Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is no such thing as an "ansoc" that is a word made up by caps to describe anarchists. All of the original anarchists considered themselves socialist to one degree or another, and even those today who distinguish anti-capitalism from socialism are still themselves anti-capitalist. Further, today it is a small number of people who call themselves anarchists that support legal systems. Even amongst that minority, none of them support prisons, none of them support police, and all of them advocate that this "legal" system be entered into equally by all participants, not some joke of a justice system which automatically legitmates the position of private property claimants while over-ruling any dissent against it. Examples of straw-men engaged in this article: "But individualist anarchists don't care for authorities who decide who has the right to declare oneself an anarchist." The implication here is that anarchists are relying on some authority figure or institution to claim that capitalism is incompatible with anarchism. But I have never seen any anarchist, prominent or not, make any such claim. The arguments I have seen are all based on the etymology of the word, the historical origin, the historical precedence, the coherence of the philosophy, and the occasional populist fallacy. "For instance, left-anarchists consider all property as institutionalized enforced privilege" A number of individualists consider themselves to be on the left, and some of those individualists advocate a form of possession that is akin to or by some standards identical to a particular narrow kind of property. Thus it is fallacious to claim that left-anarchists in general consider all property to be institutionalized enforced priviledge, even if most believe as much. "More generally, when talking about governments, justice systems, etc., left-anarchists often think in collectivist terms, and may not understand the stance of anarcho-capitalists, who consider any kind of collectivist decision as oppression of the political minority by the political majority." The implication here being that anarchists (what are misleadingly refered to as left-anarchists) all support some kind of democratic enforcement. However, the vast majority of anarchists reject legitimate enforced group decisions, relying instead on consensus, arbitration, disassociation, direct action, and dead-lock. Thus the claim that "any" collective decision is the oppression of the political minority is ridiculous, when such "decisions," if there are any, are not necessarily even enforced. "Anarcho-capitalist criticism of other views: anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism" This article is one gigantic straw-man, it shouldn't even be linked to in its current state. And then there are the representations of "anarcho-capitalism" that are questionable in themselves: "that considers all forms of express government unnecessary and harmful, including (or especially) in matters of justice and protection. " Yet capitalists often do support governance institutions such as courts, police, and prisons, even while claiming to be against government. There should be an explaination about why one of these governing bodies is considered to be government while the other is not. "They reject any kind of government control, taxation or regulation." Which is entirely misleading, since they endorse the exact same control mechanisms in the hands of businesses, including border enforcement, rent, and policy enforcement. This is identical to government, the fact that you call it a "business" doesn't change the qualitative aspects of the institution itself. A society made up of a series of mini-states, some of them fascist )private business), some of them partially democratic or oligarchic (corporate business) would be qualitatively identical to the "anarcho-capitalist" vision, yet few would claim such states to be anarchist. "Due to the rejection of any explicit state institutions, Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism," Rather, anarcho-capitalism is claimed to be a form of anarchism. "anarcho-capitalism is based on the notions of individual liberty (including private property)" This assumes that private property is compatible with individual liberty. Many would claim that the opposite is true. "Anti-statism is an essential part of the classical liberal tradition" Not all classical liberals are against the state, even if they are weary of it, so anti-statism can hardly be an essential part of the theory. "Anarcho-capitalists consider themselves as part of the individualist anarchist tradition." It must be noted here that a large number of individualists reject this claim. This without mentioning the fact that all the original individualist anarchists themselves explicitly rejected capitalism. " and defends "negative rights" (such as the "right not to be attacked by anyone else", the "right to not have one's food stolen by anyone else", and the "right not to have any part of one's salary confiscated by anyone")." These "rights" are only defended insofar as they are in perfect agreement with capitalist values. If an individual freely rejects property relations, and in their free movement through a particular geography they are forcefully restricted, no capitalist is going to "defend their right not to be attacked by anyone else" if the person(s) doing the restricting are themselves so-called legitimate property owners. So it should be made clear that capitalists only support negative rights insofar as the actors are themselves capitalists or hold values identical to capitalists. "Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think that violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and property." "defense" of property is only self-defense according to a propertarian ethic. To non-propertarians "defense" of property is often actually aggression. "They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal" way to promote or impose their views" Yet capitalists freely engage in violent enforcement to impose their economic views on dissenters whenever that dissent clashes with their property claims. Given that, the above statement is meaningless. "However, even though they might approve of violence as necessary in certain cases; even though they may concede that governments, having monopolized the means of violence," This is also misleading. Within a capitalist system property owners are given legitimate recourse to enforce whatever policy they dictate within the sphere of their property. This is identical to having a monopoly on violence in that sphere of control, thus identical to a state. "There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others." Shooting a non-propertarian "trespasser" is a form of violence used to impose ones economic system upon others. Another meaningless claim. Finally, I have no idea how the NPOV voting works, I have just seen it done on other NPOV pages. Since you declared that you would simply remove the dissenting notice full stop, I suggested a vote instead. Contents 1 Recent dispute 2 Edit war 3 Latest as of Nov 21 4 Nov 30 5 Dec 5 Recent dispute First of all, I want to note that attacks on anarcho-capitalism belong in the criticisms/arguments sections, not in the definition or introduction, which should describe the beliefs of anarcho-capitalists, regardless of whether you consider such views incoherent or wrong. Besides this point, here are a few other responses: See Landauer quote here for precedent on anarcho-capitalism as anarchism. I suspect most left-anarchists also favor violence in defense of property. An outsider starts destroying the (collectively owned) factory, what then? The notion of self-defense means different things in different systems (e.g., in English common law one cannot use deadly force to avert a minor beating, while some might think this is "self-defense"). I think "self-defense of person and property" is a fair description of ancap beliefs. "History of violence" refers not to the system itself but to the behavior of its ideological adherents; your statement confuses these. Re: objection that a powerful business is like a government. Yes, this is a valid objection to ancap, and similar objections can be made to ansoc (a convenient abbreviation). But others have replies to this objection. Your edits assume that you've won this argument. I'm removing your inlined comments. Perhaps you could contribute to the criticisms. -- VV 02:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) I'm not "attacking" anarcho-capitalism, I am asserting that the descriptions of it should be honest, and that this page should not be used as a covert attempt to attack anarchism itself under the guise of a non-existent "branch" of anarchism. The Landauer quote is irrelevant. Not only because Landauer is no authority who decides for everyone else what anarchism is an is not, but more importantly because all he was doing was distinguishing between communist anarchism and individualist anarchism. But individualist and communist anarchists have always done this. It is Caplan that imports the assumption that this must be a distinction between socialist and individualist anarchism, and it is Caplan and you who mistake individualist anarchism for the misnomer that is anarcho-capitalism. The individualists are not capitalists, they said so themselves dozens of times, and a lot of modern day individualists who have studied history will tell you this themselves. Don't believe me? Ask Wendy McElroy. The discussion of supposed violence in defense of property is also irrelevant. First, because almost all anarchists oppose property, but more importantly because this would at best be a criticism of attempts at anarchism, not a reason to consider capitalists to be anarchists. The most such a criticism could point out, assuming it was valid (a big assumption imho), would be that many of those socialists who consider themselves anarchists actually are not anarchists according to their own assertions. As to the history of violence, are you telling me that no one who has considered themselves an anarcho-capitalist has ever used violence to uphold their property claims? My edits did not assume that I have "won" anything. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm trying to clarify the issue and let capitalism be portrayed honestly. To remove the points that I bring up about the similarity between states and capitalist business is to simply pretend that no such similitarity exists, or that it is irrelevant. Oh well, it is clear that an honest portrayal of anarcho-capitalism is not what you want. I will edit the page whenever I feel the urge, but so long as the NPOV dispute warning remains it is not a priority for me. I'm happy so long as visitors understand that the description here does not stand undisputed in terms of its neutrality. - Kevin 11/12/03 I already responded to most of these points. Anarchism means no state. Self-defense almost always refers to the right to defend one's home, and believing in this does not make one "pro-violence". Ancaps do not favor corporate control; they do accept that hiring corporations to provide self-defense service is a possibility. No one is attacking anarchism; the articles makes it clear there are different groups which oppose the state, and both views are described on their respective pages. Using violence to uphold the property claims is not the same as using violence to impose an ancap order; I'm sure those who want to abolish property have also defended their property while waiting for the Revolution. Your points about state vs. business is a criticism of the position, not the position itself, which does hold that there is a distinction. Adding in your own opinion on these matters is not appropriate. -- VV 11:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) (note this was written simultaneous with below, edit conflict) I think the term leftist anarchist is POV - that is what anarchism is, as far as I am aware. The only people who use the term 'leftist anarchist' are those who think that the libertarian right are anarchists and add the leftist to differentiate between the two. As these libertarian rightists are a tiny minority (I think they only exist in the US) could we use the normal meaning of anarchism? Secretlondon 11:20, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC) I don't know much about the terminology debate (such as the history of left-anarchist), but it seems both groups regard themselves as anarchists (and this is consistent with the word's formal meaning), so both claims should be respected. Adding "left-" as a specifier allows us to be specific about which kind we mean in a certain context, in the same way that saying (e.g.) "Russian conservatism" and "American conservatism" might spare us from wars over which are the real conservatives (or "neo-" and "paleo-", etc.). I will try to accommodate this by adding more text to the intro about the terminology issues. I think this is a reasonable compromise. -- VV 22:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) "I already responded to most of these points. Anarchism means no state." And you are just going to ignore my response? Anarchism from its conception has meant more than just "no state," and anarchism currently means more than just "no state" and the very root of the word literally translates to more than just "no state." For evidence, note proudhon's use of the word, modern dictionary definitions of the word, and the greek basis of it. You didn't respond to any of these points, you just glanced over them and edited anything that disagreed with your position. "Self-defense almost always refers to the right to defend one's home, and believing in this does not make one "pro-violence"." That is debatable, but also irrelevant. Property includes far more than ones home. It can include a field of hay half way around the world, a toothbrush in the sink, or a pound of titanium in a vault in Switzerland. Obviously defending all of these things regardless of how they were acquired is not considered by all people to be "self-defense." Indeed, not even capitalists would view all property claims as self-defense. These needs to be expanded or rewritten to be accounted for. And I never wrote anything that suggested that capitalists were pro-violent, only that they support violence to uphold their property claims. "Ancaps do not favor corporate control; they do accept that hiring corporations to