I think Barr-Root returned to the GOP, unless I am mistaken.  I know Root did.

The key breach seems to be property. Libertarians believe in private property (whereby any person can own as much property as they can legally obtain), while anarchists believe only in personal property (what you need for your daily life is yours and no more). Anarchists absolutely reject the concept of rents, while libertarians think that rent can be a thing. However, there needs to be a state aparatus to enforce private property contracts, whereas we can see in medieval anarcho-syndicalism that a state apparatus is not needed in, say, a small farmer community where the farmers have their land, their crops, and their tools, and deal them directly to the tradesmen who may make or maintain tools, etc. In a world where you use only what you need, there's no need to have an aparatus to "enforce" the system, only to stop outright theft, which could be enforced through individual and communal action, whereas how could a landlord enforce the rent in an apartment complex without, ultimately, the police to be able to come by and chuck out deadbeat tenants at the end of the day?

I think it is a bit more than this, because I do consider anarcho-capitalists anarchists, and they believe in property also, even owning the means of production.  What is normal for anarchists is what you said though, where they don't respect anything beyond what one has personally, as legitimate, and you will see these types not harming people but damaging corporate proerty.

I believe the key divider is actually the belief in the need for government for something.  Anarchists don't.  Libertarians end up being pragmatic and say that practicality requires some government, but as little as possible.

well i guess we will have to agree to disagree. i just cant see the democratic party shifting that way.

the democratic party isnt having the same infighting or diverging of directions as the republican party is having. its only getting more authoritarian moving fruther left., while the republican party has the neo-cons that are pushing for more liberal policies or just the status quo, and you have the limited government wing with the likes of libertarians/tea party/constitutionalists.

Don't forget the frighteningly sizeable crowd who hate him because they are convinced he's a Muslim/Atheist/Socialist/Communist/Fascist/Kenyan. Oh, and because their minds just cannot reconcile with having a non-white President. All of that may sound like satire, but it's very sadly not.

@Mr. Puggsly

I would not personally say I am "disenchanted" with Barack Obama. He is certainly a far-cry from the kind of President I wanted/want, but I also realize that in our current socio-political climate, it's just not going to happen any time soon.

What I would call it, is that I realized from day one in voting for him that the least I could hope for, and the least I was counting on, was for someone to come along and stop the bleeding. He has accomplished that. And while I certainly hoped that he would be more aggresive and less "moderate", I also am rational enough to have realized from the word "go" that considering the nature of Washington DC, considering the nature of Congress, the influence of Big Money/Big Business over Capitol Hill, etc., that the chances of him successfully being a "Super Liberal" President were always only very slim. I certainly don't think he's the horrible Prez many try to make him out to be. I know for a fact that it could have/likely would have been a hell of a lot worse with McCain/Palin or even Romney in office.

This country has a ton of problems, that all kind of came to a head after decades of building up, under the abysmal W. Bush Presidency. There really wasn't all that much hope of any President being able to do much more than grab a shovel and start trying to clean up the mess. Which in all fairness to Obama, he has done to a great extent. More, certainly, than many want to give him credit for. But really, the "middle road" path that he tried to take, has not really paid off. I commend him for sticking to his campaign promises of trying to work with both sides (because he has), but in the process, he's "not liberal enough" for Democrats, "too liberal" for Conservatives, and "too Black" for the Tea Party. In trying to please everybody, I will say that he has failed to accomplish as much as he thus far could have. I certainly expected that if he won a second term, he would turn up the dial and start being "more liberal". However, he has kind of stuck to the "middle road" gear, which is admittedly disappointing.

He's not the President I would hope for or want, but to borrow a cliche, I would argue he is the one we needed at the time, to at the very least keep things from getting worse. Which, again, he has accomplished. But I do find it laughable that the uber-conservatives out there try so hard to label him as this "Radical Leftist" and call "Obamacare" a socialist mechanism, when he's been nothing close, and his health care policy, if anything, does more to help the medical insurance industry than anyone else. It's a baby step in the right direction, but I really wish, personally speaking, that he would have pushed harder for his own ideal of the "Public Option". But I digress.......

