In my experience, it's easy to find major philosophical differences between libertarianism and anarchism. For example, you could ask people if they believe that private property is an authoritarian idea.

▲

terminalshort 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying you couldn't find philosophical differences between individuals who call themselves "libertarian" or "anarchist." But those differences are irrelevant. Absent a state all property is private property, and who owns what is down to might makes right. Whether you call that "authoritarian" or not just comes down to whether or not you still consider a man with a gun robbing you an "authoritarian" if he's not acting on behalf of a formal government.

But this is, of course, only if you take their claims that they want to abolish the state seriously, which I don't on either side. In reality these people do nothing but describe the state that they want when asked to go into detail. The whole thing is, of course, ridiculous because we are a social animal that when left to our own devices, forms states. The concept of a stateless human society makes about as much sense as cows forming a republic.

	▲	komali2 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think if you read some anarchist philosophy you might be surprised at what you find. Property can be owned in common. Then it's not private property whose ownership rights are enforced by a State. We have that here in Taiwan with indigenous people and it causes issues with the bureaucracy all the time, which is desperate for a name to put down as landowner. Many societies throughout history have common ownership aka no private property. Before you ridicule the idea of anarchy perhaps take a look at history - humans as a social animal tend to form societies, not states.