provide self-defense service is a possibility." Clearly many capitalists do favor corporate control over the state. If you want to include the fact that some of them prefer private control, rent, and policy over corporate, then do so. That is not a reason to delete my edits. "No one is attacking anarchism; the articles makes it clear there are different groups which oppose the state, and both views are described on their respective pages." If we accepted your definition of anarchism from the outset, then sure, no one is attacking anarchism. But the whole point of dissent in this case is that as anarchists we are under no obligation to accept your definition. Anarchism does not mean merely what it is presented to mean in this page, it need to be presented openly and honestly, and that includes describing it as anarchists themselves would. "Using violence to uphold the property claims is not the same as using violence to impose an ancap order; I'm sure those who want to abolish property have also defended their property while waiting for the Revolution." This is a non-sequitor. Just because individuals have upheld their property claims using violence in both cases doesn't mean that doing so is not imposing a particular economic order upon those who dissent. "Your points about state vs. business is a criticism of the position, not the position itself, which does hold that there is a distinction." Then you have to explicitly tell what that distinction is. As it is, a reader might incorrectly think that there is no similarity. There is a similarity, and it is our burden to demonstrate the anarcho-capitalist position on this matter. "Adding in your own opinion on these matters is not appropriate." Deleting everything that disagrees with your opinion is not appropriate either. And lets be clear, you are the one deleting passages here, I am merely adding to them or changing the wording to provide a more neutral POV. Secretlondon is correct to assert that left-anarchist is a misnomer. However, it is obvious that the biased capitalists on this board will not admit to such, and since this is their page I suggest that they be refered to as libertarian socialists unless there are any anarchists who disagree. Doing this will allow you to side-step the debate about whether or not left-anarchist is an appropriate title for a group of people who universally reject it. Kevin 11/14/03 "(and this is consistent with the word's formal meaning)" For the third time, the only way you can continue to claim that is by ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, evidence which I have supplied and you have ignored. It is not a compromise to refer to anarchists as something they are not. What is your problem with refering to them as libertarian socialists anyway? Most of them would agree with that far more than "left-anarchis." Many of them in fact refer to themselves as "post-left" anarchists, are you going to try to claim that they are left-anarchists as well? Kevin 11/15/03 Edit war Guys, please stop the edit war. And VV, I don't see what is wrong with Anon's edits; they seem to be reasonable to me and in fact read more NPOV than the version you keep reverting to. Please explain. --mav 03:15, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)~ I have to agree here. The edit war is dizzying, and the anon edits don't seem so crazy as to be reverted completely. They seem to request NPOV. --Kahn 08:18, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) It's more like he keeps making dozens of edits, most without merit. I have kept the ones that were reasonable, but he keeps putting all of them back in. That's why it's turned into reversion. I'll take a few examples from the top: claimed... to be a synthesis. Why is this necessary? It can be pretty clear where a movement originated. What is objectionable about saying it takes ideas from two other viewpoints? express government regulation (etc.). What the hell does this even mean? Versus implicit? It's clear what government means in this context, and in fact the text does refer to "explicit state institutions", which does mean something (institutions calling themselves states). This objection can be in the criticisms section, anyway. free market. Free market is a term in economics with a specific meaning. The verbiage is unhelpful and pointless. corporate enforcement, rent, and policy etc. This is completely wrong. Corporations are a possible place to get self-defense services from, and it's possible you can rent a place, or not. And this is redundant. The text already says, "Anarcho-capitalists promote individual property rights and free markets, as a way to organize all services, including all those that governments claim as their natural monopoly, such as police, justice and the army.... They consider capitalist corporations based on voluntary contracts as a legitimate and efficient way for people to organize." This is a much clearer and far more accurate way of giving this information. The other way is screaming with bias (corporations instead of government, yuck!). individual liberty (with [sic] some claim includes private property) vs. (including private property). The whole point of saying "including" is to distinguish this interpretation from one where liberty does not include private property. Cf., e.g., "all US states (including the District of Columbia) have two senators". There is no history of violence -> There is a history of violence. Are you going to defend this? I could go on and on. The point about violence to defend one's property versus to impose one's system (and is there any evidence of the former among ancaps anyway?) is also a big one, covered in my Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles blurb. And property as aggression is a fringe view which does not need to be accommodated at every single mention of violence; that view can get its say in the objections section. In summary, not one of these edits appears merited to me. -- VV 08:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC) You have not kept all the edits that are reasonable VV. You have kept all the edits the you have personally deemed to be reasonable. Your assumption apparently being that you are the ultimate arbiter of what does or does not count as reason. "claimed... to be a synthesis. Why is this necessary? It can be pretty clear where a movement originated. What is objectionable about saying it takes ideas from two other viewpoints? " There is nothing at all objectionable about saying that anarcho-capitalism takes ideas from two other traditions. Please, say so. But just make it clear that not everyone agrees with this claim. Most individualists themselves believe that capitalism is entirely incompatible with anarchism, so we need readers to know that there is more than one opinion floating about here. Obviously this is the capitalist page, so the capitalist opinion takes precedent, but to simply claim that "capitalism IS a synthesis" involving individualism is to pretend like there is no controversy and no dissent at all. That is hardly honest. "* express government regulation (etc.). What the hell does this even mean? Versus implicit? It's clear what government means in this context, and in fact the text does refer to "explicit state institutions", which does mean something (institutions calling themselves states). This objection can be in the criticisms section, anyway." I don't understand. You are agreeing that capitalists reject explicit state institutions, or institutions calling themselves states. So what do you find objectionable with making that clear by pointing out that capitalists object specifically to express government regulation? "* free market. Free market is a term in economics with a specific meaning. The verbiage is unhelpful and pointless." Sure. It is also a term used by individualists to refer to an economy in which usury is not present. Given that this is page is claiming to be a form of anarchism, it is very important to take into account the fact that most market anarchists (i.e. individualist anarchists) would not consider a capitalist market to be "free." It seems clear that by "free market" you mean a market that is not interfered with by the state, so what is wrong with making this explicit to avoid confusion? "corporate enforcement, rent, and policy etc. This is completely wrong. Corporations are a possible place to get self-defense services from, and it's possible you can rent a place, or not." If corporate enforcement, rent, and policy is a possible outcome, then why is this "completely wrong?" Perhaps you should mention that it is not the only possible outcome, and I did that myself when I refered to "corporate OR private" replacements for some state institutions. "The other way is screaming with bias (corporations instead of government, yuck!)." Are you telling me that you do not seek private propertarian and corporate propertarian alternatives to current government institutions? If so, please just say so. I can quote from just about every prominent "anarcho-capitalist" that I can think of saying otherwise, if you would like evidence that this is in fact the case. "* individual liberty (with [sic] some claim includes private property) vs. (including private property). The whole point of saying "including" is to distinguish this interpretation from one where liberty does not include private property. " Fine. Then to be neutral it seems to me it ought to read "which they claim includes private property" rather than "which includes private property." The second makes it sound like private property simply is compatible with liberty full stop. This may or may not be the case, but it is contested by many if not most of the people who call themselves anarchists, so this should be reflected in the language by removing the assumption that it necessarily is compatible. "* There is no history of violence -> There is a history of violence. Are you going to defend this?" I already have. To claim that there is no history of violence by anarcho-capitalists amounts to a claim that no anarcho-capitalist has ever upheld their own personal property claims with violence. Given that anarcho-capitalists endorse such uses of violence, and given that anarcho-capitalists living and dead have owned property and many of claimed to at some point in their life used violence or threat of violence to maintain their claim to it, I find it hard to believe that all of these individuals are lying or deluding themselves. As such, I think that the claim "there is no history of violence on the part of anarcho-capitalists to promote or impose their system" should be done away with altogether. But out of respect for the position I instead altered it repeatedly to "with the exception of private property enforcement, there is no history of violence." Since you deleted that several times with no comment, I simply reverted it to a more simple claim "there IS a history of violence" because frankly my hands are getting sore of constantly typing new edits in the face of your cut-and-paste reverts. "And property as aggression is a fringe view which does not need to be accommodated at every single mention of violence; that view can get its say in the objections section." A fringe view? What, and anarcho-capitalists, or anarchists themselves, are now mainstream? The merit of a position is not determined by the quantity of its subscriptants, and it turns out that the vast majority of anarchists today (libertarian socialists if you prefer) believe that property as it is concieved by capitalists amounts to legitimated aggression in certain instances. That hardly makes it a fringe view in the context of anarchist discussions, and that is the context we are dealing with. Out of respect to wikipedia, Maveric, and Kahn, I'm going to refrain from editing this page further until I recieve a response from you, assuming one is forthcoming. I don't want to disrupt wikipedia, and I have had severe reservations about continuing to re-insert my edits. However, I don't accept that my edits should be removed without even a comment, nor that VV determines what is or is not acceptable on this page. Finally, I honestly feel that I am morally obligated to contest what appears to me as a heavily biased page which asserts anarchism to be something it is not. And that is all I'm trying to do, contest it, not dictate what the page may or may not be. Anyway, I do apologise for the disruption and hope we can move forward on this VV. Kevin 11/16/03 "Left-anarchism" is a misnomer, and should not be used with regard to traditional anarchists. The vast majority of people with a knowledge of government and politics understand anarchists as being historically socialist; usually, the term "left-anarchism" is used by anarcho-capitalists to distinguish their ideology from opposing ones. However, many traditional anarchists are by no means "Leftists," and the left-right political spectrum is too far out of date to be used in this fashion, especially with an ideology so unrelated to any form of government. The term "traditional anarchist" should be used so that people who are knew to anarchism do not become confused - and so they understand that anarcho-capitalism is still disputed as a form of anarchism. -AaronS 11/17/03 Okay, this is a reasonable objection to the term left-anarchism. It is not a reasonable defense of the edit removing the claim that this view "may be known as left-anarchism or libertarian socialism", since the former term is used, misnomer or no. The fact that it is used by ancaps only makes it all the more relevant, since this is the Ancap article. And my introductory paragraph that it was merely being used to "avoid confusion" after mentioning the objection that most anarchists have to this classification I think removes the assumption that the term is a anything more than an article-wide shorthand. As I said above (if anyone noticed), "Adding 'left-' as a specifier allows us to be specific about which kind we mean in a certain context, in the same way that saying (e.g.) 