Left & right libertarianism + classical liberalism

It was Joseph Dejacque, a libertarian communist, who first used the term "libertarian" in a political sense back in the 19th century. It wasn't until around the 1950s in North America that the right-wing appropriated the word, with people like Murray Rothbard boasting about having "stolen the word from our enemies." The US "Libertarian" Party itself wasn't created until the 1970s.I'd highly recommend visiting the Anarchist FAQ, as they have entire sections on right-"libertarianism" and "An"Caps.

Call it propertarian

Scallywag

Why do right wing libertarians state that they uphold classical liberal ideals, but then at the same time people like Noam Chomsky state that anarchism has roots in classical liberalism?

Well, like socialism, classical liberalism is a mixed bag -- it has left and right wings. At its best, you can get someone like John Stuart Mill who came to socialist conclusions (such as support for co-operatives to replace wage-labour, feminism, etc.). At its worse, you get idiots like von Mises (who denounced Mill as a socialist and blamed him for personally causing the decline of Britian's economic position in the world) -- von Mises also eulogised fascism.

See A.4.2 Are there any liberal thinkers close to anarchism?

Chomsky is influenced by Rocker who argued that anarchism was a synthesis of socialism and liberalism (marxism being socialism and democracy, in the Jacobin/Rousseau sense). I think this is a misreading of liberalism -- particularly its Lockean strand. Other liberal thinkers -- like Adam Smith -- are better than this but propertarianism takes the worse aspects of classical liberalism.

Personnally, I would argue that anarchism is a critique of liberalism based on extending Rousseau's ideas plus a critique of Rousseau based on it contradicting its own stated aims. As I discuss here:

Anarchist Organisation – Practice as Theory Actualised

Scallywag

Also how can I argue that the rights use of the term libertarian is incorrect, does it even make sense to argue such if they use the word in a different sense from what we do? Either way what are the best ways to refute them?

See, for example, as well as the above, 150 Years of Libertarian and An Anarchist critique of Anarcho-Statism -- the latter summarises the key points of section F of An Anarchist FAQ

I've talked to a LOT of so called "libertarians", here's a few Things I like to check up on when I talk to them to see how honest they are.

1. Right to work laws: These are laws that basically ban a kind of contract between a private union and employer.

if the libertarian is "for" those laws it's obvious they don't care about "Liberty" or really even free markets (whatever that means), they just care about Capitalism and defending it.

2. Are they willing to admit that property is a contingent social arrangement just like Democracy, just like government or anything else.

if not, they're going to have a hard time defending it, chances are they are just "market fundamentalist".

3. Do they think that market relationships are the basic core relationship, and then I ask them what other relationships they think exist.

This will generally expose whether or not they are market fundamentalists.

the fact is, the market is, historically, not the main way People intereact With each other economically.

Modern Mises Libertarians are really better described as proprietarians.

I personally think so-called "libertarianism" or "anarcho-capitalism" or any other market fundamentalism are the most dangerous and corrosive ideologies around, even more so than he resurgence of nationalism and fascism.

These people are true believers, they are almost religous nihilists in that they really believe that the market is the basic form of human organization, they believe it is the only way that is not tyrannical, and they believe the market is omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent. They don't believe community is a thing and they believe that the only value possible is market value, they believe that property is sacred and market outcomes are self justifying.

They do so despite all the evidence to the contrary. This ideology basically is the religion of modern capitalism, it destroys any idea of community or solidarity and reduces man to a commodity. For me this is the ideology the left should be fighting the most, this is the Goldman Sachs/silicone valley ideology.

This ideology basically has "government" as their Devil, anything bad in the market MUST be from the government, even if it can be shown to be a market outcome, because of their faith they basically say the outcome must be a result of government intervention. They do not accept that the market is basically a state institution, despite the historical evidence.

Even worse they reduce every human relationship to a market relationship, they basically think that solidarity, sharing, or any common life is impossible and anything that looks like that MUST be just veiled self interest.

Fascists and nationalists are dangerous, especially to whomever they consider to be their enemy. But usually those drawn to fascism or nationalism are people whose organic communities have been destroyed by capitalism and who are then offered a pseudo community in the form of a race or a nation or a people, it's a pseudo reaction to capitalism, a way to find meaning in a world where all meaning has been reduced to profit and a way to find value in a world where all value is reduced to price.

Get rid of capitalism and fascism will die, offer a real alternative to capitalism, offer a real community of solidarity and fascism will die.

The real enemy isn't poor suckers who join white supremes its group, they are suckers, and have really been manipulated, for me the more immediate enemy are people in wallstreet, the true believers in capitalism as a religion, and the Peter Theils and Elon Musks, the modern free market Gnostics.

I haven't read much on Libertarianism or Anarchism but I think in examining both, the issue of the state and will always play a key role. At its simplest, the state is what maintains the contradiction between the producers of property and the owners of property. Without state coercion the propertied minority would not survive long at the mercy of the propertyless majority.

But most Libertarians don't see the state in this way. I suppose this is because it tends to be an American traditions these days and therefore was born out of people fleeing oppressive governments in Europe and then settling on the frontier where they couldn't rely on government to solve their problems. They do not recognise the role of the bourgeois state in helping to maintain the conditions for bourgeois society to persist. They think money, free trade, exchange, capital are all natural to humans and will persist just fine without the threat of state coercion hanging over the head of anyone who dares to try and subvert these.

BloodDiamond

I haven't read much on Libertarianism or Anarchism but I think in examining both, the issue of the state and will always play a key role. At its simplest, the state is what maintains the contradiction between the producers of property and the owners of property. Without state coercion the propertied minority would not survive long at the mercy of the propertyless majority.

But most Libertarians don't see the state in this way. I suppose this is because it tends to be an American traditions these days and therefore was born out of people fleeing oppressive governments in Europe and then settling on the frontier where they couldn't rely on government to solve their problems. They do not recognise the role of the bourgeois state in helping to maintain the conditions for bourgeois society to persist. They think money, free trade, exchange, capital are all natural to humans and will persist just fine without the threat of state coercion hanging over the head of anyone who dares to try and subvert these.

I think your analysis is spot on, but you might want to distinguish between right-"libertarianism" or "proprietarians" and actual anarchism/libertarianism of the anti-capitalist and socialist variety; libertarian and anarchist are equivalent terms; "anarcho"-capitalism is just an oxymoron (and most popular in North America). But yes, capitalism needs the state in order to defend private property rights, along with a ton of other reasons, and it has always been like that. Even today, the American conservatives and so-called "libertarians" (right-wingers) who bemoan state intervention actually love it, but only when it benefits the rich and powerful as opposed to the mass of people (with their bailouts, protectionist barriers, etc.)