The above is straight out of Marxist kook Noam Chomsky's books
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1232

Noam Chomsky is a libertarian anarchist, as am I.

What you are is his peg boy.

There is no such thing as a Libertarian Anarchist.
Only Neo-Communist Liberal Fascists.
What you are is full of ****! ObaMao tse DUNG to be most precise.

The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political
philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be
brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the
libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or
refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably
challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is
reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist."
"Well,
then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do
you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the
offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the
libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.

Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: "Well, I believe in a
limited government, the government being limited to the defense of
the
person or property or the individual against invasion by force or
fraud." I have tried to show in my article, "The Real Aggressor" in
the April 1954 Faith and Freedom that this leaves the conservative
helpless before the argument "necessary for defense," when it is used
for gigantic measures of statism and bloodshed. There are other
consequences equally or more grave. The statist can pursue the matter
further: "If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band
together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a
certain service — "defense" — why is it not equally moral and
legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State
the
right to provide other services — such as post offices, "welfare,"
steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do
one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer
to
this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling
Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a
coercive
state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper
to
force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be
groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude
that
the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may
voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he
deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.

I do not here intend to engage in a detailed exposition of this
system, but only to answer the question, is this anarchism? This
seemingly simple question is actually a very difficult one to answer
in a sentence, or in a brief yes-or-no reply. In the first place,
there is no accepted meaning to the word "anarchism" itself. The
average person may think he knows what it means, especially that it
is
bad, but actually he does not. In that sense, the word has become
something like the lamented word "liberal," except that the latter
has
"good" connotations in the emotions of the average man. The almost
insuperable distortions and confusions have come both from the
opponents and the adherents of anarchism. The former have completely
distorted anarchist tenets and made various fallacious charges, while
the latter have been split into numerous warring camps with political
philosophies that are literally as far apart as communism and
individualism. The situation is further confused by the fact that,
often, the various anarchist groups themselves did not recognize the
enormous ideological conflict between them.

One very popular charge against anarchism is that it "means chaos."
Whether a specific type of anarchism would lead to "chaos" is a
matter
for analysis; no anarchist, however, ever deliberately wanted to
bring
about chaos. Whatever else he or she may have been, no anarchist has
ever deliberately willed chaos or world destruction. Indeed,
anarchists have always believed that the establishment of their
system
would eliminate the chaotic elements now troubling the world. One
amusing incident, illuminating this misconception, occurred after the
end of the war when a young enthusiast for world government wrote a
book entitled One World or Anarchy, and Canada's leading anarchist
shot back with a work entitled Anarchy or Chaos.

The major difficulty in any analysis of anarchism is that the term
covers extremely conflicting doctrines. The root of the word comes
from the term anarche, meaning opposition to authority or commands.
This is broad enough to cover a host of different political
doctrines.
Generally these doctrines have been lumped together as "anarchist"
because of their common hostility to the existence of the State, the
coercive monopolist of force and authority. Anarchism arose in the
19th century, and since then the most active and dominant anarchist
doctrine has been that of "anarchist communism." This is an apt tern
for a doctrine which has also been called "collectivist anarchism,"
"anarcho-syndicalism," and "libertarian communism." We may term this
set of related doctrines "left-wing anarchism." Anarchist communism
is
primarily of Russian origin, forged by Prince Peter Kropotkin and
Michael Bakunin, and it is this form that has connoted "anarchism"
throughout the continent of Europe.

The principal feature of anarchist communism is that it attacks
private property just as vigorously as it attacks the State.
Capitalism is considered as much of a tyranny, "in the economic
realm," as the State in the political realm. The left-wing anarchist
hates capitalism and private property with perhaps even more fervor
than does the socialist or Communist. Like the Marxists, the left-
wing
anarchist is convinced that the capitalists exploit and dominate the
workers, and also that the landlords invariably are exploiting
peasants. The economic views of the anarchists present them with a
crucial dilemma, the pons asinorum of left-wing anarchy: how can
capitalism and private property be abolished, while the State is
abolished at the same time? The socialists proclaim the glory of the
State, and the use of the State to abolish private property — for
them
the dilemma does not exist. The orthodox Marxist Communist, who pays
lip service to the ideal of left-wing anarchy, resolves the dilemma
by
use of the Hegelian dialectic: that mysterious process by which
something is converted into its opposite. The Marxists would enlarge
the State to the maximum and abolish capitalism, and then sit back
confidently to wait upon the State's "withering away."

The spurious logic of the dialectic is not open to the left-wing
anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and capitalism
simultaneously. The nearest those anarchists have come to resolving
the problem has been to uphold syndicalism as the ideal. In
syndicalism, each group of workers and peasants is supposed to own
its
means of production in common, and plan for itself, while cooperating
with other collectives and communes. Logical analysis of these
schemes
would readily show that the whole program is nonsense. Either of two
things would occur: one central agency would plan for and direct the
various subgroups, or the collectives themselves would be really
autonomous. But the crucial question is whether these agencies would
be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. All of
the left-wing anarchists have agreed that force is necessary against
recalcitrants. But then the first possibility means nothing more nor
less than Communism, while the second leads to a real chaos of
diverse
and clashing Communisms, that would probably lead finally to some
central Communism after a period of social war. Thus, left-wing
anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true
chaos of communistic syndics. In both cases, the actual result must
be
that the State is reestablished under another name. It is the tragic
irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its
supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism
or chaos.