'Russian conservatism' and 'American conservatism' might spare us from wars over which are the real conservatives." But if left-anarchist is a misnomer, it should still be noted in the intro as a term in use, but might defensibly be a poor choice of shorthand. Traditional anarchism is I think too POV. My objection to libertarian socialism is that it (the term) is not derived from anarchism. Perhaps socialist anarchism? Or maybe libertarian socialism cannot be improved upon. -- VV 05:56, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) "The fact that it is used by ancaps only makes it all the more relevant, since this is the Ancap article." Except that the article should be directed toward people who are not familiar with anarcho-capitalism, or, more broadly, anarchism in general. Giving such weight to a term that is clearly a misnomer and is not used by the majority of anarchists or people familiar with anarchism is misleading, and offers the wrong impression. As for the shorthand argument, I don't think that "traditional anarchism" is terribly burdensome. "Traditional anarchism is I think too POV. My objection to libertarian socialism is that it (the term) is not derived from anarchism. Perhaps socialist anarchism? Or maybe libertarian socialism cannot be improved upon." Traditional anarchism is not POV, it is fact - much more so than left-anarchism, which is a term used only by anarcho-capitalists, usually as a means of disparaging or willfully misrepresenting the positions of traditional anarchists. With that respect, left-anarchism is much more POV than traditional anarchism could ever be, considering that the former is a term that was literally invented by anarcho-capitalists, whereas the latter is merely a modifier that is both historically and factually accurate. The same goes for socialist anarchism, and I agree that libertarian socialism is not specific enough. -AaronS 11/19/03 The introductory comments should already make it clear to the casual reader that terminology is a point of contention, and my "confusing" sentence made it clear that left-anarchist was merely a local convention. No, I'm not satisfied with traditional anarchism, regardless of whether it is "better" than left-anarchism (questionable, and I don't believe it's about "disparaging or willfully misrepresenting"). Libertarian socialism may be the only acceptable choice, despite its weaknesses. -- VV 06:39, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC) What is so unnaceptable about traditional anarchism, and why would you not be satisfied with it if you yourself feel that it is a better term? It is both historically and factually accurate, whereas left-anarchism is neither, considering that traditional anarchists are by no means leftists. Libertarian socialism is far too weak - I don't see the reasoning behind the neutering of the term. -- AaronS 20 Nov 2003 B/c anarcho-capitalists do consider themselves part of the anarchist tradition, rightly or not. What's wrong with using a term, even a temporary coined one, if it spares us having to make this judgement? Perhaps anarcho-socialist, which is used too, might be specific enough and useful for this article (with the caveat I had before it was removed). -- VV 03:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) They may consider themselves part of the anarchist tradition, but that doesn't change the fact that people who are proponents of the kind of anarchism that was espoused by the likes of Bakunin and Proudhon are traditional anarchists, whereas the adoption of anti-statism into classical liberalism is simply an example of a political movement branching off of another. It's not like there's any ambiguity, here. First, there were anarchists. Then, anarcho-capitalists came along. The original anarchists are traditional anarchists; members of the newer branch-off are not. They may adhere to the anarchist "tradition," but that's something completely different altogether. The adjective traditional is a modifier that makes it clear that anarchism is traditionally a socialist philosophy (actually, Marx developed his anti-private property stance from anarchism's anti-property stance) and continues to be so today. Anarcho-capitalists are part of the anti-statist tradition, insofar as explicit government is conernced, by they are not part of the socialist tradition, or the anti-property tradition. Where is the ambiguity? AaronS 20 Nov 2003 Latest as of Nov 21 In order to accomodate the concerns of others I have voluntarily ceased to edit this page while awaiting VV's response to my own objections. He has done nothing to move the discussion forward in that time, yet continues to edit the page to his own personal tastes. As such, I would like to reiterate these objections, and note that I my concern for the stability of this page will not indefinately outweigh my concern for sincerety and honesty in its presentation. And here are my responses, in most cases yet again, indented thus. (I've been responding on various other talk pages, but much is repetitive.) -- VV The following are standing objections that have yet to be put to rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a view that draw ideas from both individualist anarchism and classical liberalism" Given that individualists deny that any form of capitalism is compatible with their theories, and given that "anarcho-capitalism" draws ideas from many sources, the emphasis on individualism is bound to lead to the misconception that "anarcho-capitalism" does in fact spring from individualist ideology. Since this assertion is currently debated, this sentence should be changed. "Anarcho-capitalism is claimed to be a synthesis of individualist and..." would be one possibility, as would "Anarcho-capitalism is held by its proponents to be..." I should note that several people have made this edit throughout the history of this page or brought up this concern in one form or another. Furthermore, this is the language used elsewhere in the document, and is thus consistent with the whole. Note for example this passage which has stood uncontested this entire time: "Anarcho-capitalists consider themselves as part of the individualist anarchist tradition." The objection to both the "synthesis" claim and now this even weaker one is incomprehensible. It does draw ideas from anarchism. Maybe you don't think it takes all of anarchism's ideas, but if it did it would just be anarchism and not a different view. The New Left draws ideas from the Old Left, but can still be hated by the latter. In this case, this is completely clearcut because it synthesizes or draws ideas from two different views and thus cannot possibly mean has all the same beliefs as. The "consider themselves as part" claim is different; you can draw ideas from a viewpoint but (by your admission) have radically diverged from it. "which considers all forms of government unnecessary and harmful," At some point in the article, not necessarily here, there should be an explaination of how institutions of enforcement such as a judiciary, penal system, and police enforcement, which are all supported by many "anarcho-capitalists" are considered different from "government" or "governing institutions." Without such an explaination, there is no way to know how such a claim could be valid, and absent any explaination it should be changed to "express government" or "which considers some forms of government." Similarly: "They reject any kind of government control, taxation or regulation." requires an explaination of how rent is qualitatively distinct from taxation, or how regulation is qualitatively distinct from corporate/private policy enforcement. Everyone knows what a government is. The article already explains the alternate vision ancaps have. If you wish to expand on it in a neutral way, do so, although probably an actual ancap should do so. In the case of police, they think people should defend themselves or hire someone to defend them. This is not the same. Several different defense firms could provide services in a given area. This is not government in any normal sense. There is no need to explain the difference between rent and taxation, this distinction is already familiar to the entire non-cave-dwelling world. "They consider capitalist corporations based on voluntary contracts" At some point in the article it should be made clear what is considered voluntary in this context. The contracts which "anarcho-capitalists" support are involuntary by several standards, so until this distinction is made the claim should be changed to "ostensibly voluntary" or just drop the "voluntary" part altogether. This problem also occurs further down in the article, "born out of voluntary contracts." However, this problem was avoided in this case, which might point to a good solution, "To anarcho-capitalists, contracts in general, and employment contracts in particular, are but a particular case of voluntary exchange of property." Note that the claim is "to anarcho-capitalists" thus NPOV. They do not consider corporations based on ostensibly voluntary contracts legitimate, they consider corporations based on actually voluntary contracts legitimate. Yes, defining voluntary is tricky, as is defining truth. But I think the account given makes it clear: you have certain rights, and you may act within them. That is basically a feature of all systems. "Due to the rejection of any explicit state institutions, Anarcho-capitalism is often considered a form of anarchism" "Often" in this context is POV, it should be changed to "sometimes" or "considered by some" or "claimed by anarcho-capitalists to be" in order to remove this bias. How many times does it have to be so considered to constitute often? More than a hundred times a year? Often does not mean usually, mostly, primarily, or almost always. "claiming that the historic use of the word anarchist is inconsistent with this or even any form of capitalism" This or even? The anarchists who claim that capitalism is incompatible with anarchism do so universally, so it should be changed to simply "inconsistent with any form of capitalism" This makes the connection to anarcho-capitalism. It's strange you oppose this slight softening but want to heavily handicap often. "some even count Lao Tse and Aristotle as early classical liberals" Given that VV required evidence that Caplan was in fact a capitalist before allowing the claim to stand, I now require evidence of anyone claiming that Lao Tsu was a classical liberal. Again, libertarian sure, anarchist even, but I've never heard of anyone claiming he was a liberal. I did not put in the Lao Tse claim, but whoever did must believe that some do count him as a classical liberal (possibly the author), and I have no reason to disbelieve them over you. "and that individuals should be free from any form of collective coercion" Just to be clear, is corporate enforcement of local policy being claimed not to be a form of collective coercion? If so, then what kinds of collective coercion is this being constrasted against? Clear from context. And it's what they are "convinced" of, not what you are. "In any case, they agree that in a free society, people should be free to organize in any economic way they like, whether in capitalist businesses or in collectivist cooperatives" So those who choose to organize in a way that violates capitalist claims will not be put down with force? This should also be made clear, that capitalists will not enforce their claims against counter-claims. (though, I have never heard of a single prominent capitalist who has said this) This problem also applies to this passage, "but won't impose upon others" Presumably, "free to organize in any economic way they like" is meant to preclude death squads. "Many traditional anarchists and individualists consider the socialist views of some individualist anarchists as essential to individualist anarchism, and reject anarcho-capitalist claims to belong to the individualist anarchist tradition" To be clear, ALL of the original thus traditional anarchists considered the socialist views of all the individualists of that time to be essential to individualist anarchism. "Many" and "some" are in fact "the vast majority" Again, it's odd to oppose softening here. What's wrong with many? It means a lot, and saves us from having to rely on surveys. "Individuals may take any legitimate steps within their property" This needs to be explicated, what is considered legitimate in this case? In any legal system, legitimate means within one's legal rights (or something nearly that). Thus, its meaning is understood within the system being developed. This sentence could probably be made clearer (probably not by you), as now it seems redundant, but anyway the whole thing is in the context of "To anarcho-capitalists" anyway. "Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think that violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and property." Until some argument is offered in the context of the article that posits property as a part of the self, this claim needs to be changed to "defense of person and property." Self-defense is a legal term which applies to just this situation. "They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal" way to promote or impose their views" So capitalists would not enforce their property claims unto those who do not hold capitalist views? If not, then this passage is A-ok. If so, then this claim is bogus. "There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others." It is clear that many "anarcho-capitalists" acting in full accordance with their express beliefs have in fact enforced their particular brand of property claims onto others on an individual basis, thus this claim is also bogus. If it is meant to express that "anarcho-capitalists" have never engaged in a revolution, then that should be said instead. We've been through this. First, one usually defends property to keep it, not to create a new world order. And anyway protecting property rights already protected in the current legal system cannot possibly be imposing one's views, since that particular view already reigns. Again, by this reasoning you can derive anything: proponents of tort reform can be accused of using violence to impose their views, because under their proposed legal code they would also have the right to defend their property. "Also, misunderstanding about the nature of private (or public) protection" The critics in this case have a different understanding, not a misunderstanding. This is POV and should be rewritten. I agree this should be changed. In fact, I thought I had done so myself but apparently not. "and may not understand the stance of anarcho-capitalists" Another POV. Many of them do understand quite well, and still disagree. Should be rewritten to "and may not agree with the stance..." - Kev 11/21/03 "May not" seems NPOV; misunderstanding is a possible source of disagreement. -- VV 20:09, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC) Kev 