Point is, he certainly hasn't been GREAT. But he also by no stretch of the imagination has been as AWFUL and HORRIBLE as some try so very hard to paint him as.

I'm sorry, but it's hilarious (in a bad way) that you actually think all that shit you just typed ("fascists, totalitarians, communists, etc") actually has anything at all to with the modern American Democratic Party. If you earnestly believe that, you're incredibly misinformed. Fox News and talk radio can be very bad for the mind.

I don't watch fox news or listen to talk radio. I feel the same way as him. If the government running my life for me, and launching spy planes, and the NSA, the IRS abusing its powers, and the arming of a massive domestic force (not army or police, but DHS) isn't the beginnings of totalitarianism than what is?

The actual liberal democrats who believe in social liberties and the limitation of the military-industrial complex, despite their economic views, align more with me as a libertarian than establishment "moderate" Republicans who support crony-capitalism (just as bad as socialism), the industrial military complex, and the welfare-warfare state. 

I'd take Ron Wyden (D) over McCain (R), Lindsey Graham (R), or even Chris Christie (R) any day of the week. 

Like it or not, there is a non-authoritarian segment of the Democratic voter-base and (to a lesser extent) political base. It just so happens that their voices are drowned out by moderates. Essentially, though, their economic policies will conflict with mine so much so that it is hard to align with them, but the same can be said of the corporatist/crony-capitalist/fascist/mercantilist/keynesian establishment Republicans who also support intervention elsewhere. The enemy is the establishment in both parties. The "moderates" who are really statists in all matters as opposed to just a specific or set of specific matters. 

I'm expecting left-wingers to turn to small-government (minarchic) syndicalism (as opposed to state-socialist progressivism) and right-wingers to turn to small government, free-market capitalism. It's quite obvious that both sides of the economic spectrum are disillusioned with the state's control. Centralized state market socialism hasn't been working in certain cities (Detroit for example), while crony capitalism (essentially mercantilism) hasn't been working in others. Overall, we can at least hope for a shrinking of the warfare-state and with demographic changes (older populations) the same must hold for the welfare state, albeit after the collapse of the system by massive debt. 

A push for syndicalism might bring back (private) union power, which has been in decline, by the way. 

Overall, I don't expect things to keep going as they are. These interventionist policies are not sustainable and if the political process doesn't change it, unforseen consequences will. 

The point of my original post was to higlight that libertarians come in many flavors, both minarchist and anarchist. In fact, I would argue that there are more kinds of anarchist libertarianism than minarchist. The original use of libertarianism was associated with anarchy, and the current use of the term to favor minarchy (in the US) has been a very recent development. So the first video was ignoring a large portion of libertarianism, and focusing on the majority of LP libertarians.

Yes. The difference between virtually any political system can be reduced to arguments over property rights. Not just what you should be able to own, but what you can actually own. This is something that, in an anarchist world, could vary from region to region.

However, your explanation is not entirely correct. Again; anarchists are libertarian. Semantics aside, it is very possible for an anarcho-capitalist society to be imagined in a plausible way. David Friedman has done just that in The Machinery of Freedom. There is a key difference between state enforcement and "private enforcement." The difference being that one has a monopoly on justice and force, and the other does not. Now if you're concerned that a "DRO" would evolve into a state... that's possible, but not very likely. For explanations, I'll turn you to The Machinery of Freedom, Part III, Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market (to avoid derailing the thread further).

A problem with your example of anarcho-syndicalism is something common to literally every possible option for societal organization. You must use force in order to enforce whatever you want. Even the most extreme form of anarchy does not argue against a need for "personal property," and as such, theft of such property would be wrong. If it is not wrong to own "private property," then theft of such property must also be wrong. Saying that the only force used would be to stop theft is somehow different than enforcing some system of rules and laws is fallacious. It is the exact same. An anarcho-capitalist would say that they do the same thing; they only advocate for using force in order to stop outright theft. Now you have to address the property problem; how much property can be legitimately owned, and why is that answer objectively correct?