him/herself,
together with *ad hoc* groups of anarchists coming together (e.g. as a syndicate) to achieve a specific (usually time-limited) goal.
    (My Canadian ISP Tao.Ca operates on anarchist principles.)
- Everything starts from scratch.
- No assumptions, and co-operation expeected and counted-on.

· The basic political unit in the Old pre-Cavalry West was actually the ranch. The owner/boss was completely free, while his family, ranch-hands and slaves (if any) had to obey the boss.

· My preferred "flavour" of anarchy has as its basic political unit, something between the family and the small town, with anarchist methods used in all circumstances. For example, the town's decisions are taken in public meetings, but there is only persuasion, peer-pressure, and "shunning" used to get those who don't initially agree with the decision, to go along with it. After all, such decisions aren't necessarily the right decisions.

· But if you want the main difference between libertarianism and anarchism, IMO it's that it is aimed at the distant future, it is seen as something worth training the younger generation to highly value.
  {_not_: "me, Me, ME!", and "right NOW!"}


· My caveat: I have never studied anarchism nor read Michael Albert's Parecon, nor any other anarchism theoreticians (Proudhon etc.).
  As in many such cases, I use only the word itself, to guide my thinking.
· And since I see no need for a fancier economy than Green-Dollars or Ithaca-Hours provides, I have no interest in the economic side of things.

{Footnote: A key concept in Green politics is that of ‘subsidarity’;
 the idea that everything which can be done on a localised level, should be.
 This is because it is clear that the further removed power is from local communities and individuals, the harder it is to hold representatives to account.}

David.