11/22/03 My responses follow: The number of personal attacks has reached the point where I'm considering not responding, but I'll add some brief counters here to the non-insulting parts anyway, indented thus and marked. -- VV 22:55, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) "The objection to both the "synthesis" claim and now this even weaker one is incomprehensible. It does draw ideas from anarchism." No, it doesn't. It draws ideas from another parallel field called classical liberalism, and arguably libertarianism. But anarchism is an offshoot of libertarianism, not the other way around, and since one of the main distinctions between libertarianism in general and anarchism is anti-capitalism, to claim that it draws ideas from anarchism rather than libertarianism is simply false. Again, this would be more clear to you if you bothered to learn about the history of anarchism before changing edits just because they "don't sound right" to you. VV How do you know they don't draw any ideas from anarchism? I don't find this claim credible; your only evidence is that they believe different things than "anarchists", but that is not the same. "Everyone knows what a government is." Then it must be clear to you that these are governing institutions, and the claim is without merit. If not, then obviously not everyone has the same conception of what is or is not a government. "The article already explains the alternate vision ancaps have." Not explicitly enough. VV Perhaps you should encourage ancaps to come and elaborate. Your "elaborations" are all just not-so-subtle broadsides. "In the case of police, they think people should defend themselves or hire someone to defend them. This is not the same. Several different defense firms could provide services in a given area." This is true in a state, where private firms operate under the jurisdiction of public firms. If you mean that no single firm will have a monopoly on defense of a given locale, then you are simply wrong. The claim to a given piece of property is a claim to exclusive control of it, the firm that directly controls it or is hired to control it would be the final authority of that property, even if smaller firms were allowed to operate under its jurisdiction. I would be happy to quote Rothbard himself on the subject, since you obviously haven't read him. "There is no need to explain the difference between rent and taxation, this distinction is already familiar to the entire non-cave-dwelling world." Please forgive me then, if a complete lack of an argument from someone who admittedly isn't very informed on this subject does not convince me. If the differences are clear, then they should be easily explicated by anyone, even you. VV As in government, rent and taxation are standard, familiar words. There is nothing wrong with using them in the summary. Later paragraphs do elaborate on the ancap vision. "They do not consider corporations based on ostensibly voluntary contracts legitimate, they consider corporations based on actually voluntary contracts legitimate. Yes, defining voluntary is tricky, as is defining truth. But I think the account given makes it clear: you have certain rights, and you may act within them. That is basically a feature of all systems." You make my point very well. Currently this could easily entail a justification for fascism or state communism, but that is clearly not what is intended. As such, it is imperative that a definition of what they consider to be voluntary is offered. Lacking that, these contracts are nothing more than superficially voluntary at best, we might as well call a man with a gun to his head to be making voluntary decisions (and in a purely existential sense, without defining our terms carefully, he is). VV This does not answer my point as to what ancaps "consider". "How many times does it have to be so considered to constitute often? More than a hundred times a year? Often does not mean usually, mostly, primarily, or almost always." No, but it does mean often, and there is no reason not to change it to the more neutral "sometimes," unless you prefer the bias. You made this exact same change yourself in modifying a number of other pages from political viewpoints you obviously disagree with, I would be happy to cite the examples for you as your double standard in this case is telling. VV This claim has already been substantially weakened from the original "is a form of anarchism". I don't see further demotion as helpful, especially when the present one is accurate. "This makes the connection to anarcho-capitalism." Fine, then I only need evidence of a single anarchist who has EVER objected to anarcho-capitalism but embraced some other form of capitalism for this counter to stand up to scrutiny. One example VV, that is all. VV My understanding is most that would tolerate smaller forms of trade (of personal possessions or services). "I did not put in the Lao Tse claim, but whoever did must believe that some do count him as a classical liberal (possibly the author), and I have no reason to disbelieve them over you." You are going to feel pretty damned sheepish about this if you ever educate yourself on the matter. Heh. Don't you even know that fascists and state communists are currently intentionally trying to misrepresent anarchism on wikipedia? I can give examples if you'd like. I've talked with far more anarcho-capitalists than you, and none of them would let such a claim stand given the overwhelming evidence against it, and given that it could in fact have been made for any number of purposes. Regardless, your ignorance of the subject is not a compelling reason for me to allow a false claim to stand, if the author of that claim wants to step up to bat then let them, I see no reason for you to play as a blind proxy when you don't even know the truth behind the matter and are only making more obvious your personal grudge. VV The false claim that some count him as such? I'll pass the personal grudge accusation, although it's true you have in my mind tarnished your credibility badly with some of your edits (the American Revolution and history of violence ones particularly), which makes me inclined to side with the status quo. "Clear from context. And it's what they are "convinced" of, not what you are." So it is clear from the context that they are convinced that corporate enforcement of policy is not collective coercion? Then why not just say so, we don't have anything to hide right? VV The imagined role of corporations is already explained earlier. The collective coercion claim is about what they are convinced of, and does not require another inserted discussion of corporations. You want to mention "corporate control" over and over (usually misleadingly) to make it sound as bad as possible. "Presumably, "free to organize in any economic way they like" is meant to preclude death squads." I see no reason to presume when the answer can be stated directly and clearly. If they are not going to use force to impose their claims, then using force against those who hold different claims is not an option. If they are going to use force to impose their claims, then the page should say so. VV Any economic way means within property rights. "Thus, its meaning is understood within the system being developed. This sentence could probably be made clearer (probably not by you), as now it seems redundant, but anyway the whole thing is in the context of "To anarcho-capitalists" anyway." Great, good, fine. It needs to be explicated. If you don't like my edits, go educate yourself or find a proxy to replace you. Right now I'm arguing about the color blue to a person who admits he is blind, you need to take the time to step up properly, find someone else to do so, or simply realise that you are not the designated "defender of truth even when he doesn't know what the truth is" on wikipedia. This page doesn't need you to survive VV, there are lots of anti-state capitalists on wikipedia and they would be far better suited to respond if you only gave them the time to do so. "Self-defense is a legal term which applies to just this situation." Then refer to it as "legal self-defense" as the law does not yet have a monopoly on the use of the term, and the use is actually currently contradictory to philosophical self-defense. VV The "of property" part makes clear the intended scope. "We've been through this. First, one usually defends property to keep it, not to create a new world order." I've never claimed otherwise. But you are assuming that the claims by the capitalists are necessarily valid, that the case is open and shut right here in the context of this page. It is not, and "defending property to keep it" for one value system is in fact the same act as "violently enforcing property upon the unwilling" to another. Both are ideological filters placed over the actions themselves, so we should make it clear that we are talking about an ideological filter, or simply refer to the actions themselves without the bias. I do not propose that we endorse either viewpoint in the concept of a neutral page, I propose that we remove the bias that claims that capitalists will never impose their system (which again, assumes their position). This can be done easily by writing it as "capitalists claim that they will never impose" or "according to capitalist standards their actions will never impose" or "capitalists will use force to uphold their claims, but they believe this force is justified according to the rights of self-defense." All neutral language, all stuff that I'm blown away you object to so vigorously, especially given your similar edits on dozens of other pages (mumia, fox news, cambodia, anti-americanism, etc, etc). The difference here being, seemingly, that this neutrality doesn't agree with your explicit bias. "And anyway protecting property rights already protected in the current legal system cannot possibly be imposing one's views, since that particular view already reigns." This is the worst argument you've made yet. You are saying that the status quo is neutrality by definition, you might as well be making the argument that it is neutral to claim all jews should die because we happen to live in the middle of Nazi germany. If so, then how could anyone, wikipedian or not, stand by neutrality in good conscience? But there is no reason to worry, because that isn't the neutrality that wikipedia claims. "Again, by this reasoning you can derive anything: proponents of tort reform can be accused of using violence to impose their views, because under their proposed legal code they would also have the right to defend their property." This is misleading. Proponents of anarcho-capitalism are directly making claims to the legitimate ability to enforce their claims with violence, even right here on this page, and as an essential part of their philosophy. To call them on this in such a context is completely relevant. VV But they are the same as rights they already have, and so can't be seen as part of a scheme to change the system of rights. ""May not" seems NPOV; misunderstanding is a possible source of disagreement." A different understanding is also possible, far more likely even in my experience, so why is one suggested in the absence of the other? The context is what makes this a NPOV violation, not the statement taken in a vacuum. VV As you'll note, I changed this anyway. Yet another compromise for which I've been called names. "Again, it's odd to oppose softening here. What's wrong with many? It means a lot, and saves us from having to rely on surveys." As if anyone is going to pretend that it isn't the vast majority. Fine fine, if it means so much to you I won't try to give a more accurate picture here so that you can pretend that neutrality is actually your interest. VV I'll note in comparison that I've tolerated the "most modern-day anarchists" claim early on, in addition to all the other weakening. But even that seems not enough to spare me these sorts of accusations. My God. The changes that you made, VV, have made the entry more biased than I have ever seen it before. "arguably traditional form of anarchism also known variously as libertarian socialism, left-anarchism, or anarcho-socialism." It isn't arguably traditional - it's traditional, plain and simple. This is ridiculous. Rather than discuss a compromise, you went and edited everything to your tastes. Reading back in the discussion on this page, I can see why people have become frustrated with you. 1. The anarchism of the 19th century precedes the anti-state liberalism of the 20th century. This is a fact, for Christ's sake, not a point of view. In this respect, the anarchism of the 19th century is traditional - there is no room for any ambiguity. 