It is no wonder therefore that the term "anarchism" has received a
bad
press. The leading anarchists, particularly in Europe, have always
been of the left-wing variety, and today the anarchists are
exclusively in the left-wing camp. Add to that the tradition of
revolutionary violence stemming from European conditions, and it is
little wonder that anarchism is discredited. Anarchism was
politically
very powerful in Spain, and during the Spanish Civil War, anarchists
established communes and collectives wielding coercive authority. One
of their first steps was to abolish the use of money on the pain of a
death penalty. It is obvious that the supposed anarchist hatred of
coercion had gone very much awry. The reason was the insoluble
contradiction between the antistate and the antiproperty tenets of
left-wing anarchy.

How is it, then, that despite the fatal logical contradictions in
left-
wing anarchism, there are a highly influential group of British
intellectuals who currently belong to this school, including the art
critic Sir Herbert Read, and the psychiatrist Alex Comfort? The
answer
is that anarchists, perhaps unconsciously seeing the hopelessness of
their position, have made a point of rejecting logic and reason
entirely. They stress spontaneity, emotions, instincts, rather than
allegedly cold and inhuman logic. By so doing, they can of course
remain blind to the irrationality of their position. Of economics,
which would show them the impossibility of their system, they are
completely ignorant, perhaps more so than any other group of
political
theorists. The dilemma about coercion they attempt to resolve by the
absurd theory that crime would simply disappear if the State were
abolished, so that no coercion would have to be used. Irrationality
indeed permeates almost all of the views of the left-wing anarchists.
They reject industrialism as well as private property, and tend to
favor returning to the handicraft and simple peasant conditions or
the
Middle Ages. They are fanatically in favor of modern art, which they
consider "anarchist" art. They have an intense hatred of money and of
material improvements. Living a simple peasant existence, in
communes,
is extolled as "living the anarchist life," while a civilized person
is supposed to be viciously bourgeois and unanarchist. Thus, the
ideas
of the left-wing anarchists have become a nonsensical jumble, far
more
irrational than that of the Marxists, and deservedly looked upon with
contempt by almost everyone as hopelessly "crackpot." Unfortunately
the result is that the good criticisms that they sometimes make of
State tyranny tend to be tarred with the same "crackpot" brush.

Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question
"are libertarians anarchists?" must be answered unhesitatingly in the
negative. We are at completely opposite poles. Confusion enters,
however, because of the existence in the past, particularly in the
United States, of a small but brilliant group of "individualist
anarchists" headed by Benjamin R. Tucker. Here we come to a different
breed. The individualist anarchists have contributed a great deal to
libertarian thought. They have provided some of the best statements
of
individualism and antistatism that have ever been penned. In the
political sphere, the individualist anarchists were generally sound
libertarians. They favored private property, extolled free
competition, and battled all forms of governmental intervention.
Politically, the Tucker anarchists had two principal defects: (1)
they
failed to advocate defense of private landholdings beyond what the
owner used personally; (2) they relied too heavily on juries and
failed to see the necessity for a body of constitutional libertarian
law which the private courts would have to uphold.

Contrasted to their minor political failings, however, they fell into
grievous economic error. They believed that interest and profit were
exploitative, due to an allegedly artificial restriction on the money
supply. Let the State and its monetary regulations be removed, and
free banking be established, they believed, and everyone would print
as much money as he needed, and interest and profits would fall to
zero. This hyperinflationist doctrine, acquired from the Frenchman
Proudhon, is economic nonsense. We must remember, however, that
"respectable" economics, then and now, has been permeated with
inflationist errors, and very few economists have grasped the
essentials of monetary phenomena. The inflationists simply take the
more genteel inflationism of fashionable economics and courageously
push it to its logical conclusion.

The irony of this situation was that while the individualist
anarchists laid great stress on their nonsensical banking theories,
their political order that they advocated would have led to economic
results directly contrary to what they believed. They thought that
free banking would lead to indefinite expansion of the money supply,
whereas the truth is precisely the reverse: it would lead to "hard
money" and absence of inflation. The economic fallacies of the
Tuckerites, however, are of a completely different order than those
of
the collectivist anarchists. The errors of the collectivists led them
to advocate virtual political Communism, while the economic errors of
the individualists still permitted them to advocate a nearly
libertarian system. The superficial might easily confuse the two,
because the individualists were led to attack "capitalists," whom
they
felt were exploiting the workers through State restriction of the
money supply.


These "right-wing" anarchists did not take the foolish position that
crime would disappear in the anarchist society. Yet they did tend to
underestimate the crime problem, and as a result never recognized the
need for a fixed libertarian constitution. Without such a
constitution, the private judicial process might become truly
"anarchic" in the popular sense.

The Tucker wing of anarchism flourished in the 19th century, but died
out by World War I. Many libertarian thinkers in that Golden Age of
liberalism were working on doctrines that were similar in many
respects. These genuine libertarians never referred to themselves as
anarchists, however; probably the main reason was that all the
anarchist groups, even the right wingers, possessed socialistic
economic doctrines in common.

Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one
completely different from either the collectivists or individualists.
This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society
where force would not even be used to defend person and property,
whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of
nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly
through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no
genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense
agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others,
rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could
only
work in a community of saints.

We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?"
simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of
the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be
considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must
therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none
of
the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian
position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic
elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the
current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at
opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we
are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on
firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On
the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do
not
believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will
coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we
could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the
jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?"
is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves
in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither
an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic
middle
of the road.

http://mises.org/story/2801