2. Anarchism is not known as left-anarchism or anarcho-socialism, except by proponents of anarcho-capitalism. They are misnomers, and they are misleading. This sort of unilateral editing ruins the very premise of Wikipedia. It's sad and childish. -AaronS 11/23 What's wrong with "arguably traditional"? It keeps the recent addition of the word "traditional" while being neutral as to its applicability. Are you denying that it's arguable that it's traditional? As for the names used, yes, those are used, by your own admission by proponents of anarcho-capitalism. Thus, mentioning these terms is completely appropriate in this article. The hated (by you) left-anarchism is not used anywhere else except for to note its meaning. And of course I included considerable caveats about the terminology issue, giving both sides. I also don't see why anarcho-socialism is misleading. And anyway people claim anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer, so these misnomer arguments can't really be relied on in this entry. "More biased than ever", how? -- VV 21:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) As for "sad and childish", and "edited everything to my tastes", my effort was in fact yet another attempt to compromise, giving more ground on several points. If you have indeed read back in the discussion and history, you should recognize this. -- VV 22:22, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) Insults? This from someone who has refered to my edits as "absurd" "ridiculous" "idiocy" and so forth when he doesn't even know the subject he is editing so extensively? As to the points, which you don't even seem interested in giving proper objections to anymore: First, I know that "anarcho-capitalism" does not draw ideas from individualist anarchism because all the ideas it draws are founded in classical liberalism and at most arguably identical to those of libertarianism with one exception: that of anti-capitalism. Given that, it would be appropriate to say that "anarcho-capitalism" is a minsomer altogether, and that it is actually neo-classical liberalism or even anti-state capitalism. But "anarcho-capitalists" refuse this on the grounds that "they should be able to call themselves whatever they want, regardless of the contradiction present in the label." Thus, a compromise, in the context of their page they can call themselves whatever they want, monkeys from mars for all I care, but to claim to draw ideas from individualism when they are actually drawing those ideas almost exclusively from liberalism with a sprinkle of libertarianism is just plain false. Second, I have invited several caps to come here. They have for the most part refused because this encyclopedia is open to the public and represents for them "the tragedy of the commons." They demand the right to dictate the status of this page and refuse to "waste time" on a page where people who know nothing about anarchism or disagree with them can change their edits. Others have said that they will when they have the time, still others have said that they will once folk like you stop reverting any and all changes that don't meet your misconceptions. But all of this is a side point, if you don't know the answers, then you shouldn't be editing this page at all VV, regardless of how wrong the answers might sound from your uninformed POV. Third, yes government and rent and taxation are all standard words, that is why it is so easy to see the qualitative similarities between the standards being contrasted. You claim that later paragraphs elaborate the "ancap" vision, but none of them explain what makes rent qualitatively different from taxation in a capitalism system, or what makes corporate policy enforcement different from state policy enforcement. When they do, since that is all I have asked, I would happily drop the objection. I DID answer your point as to what ancaps consider. What they consider should definately be on this page, in as simple and explicit terminology as possible, but it should not be presented in such a fashion as to make it appear that what they consider is in fact the case. The use of the term "often" is not accurate, it is ambiguous. "Sometimes" is accurate and leaves room for either interpretation. Sometimes is neutral, often is not. This is not a "further demotion" it is a necessary clarification. "My understanding is most that would tolerate smaller forms of trade (of personal possessions or services)." This is entirely irrelevant. Individualists support trade but reject capitalism, because capitalism is more than simple trade (or if it is not, you should make this somewhat silly claim explicit and watch yourself as anarcho-capitalists remove your edits for misrepresenting them). You have yet to give me a single example of an anarchist, even one, who claims to reject anarcho-capitalism but support some other form of capitalism. By your own standards, that means I'm well within my scope to remove your edit. And yes, it is false to claim that anyone counts Lao Tsu as a classical liberal in the absence of a shred of evidence. At least, it is false until someone can offer evidence of such, and you have apparently refused to even try. It will be changed until it can be supported, again this is according to your own editing standards. "The imagined role of corporations is already explained earlier. The collective coercion claim is about what they are convinced of, and does not require another inserted discussion of corporations. You want to mention "corporate control" over and over (usually misleadingly) to make it sound as bad as possible." No, I want to limit the claims that they object to collective coercion when coercion by a corporation would actually entail a form of "collective coercion." The fact that they don't consider it coercion should be noted and even emphasized, the fact that they don't consider it coercion should note be expressed in such a way as to imply that it isn't coercion in fact, as that is explicit bias. "Any economic way means within property rights." Given that many people propose systems of economics but reject the application of "rights" or even "property" this claim is not some kind of universal truth that you can use to over-ride any dissent. So the objection remains. "The "of property" part makes clear the intended scope." No, it does not, because there are many conceptions of property in which the property is not considered to be some meta-physical aspect of the self, thus not considered to be self-defense. "But they are the same as rights they already have, and so can't be seen as part of a scheme to change the system of rights." The fact that there are currently existing "rights" does not mean that they are not upheld and imposed in order to maintain their applicability and broaden their scope. Another irrelevant tangent you are going off on. If you are now going to argue that capitalism is a traditional form of anarchism, then please tell me which of the original anarchists were capitalists, or even felt that capitalism was remotely compatible with anarchism, or even refrained from flat out rejecting capitalism. If you can't demonstrate this, then I have no idea how you can claim that it is a traditional part of anarchism, the most that you could claim is that it has its own tradition, which is an entirely different subject. - Kev 11/23/03 VV has tried to make the entry more fair, certainly more than kev. there's a difference between presenting a different pov in an article and turning it into a forum for enemies of the ideology to criticize it. Then please, by all means, address my concerns. Show me where any of the points I brought up above actually criticize the ideology rather than try to explicate it. Do you think it is "fair" that VV has reverted several neutral edits that are identical to the neutral edits he imported to other pages himself? Do you think it is "fair" to remove edits when one doesn't even know the truth value behind them, simply because they "seem wrong?" As I was from the start, I am open to discussion, but I won't be dictated to by someone who doesn't even know the matter well enough to properly explicate the philosophy. Again, please point out which of my standing objections would be a critique of the ideology itself, rather than a further explaination of it. -Kev 11/23/03 Several people have now made the same edits that VV consistently reverts. I have done everything in my power to explain and uphold the legitimacy of those edits, VV doesn't even seem to care about the explainations at this point. I have also put on hold all of my own edits for 2 weeks to discuss this issue and educate VV on that matter, and instead of respecting this VV simply used that time to revert back to all of his edits in my absence. As such, I feel justified now in moving forward on one of my above points, which I will do in the next day or so. I will edit the page in accordance with an objection brought up by myself and several others, and while I will remain open to discussion with anyone, I will not allow VV to dictate this page anymore. After that point has stood for a few days, I will move onto the next and repeat the process, until all the points have been put to rest on the discussion page or adequately accounted for on the encyclopedia page itself. If anyone has any suggestions for how the concerns of many on wikipedia can be addressed without devolving into the editwar that VV is already engaged in, please take the time to offer up such suggestions here. - Kev 11/29/03 Nov 30 Most of your responses are the same as before, Yes they are, that is because they were sufficient to begin with, and your only arguments against them amounted to a declaration of your ignorance of the subject. - Kev with new broadsides against me thrown in. Please A, point out these "broadsides" so that I can apologise for them if they are not in keeping with your own admissions and B, tell me how this is relevant given your direct insults to me long before I even became frank in this discussion. Your objection to the "draws" claim is still between incomprehensible and bizarre. That isn't an argument VV, it is a personal opinion. I have explained it several times, that you don't understand it even now is not something I feel responsible for. And bizarre is all a matter of perspective, it certain doesn't invalidate a given viewpoint. The "almost exclusively" part of what you say seems to concede this, as ancaps do draw at least one idea from anarchism, abolishing the state. No. They almost exclusively draw their points from liberalism. The one idea they draw of abolishing the state is from libertarianism (many libertarians have suggested that the state be abolished), not anarchism. They do consider themselves anarchists for this reason, and the rejection by others is irrelevant. Irrelevant? So it doesn't matter at all how we represent individualists in the context of this article? Remember that whole neutrality thing? Misnomer talk is pointless. Are Protestants not real Christians? I dunno, do you have some kind of argument to back up such a claim, or do you just want to throw about specious analogies as some kind of scare tactic so you don't have to address the matter at hand? This will go nowhere. Indeed it will. Are fascists now anarchists? When they claim as much on wikipedia, can we not even demand that they use neutral language to make it clear that their claims are disputed? That is all I'm asking for, neutral language. This is not a huge request, unless we are trying to give a blatantly biased representation. They do draw ideas from anarchism. No, they don't. All their ideas are from liberalism, with arguably the exception of a few drawn from libertarianism. (I say arguably because not everyone accepts even that. You just don't want this said because they don't draw all ideas. No this is not the case, and I have said so before, so this is a straw-man. Anyway, I will skip over the rest. If you don't like the way I have written it, I invite you, AGAIN, to rewrite it in such a way that the objection is accounted for. I have explained why your previous rewrite did not account for it, so I am not convinced yet that your position is correct just because you have said so over and over. BTW, I can't help but note that this is the first time you have discussed a change before modifying the text on this page, I find your willingness to discuss this rather than dictate it an improvement. I only hope it holds. - Kev 11/30/03 But the fact that they don't and the nature of the dispute is already outlined in the text of the entry. I would in fact favor the return of the synthesis claim, but I dumbed it down to "draws ideas from" precisely to deal with your objection. Your rewrite is clearly awful. The meaning is not really in dispute. And saying the view most often held by proponents suggests that.... How many qualifiers is that? I think what the previous author wrote is correct, you just want to attack anarcho-capitalism on its own page. -- VV 20:58, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC) Re: your patronizing comments at the end. Perhaps you've forgotten that you started out with edits which bordered on vandalism, that is, edits which made it impossible to AssumeGoodFaith. Nevertheless, I have done what I can to incorporate your objections. Your comment makes it sound like I have just been ignoring and reverting, when in fact I have been constantly rewriting in an attempt to adapt to what you've said. This contrasts with bad faith edits made by you and others. I also have been discussing this almost constantly. The new intro is awful and should be changed. Do you not recognize this? Are you just waiting for me to make a change so you can change it back? -- VV 04:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC) Give the world a break VV. We now have three different people making the exact same changes, and you the only one reverting them back. I haven't even tried to help with their reverts given your behaviour. You are apparently using the fact that two of them are anon and not taking part in discussion as an excuse to enter into a revert war with them, but it is clear that they agree with Aaron and you have yet to put to rest his own objections. I think they are good objections, and I agree with Aaron on the issue, so you'll have to find a new excuse. The next time someone makes those changes and you revert it back without even inviting discussion I will be very tempted to lend them a hand myself. - Kev 12/02/03 I'm with Kev on this one. You don't own this page, VV. You can't simply ignore the thoughts, ideas, suggestions, and changes of others. It's clear that people have attempted to engage in discussion with you, and what you call compromise is simply you giving up little bits of an entire entry that you have held hostage. I reverted the page back to the changes that the majority of us agree upon. In order to incorporate your minority position, it is clear that a consensus must be reached. Before that happens, however, discussion must take place. - AaronS Actually there are two people, and they are making completely different changes. One is an anon reverting a proposed terminology compromise to a biased version, also thoughtlessly removing many other unrelated fixes I made to the page, without, I should add, discussion (in contrast with my proposal which I did explain in Talk). The other is this nonsense about the intro. While now I'm the only one defending the page, there were others. I'm not even going to respond to the other accusations (beyond what I said above). -- VV 04:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC) Not even going to respond to the fact that you continue to try to dictate the status of this page, showing no respect for the others here? Well whatever number it is, you can now add me to it. Actually it is pretty clear there were 3. This person from 68.169, Aaron, and 129.170. You apparently confused the 68 with me, but I'm 68.13. - Kev 12/04/03 I'm not dictating, I'm proposing compromises, as I've been doing for weeks, "Compromises" that completely rule out the position of others, that you edit into the text before discussion, that you imply are some kind of base-line the rest of us have to work from. and the alleged "three" people (probably all the same person, when I said two I was counting your edits) are simply reverting, Yes, its all one big conspiracy by a single individual. If you are including me, then the page history clearly shows 4 people. Resolve the IPs if you want, it appears that all 4 of them are on the history page somewhere. It is simply slander to claim that all of these individuals are the same person without a shred of evidence to back it up. It would be like me claiming that the only individual who has ever agreed with you on this discussion page (an anon whose very first post to wikipedia was apparently here) must be you. This is specious, anyone could make that claim at any time to make it appear that they are not working against a clear majority. And I have done a grand total of two reverts in the 4 months I have been here, as compared with dozens you have done on this page alone in less than a month. including (as I mentioned, if you're reading what I write at all) undoing many unrelated fixes, I have not undone a single unrelated fix, but if you have a problem with particular "fixes" that others have reverted you should mention them here, I have only heard vague referances to this from you so far, so maybe they don't know which ones you are talking about to the version prior to the compromise I offered and explained the reasons for on this page. all of which I responded to several times before even considering a revert, as opposed to your "revert first, discuss later" tactic This too borders on vandalism. You told me I should make a counter-offer on the intro; well, I did, and, as I predicted above, it just got reverted. What are you talking about? Your "compromise" consisted of stating, without any qualification, that anarcho-capitalism incorporates views from individualism. That doesn't in any way account for the objection by individualists, so how could it possibly be a compromise? Yay for you reasonable, respectful, discussion-oriented people! -- VV 21:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC) You say all this as though you have been remotely reasonable, when you have been reverting the article this entire time from clearly neutral language, even during the two weeks when I ceased to edit in order give you time to think over your "compromises." - Kev 12/04/03 Obviously I disagree about the "clearly neutral" language. No, it's not a conspiracy, it's the same person using different IPs for whatever reason. Your evidence? I didn't say you'd undone an unrelated fix, I was (obviously) talking about Aaron etc., although by reverting twice today you did in fact undo these fixes. Since you included me as one of these alleged people, and infered that there was only one, it wasn't outlandish for me to conclude that you were claiming that I am all of the individuals who are disagreeing with you here. My use of incorporate instead of draw was to address your assertion of lack of causality: surely ideas from individualist anarchism are included, even if they weren't initially drawn from it. As I said, ideas from individualist anarchism are not incorporated into anarcho-capitalism. Ideas from classical liberalism and arguably libertarianism are. The fact that there is some overlap does not indicate that anarcho-capitalism incorporates the ideas of individualism. Of course, Aaron (or whoever) just undid it. I see you've made another attempt, with new alterations, a good deal of which did involve again erasing my fixes, which is of course not acceptable. But it is acceptable to erase all of my edits, quite often without even a comment? I'll make an another attempt to address your concerns. The only reversions I have done of late have been to my last rewrite which has been being blindly reverted by you and Aaron. As I said, I have reverted it a grand total of two times. You have reverted it at least a dozen in this month alone. I did not start the reversion cycle. No, you never responded to what I said about terminology. You've made several points about terminology, and I can't find any that I did not respond to. If there is something I am missing, please point it out rather than making vague referances to the text above. If you want me to point out the very large number of my own arguments you have done nothing to answer, I would be happy to. I can only find one paragraph in that text that has been added since my last responses. You can look above to verify this. Perhaps you haven't noticed my comments that were added to existing text instead of put at the end. -- VV 04:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC) Perhaps you've forgotten that you started out with edits which bordered on vandalism, that is, edits which made it impossible to AssumeGoodFaith. First, I was new to wikipedia at that time, and ceased to make those edits after the second time. This was all many months ago, before you even began to enter into discussions here, and many of the edits where nowhere nearly as biased as the page still exists now. Second, the page as it stood was not in good faith, it was a complete mockery of anarchism in most of its forms, including numerous blatant straw-men and a bias so overwhelming as to be almost unbelievable. It has improved since then, but you seem to want to stop the improvements half-way, insisting that a good compromise is to leave in the bias toward capitalism and only a moderate misrepresentation of anarchism. That isn't a compromise, and it flies in the face of the neutrality policy of wikipedia. As I've said twice already, you have made some identical edits to the ones I have made on other pages in the name of neutrality, your double standard here only belies your extreme bias. You never commented on this fact, apparently you think the evidence of your double-standards is irrelevant to my own ability to assume good faith on your part. Nevertheless, I have done what I can to incorporate your objections. By and large, you have done what you could to ignore my objections. The fact that you occasionally give a little ground after I pour hours of effort into this page in the face of your constant quick reverts doesn't impress me. Your comment makes it sound like I have just been ignoring and reverting, when in fact I have been constantly rewriting in an attempt to adapt to what you've said. This contrasts with bad faith edits made by you and others. First, you have reverted far more than rewritten, so this claim of "constant rewritting" is simply false. Futher, do you actually consider reverts done to neutral statements identical to your own work on other pages as a sign of good faith on your part? Get off your high horse VV, your behavior in the last two months on this page has been atrocious. The fact that others here have begun to respond with the same sort of revert behavior that you began with would not gall you so much if you were able to witness your own actions in the matter. I also have been discussing this almost constantly. You have been reverting it constantly, and discussing it only when your reverts face numerous challenges, both on the page itself and on the discussion page. The new intro is awful and should be changed. Do you not recognize this? Are you just waiting for me to make a change so you can change it back? I am waiting for you to offer up a valid change that actually accounts for the objection, or to finally be satisfied with any of the literally dozen intro edits I have suggested myself. - Kev 12/04/03 Dec 5 Re reversion. I made a series of changes on Nov 22 which I did discuss and defend, and which were an attempt at compromise as usual, even after we'd already been discussing terminology points. However, Aaron (or whoever) reverted and reverted and reverted my changes, as now you have done, to a version that also lacked numerous unrelated fixes (such as wikifying, fixing a broken link, and changing "great french anarcho-capitalist" to "renowned French anarcho-capitalist" (my bias, huh?)). The record is clear and unambiguous. My reverts since then have all been restoration from this unjustified and overkill reversion. You neglect to mention that your reverts before then undid a great number of minor edits on my part that you often did not even comment on, and even more often had absolutely no justification for reverting (someone made this claim, and I trust them more than you, so revert) It is the two of you who have been acting in bad faith, not me. Should I point out the exact instances in which you changed non-neutral terms like "often" into "sometimes" and then reverted my own changes of "often" into "sometimes?" Your judgement of "atrocious" or claim that my restoration "deserves revert" mean nothing to me, certainly in light of these facts. Your claims of "majority" are dubious. On your side is you and Aaron (no evidence of multiple people), There are multiple IPs from a broad range of addresses, that is evidence. What you are apparently mistaking is a presence of evidence for a lack of, especially since you accuse these people of all being the same person when there is NO evidence of this other than your speculation. who is acting inappropriately. On mine is primarily me, but in the past Duns0014 (as well as an unknown anon lending support). This is not a clear majority for you, and certainly not anything like an overwhelming consensus. No one claimed a consensus Re: terminology. Traditional is a POV term. On this page the claim is made that "Most anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, claim that their own anti-statist tradition is at least as old"; No one is disputing that. As I have said from the begining, anarchism is more than anti-statism and has been since the word was first used as a self-descriptive (in fact, it was more than that even when it was previously used as a vindictive). Yes, capitalists have a very old anti-state tradition, but that is not the same thing as an anarchist tradition. on Historical origins of anarchism the past history of anarchism is portrayed as cloudy and not sharply definable. Its pretty darn easy to know who the first person to called himself an anarchist was, Proudhon. If you have any evidence against that, offer it, you would be the first in more than a 150 years. It is also pretty easy to learn that all the people who followed in Proudhon's tradition to even a small degree were expressly anti-capitalist, including but not limited to Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Spooner, de Cleyre, Malatesta and Stirner. In other words, all of the people who refered to themselves as anarchists before Murray Rothbard were expressly anti-capitalist. Of course you will not agree, but perhaps you should read the NPOV dispute policy: "It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." By contrast, my phrasing arguably traditional is not only NPOV, but it is fairly generous to your position. If our roles were reversed, you would probably want "is sometimes claimed by its proponents to be more traditional". This flies in the face of your attempt to revert any qualifiers brought into the text. I would have happily settled for lib soc if you had not spent two weeks reverted very minor changes like "anarcho-capitalists believe themselves to be a part of the individualist anarchist tradition." "Anarcho-socialist" is completely biased, there are no anarchists who would accept that title as it is redundant and has false implications that there is any form of anarchism other than anti-capitalist varieties. I understand Aarons worry that lib soc when contrasted with "anarcho-capitalist" has the wrong connotations, so I supported his changes. Further we are allowing the term "anarcho-capitalist" to be used throughout this page without even quotes or a warning at the very top because we are accepting the possiblity that anti-state capitalist claims to the title are valid, right? Then we should use a term for anarchists that accepts that their claims may also be valid, to use "anarcho-socialist" assumes the capitalist position. Thus, if we use the term anarcho-capitalist to refer to anti-state capitalists, we should use a term that anarchists would use to describe themselvse that does not make them sound even more foreign to anarchism than capitalists when used in comparison. So I see nothing unfair about using "traditional anarchist" in assuming the anarchist position, we can even indicate expressly that it is used because of the objections on their part, not because they are universally accepted to be the only ones following in anarchist tradition. What is wrong with anarcho-socialism, anyway? You at one time favored libertarian socialism, but this was condemned by Aaron as "not specific enough" (search the text above if you want, yawn). Anarcho-socialism is a clear strengthening of lib-soc, and seems like an excellent choice. Plus, I have added very strong language to the intro saying that most anarchists (again, roles reversed, you'd say some) reject capitalism and do not feel qualification of anarchism is necessary, and now even added language that some terms are used primarily by opponents. What could be clearer or more fair? The term functions as a valuable placeholder to avoid confusion and conflict on this touchy and controversial issue. Re: massive qualifiers. What massive qualifiers? Below the only example you give is a blatant exaggeration of anything I have written. Yes, if you attribute to me edits that I never made, then you can justifiably call them massive qualifiers. Back in reality, these "massive qualifiers" have actually been the bare minimum required to maintain the neutral policy you so desperately pretend to care about above. There is no need to proliferate qualifications. "Ancaps consider as legitimate contracts which are voluntary" does not need to be "Ancaps consider as what they see as legitimate what they regard as contracts which are what they believe to be voluntary". In cases where the phrase is in the context of what ancaps believe, consider, or are convinced of, piling on qualifiers is unneeded and serves to denigrate the position. Agreed, but quite often there is no indication given that this is something restricted to what anarcho-capitalists believe. Yes, your past history, new or not, is relevant. I never claimed otherwise. My only claim is that your own behavior on this page is also relevant, and that you have acted in bad faith for some time. I am much more distrustful of your edits after your early near-vandalism, such as presenting a laughable socialist interpretation of the American Revolution as though it were fact, At that time a laughable capitalist interpretation of the american revolution was presented as though it were fact, but I didn't see you jumping up to correct it and furthermore in the context of connecting it to the ancap belief system, and then calling these absurdities neutral. The page may have been biased when you found it, but you were not improving it, and me meeting you halfway is not a matter of keeping bias but of seeking true neutrality. Your repeated attribution to me of a double standard is just silly. Then call me to post the evidence. I would be happy to, because it is as blatant as it can be. - Kev 12/06/03 I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but I want it portrayed fairly, and have now been dragged into defending its page. My standard for this page is the same as others, why should it not be? No, wait, that just invites more of your theories. I'll work on the page yet more now. -- VV 21:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC) Re: terminology. Traditional anarchism is not acceptable. Then why is "anarcho-capitalism?" Because you say so? Because they believe it is? Neither of those explainations will suffice for anarchists, but you seem to think they work just fine for capitalists. But I'm happy to let them call themselves what they want, if you will allow anarchists to be described as they so desire. What do you find this inappropriate, other than because you assume your take on anarcho-capitalism is the correct one? It is POV, and there are clearly better terms that avoid that problem. This same issue came up at the libertarian socialism article, and various ideas were bandied about. Would you prefer anarcho-communism, anarchist communism, whatever? That would not account for individualists or egoists Anarcho-socialism still seems very fair to me, as it is very clear and cannot be confused. It already is confused, it asserts a redundancy and gives the mistaken impression that socialism can somehow be removed from anarchism. This usage would even further confuse matters, as all of the original anarchists were socialist insofar as they were anti-capitalists, but many modern day individualists like to distinguish themselves from using the term socialism interchagably with anti-capitalism because of some of its other connotations. Again, by describing these people other than how they would describe themselves you are opening a can of worms you really aren't informed enough to close. But heck, if you insist on refering to anarchists as libertarian socialists, then why not just refer to "anarcho-capitalists" as anti-state capitalists or neo-classical liberals? After all, in the one case you find it perfectly acceptable to misrepresent an ideology, in the other you think it is a horrible violation of NPOV that borders on vandalism. Maybe you think lib-soc is better. I agree with Aaron that it is too divorced from the actual term. We are anarchists, that is how we identify, to change it would be akin to renaming this article anti-state capitalism. But if you are willing to make the changes on both sides to remain neutral, please be my guest. Your standard of self-description doesn't work. If a group of Freemasons started calling themselves anarcho-capitalists, we'd have a problem with that term, too, but that hasn't happened. I see, so because YOU PERSONALLY believe the arguments made by the caps then their standard works and you will enforce it. No arguments to the contrary matter to you, since you don't believe them it is clearly neutral to ignore them. Is that it VV? Caps enforce governing instutitions, they could not possibly be anarchists by any stretch of the word. Yet you are happy to uphold their usage while claiming that there are other groups who clearly would not qualify as anarchists. In any case, the dictionary definition of anarchism is still a fine starting point. It is? Good, take that definition. Notice how 2 thirds of it explicitly denotes more than mere anti-statism. For this to work as a self-descriptive of caps you would have to first deny both the other definitions offered right there in the dictionary YOU linked to. Then, you would have squint your eyes a bunch and pretend that a judicial system, a police force, a prison system, and a military defense force are not all forms of governance in order to play a game in which "ancaps," many of whom support all of those things, could by some stretch of the imagination be said to reject all forms of government. Tell me, if it isn't refering to all possible forms of governance, then why the heck does it say explicitly "all forms?" Caps aren't against government, they are merely against one kind of government, the one that intrudes upon the hierarchical structures of power that they endorse. The term anarchy predates Proudhon, and so he does not own it (and does, say, Huxley even own agnosticism?). I never made such a claim to ownership, so that is a straw-man. I am merely trying to get some historical context here. Before Proudhon the term was used solely as a vindictive to refer to left French revolutionaries. Obviously you wouldn't like that definition either, as it would also rule out capitalists, so it is funny that you would argue that the meaning of the word predates Proudhon. But regardless, to say that capitalists follow in the tradition of anarhcism would imply that they do follow Proudhon in some way because he set the tradition (unless you would like to explain who else used the term to refer to an actual movement). But since Proudhon was explicitly anti-capitalist, that would be a hard claim to stand by. Furthermore, predecessors could be anarchists even if they didn't use the term, just as dinosaurs were dinosaurs before that term was invented. Sure, and if you would like to point out any tradition that can before anarchism which rejected both the state and all other forms rulership like capitalism, you could easily argue that they are now interpreted as anarchists. Examples of unneeded qualifiers: Anarcho-capitalists believe that private businesses, born out of (what they believe to be) voluntary... (believe -> hold doesn't change much); Then feel free to rewrite it in such a way that makes clear their conception of voluntary is disputed. Or just say so explicitly when the term is first used in the article, then you can drop any qualifiers throughout the rest. This view regards (state) government.... (Do I really need to list them?) Yes. They do in fact support governing institutions, thus government. It is the state that they reject, or forms of governance open to public representation. You have yet to argue against this, you have simply claimed that "people know" what government is. Well if "people know" then please go up to someone and ask them if a judicial system enforced by police is not a form of government. Why not just let ancaps state what they believe? This entire essay stands as a statement of ancap belief, that is exactly what I want, for it to stand as a statement of ancap BELIEF. Your rewrite in the beginning is now way off. You say these contracts are legitimate, in order that the voluntary part may be qualified alone. Then feel free to rewrite it in such a fashion that makes clear that the claim to voluntary contracts in particular is controversial A better way of addressing this concern of yours would be to let ancaps have their say, and in whatever criticism section below explain how someone with another view might disagree with their take on voluntary. Then why not just put an advisory at the begining of the article that states it is not neutral, and does not even attempt to be neutral? Then you can say whatever the heck you want in the context of the page. That is a way of presenting both views fairly. No, it is a way of giving precedent to the cap views and pushing the dissenting views to a footnote. I'm not even asking that the dissenting views be represented in this page, just that they not be ruled out by the language. As if that is a huge burden. Perhaps you could even write an article on criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, since you seem to have an interest, similar to Criticisms of Mother Teresa. I can't think of a single response you have ever given to me that did not include this kind of antagonistic jab, yet you want me to take your revert war "in good faith." (The initial blurb about the American Revolution was hardly capitalist, and was in fact rather sparse and quite reasonable, certainly compared with yours. Maybe you didn't notice that I dropped this objection weeks ago? Give me a break VV, if all you can find to harp on is stuff we have long since moved past, then please find yourself a new hobby. Nor anyway would any problems justify turning it to something else unreasonable. As for not jumping to fix it, I didn't notice it until you quasi-vandalized it.) Of course, my edits are vandalism, yours are "maintaining neutrality." Why don't you drop the superior attitude, your revert-at-a-whim policy does not match your claims to superiority. Finally, impose their system is much stronger than impose their views, so your (unpersuasive) arguments against the latter do not even seem to touch the former. Please be more clear, I'm unsure of which passage you are refering to. -Kev 12/06/03 -- VV 07:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) Some of your responses are puzzling to the point where I don't know if you've understood me. If different groups consider themselves anarchists, we shouldn't judge one to be the "true" group (especially since one would include the other, but not vice versa). However, there are not two groups claiming to be anarcho-capitalists, so this problem does not arise. I don't see what what I PERSONALLY believe matters one iota to this argument. It matters because it seems to be a viewpoint you are simply unable to see past. I agree totally that capitalists should be able to claim that they are anarchists in the context of their page, fine and dandy, so your constant referances back to that are irrelevant. However, there are two groups here that claim to be anarchists, one of those groups is being refered to by their own chosen title (i.e. that of anarcho-capitalist), while the other is being hurded into a series of at worst blatantly misrepresentative terms and at best misleading ones. Libertarian socialist is fine in the context of anarchist dialogue, it doesn't work as a comparison to capitalists who are being refered to as "anarcho-capitalists" when arguably they shouldn't be refered to as anarchists at all. Remember, it is your POV that anarcho-socialism is redundant. Yes, I do remember that. If I didn't remember that, this page would not exist. Course, it is not only my POV, it is also the POV of every one of the original anarchists, be they collectivist or individualist. It is also the view of the vast majority of anarchists today. It is also the view that is consistent with the root meaning of the word, literally "against rulers." But all of that is irrelevant to you, you've decided that their claims are valid and thus it doesn't even matter if we are going to refer to anarchists by titles they would never accept, so long as we keep the capitalists looking swell. The cited dictionary definition at any rate includes the broad definition as primary, You mean the definition I have repeatedly shown must rule out capitalism from the get go? Oh right, you ignored that argument this time like you did the last three times. and really it's not 1/3 because one does not refer to an ideology but to a behavior meaning. Oh, forgive me if the definition YOU imported only directly demonstrates that capitalism incompatible anarchism on the first and second account, merely indirectly implying it on the third. Your claim that yours is the only one does not seem to hold up in this context. What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I claimed a particular definition of anarchism? Where? All I have stated is that anarchism has always meant more than mere anti-statism. Are you denying this? Are you now claiming that at some point in history anarchism meant only anti-statism and nothing more? I would love to see the evidence. The historical assertions are made in the articles I cited above; whether right or wrong is POV. You aren't going to even try to argue this, just make some incredibly vague referance to the fact that someone in wikipedia argued that anarchist history is shrouded in mystery? If you want to present facts, go ahead and do so. Name a single person before Proudhon who used the term as a self-descriptive, or a single person who used it before him as a vindicitve to mean merely anti-statism, or even a single person before Rothbard who used it to mean merely anti-statism. If you can't do any of those things, then I see no mystery in the following claims: before Proudhon the term was used as an insult to refer to leftist French revolutionaries, after Proudhon it was embraced by all the original anarchists to mean far more than anti-statism, Rothbard rejected this tradition and asserted out a new meaning for the word that allowed for capitalism, thus making anarcho-capitalism identical to the anti-state capitalism that came before Rothbard. Do you even deny any of those claims? They believe voluntary contracts are legitimate seems fine to me, it refers to what they believe. Sure, except that anarchists believe voluntary contracts are legitimate as well, so what is the difference? The difference is in the term voluntary, which needs to be defined in the page. Criticisms of voluntary can come later; this is not a matter of prime placement vs. footnoting, it's a matter of explaining their beliefs vs. noting the criticisms of them, a logical progression. This isn't criticism of the word, it is explaination of it. I merely ask that we inform readers of wikipedia as to what is meant by the word in this context. For now I'm leaving negotiated although it somewhat misses the point. I don't know what's antagonistic about proposing detaching a criticisms section. Because neutralizing the claim that what they propose is voluntary when many would believe it to be blatant coercion is not a criticism, it is merely allowing the text to remain neutral to the issue Your reference to the old American Revolution text as laughable and capitalist was not months ago but yesterday. Can you tell the difference between the discussion page and the actual article? No? Further, I didn't say it was months ago, I said it was weeks ago. And the last time I edited it on the page was indeed weeks ago, so you are beating a dead horse. To death apparently, you must really care about this issue to harp on it so long after it has been put to rest. Or maybe you are just running out of things to harp on. As for reverting-as-a-whim, again it was you and Aaron's reverts that were excessive; According to.... Gee I wonder. Are you still positing yourself as the end all judge of wikipedia VV? you even undid the fix of the Esperanto redirect! And you undid several grammatical fixes, even changes that you later admitted you had no basis of knowledge for reverting! Makes me wonder what your point is. The relevant passage is There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others. Imposing their system does not mean beating up someone raping their mother, even though most do believe in the legitimacy of that too. I never claimed such a thing, this is another straw-man, which you resort to because you can't actually address my claims as they stand. Killing someone for non-violent "trespassing," an act that is legitimate under several anarcho-capitalist models, is not by most stretches of the imagination the same thing as "beating someone up for raping their mother." What it is by many conceptions is a form of violent coercion used to enforce a particular system of economics. This isn't even a controversial claim, most caps would agree that they are imposing their views upon someone who is violating them. That is what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it. Nothing to shy away from, unless propaganda is all you are looking to include in wikipeda. - Kev 12/06/03 Anyway, I've prepared yet a new proposal, restoring lib-soc on the grounds that objections to it seem less vehement that those to an-soc, and referring explicitly to the multiple possible senses of anarchism. -- VV 21:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) The discussion at the beginning states clearly that the terminology is itself controversial, and the adoption of the (self-descriptively used) lib-soc serves as a placeholder to avoid this. Then it might as well be any term, especially one chosen by anarchists themselves. VV The problem is when the term is also chosen by others. The meaning of "abolition of government" may mean something different to you than to others, but it's not an unreasonable claim that someone who wants to abolish gov't is an anarchist in this definition. No, it isn't an unreasonable claim. That is why the claim stands on this page and should stand on this page AS A CLAIM! VV That would be if it weren't reasonable. In this case it is certainly an anarchist view in this sense of anarchism. I see nothing anti-capitalist there, you are reading the definition to your pleasure. I see, so the ability to exclusively use, dispose of, and enjoy a particular thing, upheld through violence or threat of violence (property as per dictionary and Rothbard) is not having dominion over it? Capitalism is defined as rulership at its most basic level, the fact that you don't see anything anti-capitalist in an ideology that rejects rulership just means that you are blind. VV This is just silly. First of all, all systems other than perhaps "pacifist" ones (generally non-anarchist ones), including the socialist ones, permit use of violence to uphold claims; it's just a matter of which claims. Second, my rights to my own lungs (for instance) would be recognized by nearly any system, but that does not make me a "state" nor a "ruler". Certainly any assertion of this is manifestly POV, since most would not think right to an object is governmenthood (indeed most would find this crazy). Ancaps do not want corporate police, they want private security sometimes hired, and then via competition, not the same. Many ancaps do want corporate police. They want corporations, they want corporations which handle security, they want corporations with their own defense forces, thus, they want corporate police. The fact that you don't like this doesn't change it. VV Many is not all. And anyway you're twisting it around; I've read enough to know that in many cases their version of "police" — often not so called — is quite different from what exists now in states. You may not think this will be the outcome, but that is your POV. It is the EXPRESS position of many capitalists that corporate police will be the outcome of anarcho-capitalism. This might be POV, but it is a POV that belongs on this page, because it happens to be a common cap POV. It is not a strawman. The claim about raping ones mother was, you are suddenly changing the example mid-argument to claim that it isn't a straw-man VV I did no such thing. If defending one's car is imposing one's system, because one would also have that right in an ancap order, then so is any other act which you believe would be right in that order. Sure, I didn't deny that. It makes perfect sense, the fact that the two systems overlap is coincidental. To deny this is to deny the entire ancap position that their system can be created through individuals acting according to anti-capitalist standards within a state domain. If they were not imposing their system when they acting according to their values, then there system would never replace the state. If you want to challenge their position, go *+9 ahead, many would agree with you that such a policy would never actually threaten a state. VV It seems you make my point. That is precisely why defending their car or beating up the rapist is not an attempt to impose their system. Why wouldn't it be? A purely pacifist order might not let you beat up anyone without being a criminal. No, to impose one's system (not even views!) one has to do something not allowed in the existing system. According to VV and his great standard of what is and what is not? No argument needed, not even rhetorical support? Sorry, that standard doesn't work for me anymore. VV I just did argue. That was the conclusion. And as for your "argument" to the contrary, well, that doesn't obviously work for me. And no impose is not nec the same as violence. That is your POV too. I never said that the two were the same. I merely stated that sometimes impositions can be violent, and they in fact can. VV You said, "That is what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it." In fact, what violence is is not well-defined, either. I did not confused the disc page with the real page, I was referring to disc page. Your pointless sarcasm is ridiculous here. I'll note your further antagonistic jabs as evidence of your good faith VV Refuting your false and sarcastic accusation of confusion? Re: voluntary; it seems it only has meaning relative to a system of rights in any case. (Is it involuntary if I need your heart to live?) That is a side issue, ancaps believe corporations on voluntary contracts to be fine, while others may not, the voluntariness not being at issue but the large-scale organization. Um, so the fact that their conception of voluntary has been a major criticism of anarcho-capitalism since Rothbard is not an issue because? Wait, I know, because VV says so. VV A curious view to attribute to me. If others believe in voluntary contracts too that is good for them they share this view. If I undid fixes, it was in the context of undoing massive damage, and fixed them later. Great, then we can both claim the high-ground, I've been fixing massive damage done to this article by a certain VV for some time. - Kev 12/07/03 Your side My side? Are we taking sides now? VV You referred to a majority, that implies two sides. did not even respond till recently to my notes that your reverts were overkill. That is almost funny. I invited you to discuss this here when you first began your revert spree against my edits. Later, when you ceased to discuss things for a bit while still reverting I implored you to discuss things here. Each and every time I responded point by point to everthing you had said, when I forgot something and you pointed it out I carefully went back and included it in my future responses. I even put all my edits on hold, while you continued to revert and revert and revert, just to give you time to discuss things here and clear your head a bit. The fact that I didn't respond to every single point you brought up with Aaron is kinda understandable, given that you often wait weeks before responding to the majority of my points, after I plead with you time and again to please give them consideration. You really are running out of things to complain about VV - Kev 12/07/03 VV No you just reverted en masse to join Aaron, by your own admission. -- VV 22:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC) VV 00:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) The term chosen by anarchists is obviously "anarchist." The fact that we use other terms in other contexts does not indicate that when compared with capitalists we should be called "libertarian socialists." Again, this is a double standard on your part. Many capitalists go by the term "libertarian capitalist," yet you insist that they be refered to as part of anarchism in the text while believing that lib soc is a good compromise for the rest of anarchism. The fact that a position is reasonable does not make it correct VV. The cap position is reasonable, but anarchists the world over who are also quite reasonable see it to be false. As such, YOU are still not the final artbiter of what needs to be qualified and what does not, so you will not be unilaterally declaring that basic qualifiers are unncessary in this case just because you happen to have a particular agenda. This is just silly. First of all, all systems other than perhaps "pacifist" ones (generally non-anarchist ones), including the socialist ones, permit use of violence to uphold claims; it's just a matter of which claims. This is plainly false, and again speaks of your ignorance of the issue. A number of anarchists systems neither "permit" nor "deny" the use of violence, precisely because anarchism is not in the business of "permiting" or "denying" human behavior, but rather responding to it. More importantly, the quality of the claims is drastically different. When one authoritatively dictates the use of a given thing to an involuntary party it is far more of an imposition than if one does everything in ones power to come to a consensus or compromise beforce agents (who are not legitimated by the system itself) give up and take matters into their own hands. Second, my rights to my own lungs (for instance) would be recognized by nearly any system, but that does not make me a "state" nor a "ruler". This follows from a self-ownership ethic that is denied by many anarchists. Regardless there is a very real difference between the self and those things created by the self, but here you attempt to defend your position by conflating the two. Certainly any assertion of this is manifestly POV, since most would not think right to an object is governmenthood (indeed most would find this crazy). I didn't claim that rights were government. I claimed that police, prisons, and judges are all manifestations of government. Though I reject rights, one can in fact believe in rights without resorting to governmental institutions to enforce them. But "anarcho-capitalists" do legitimate the resort to these governmental institutions, thus they aren't anarchists at all. Many is not all. You are grabbing at straws. My edits did not indicate that all of them desired corporate police, but if you objected to them you should have inserted a qualifier. As it stands from your reverts one would think that none of them endorsed corporate enforcement, when in fact even those who don't explicitly support it still legitimate it. And anyway you're twisting it around; I've read enough to know that in many cases their version of "police" — often not so called — is quite different from what exists now in states. I see, so we can call them private defense agencies and suddenly they are something different? You tell me how these police are not a governing institution, and I will drop that objection. It is not a strawman. The claim about raping ones mother was, you are suddenly changing the example mid-argument to claim that it isn't a straw-man VV I did no such thing. The text indicates otherwise. First you brought up an example of a mother being raped. I called it a straw-man, because none of my arguments had included examples of physical violence. Then you suddenly changed it to an example of a car instead of a person and insisted that obviously it wasn't a straw-man. You are working against yourself VV. Sure, I didn't deny that. It makes perfect sense, the fact that the two systems overlap is coincidental. To deny this is to deny the entire ancap position that their system can be created through individuals acting according to anti-capitalist standards within a state domain. If they were not imposing their system when they acting according to their values, then there system would never replace the state. If you want to challenge their position, go *+9 ahead, many would agree with you that such a policy would never actually threaten a state. VV It seems you make my point. That is precisely why defending their car or beating up the rapist is not an attempt to impose their system. You are confused. I just gave an example of why many people would see it as an attempt to impose their system. I gave not a single reason to think that it wouldn't be, I only indicated that many would agree that it wouldn't be. You then respond, "ah! There you have it, that is precisely why it wouldn't be!" But what is? I gave no reason at all. You really need to take a step back and think about this some more VV. Maybe your edit and revert spree throughout wikipedia and your revert wars with several other users should be dropped for awhile so that you can concentrate on a subject you understand better. : I never said that the two were the same. I merely stated that sometimes impositions can be violent, and they in fact can. VV You said, "That is what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it." In fact, what violence is is not well-defined, either. Again you are confused. When you uphold a claim with violence, yes, you are imposing it. Thus this instance of imposition belongs in the violence category. That does not make the two identical, nor do any of my statements indicate that they are. No you just reverted en masse to join Aaron, by your own admission. Actually, when I started reverting en masse (around 5 reverts, a scant number compared with your what, 2 dozen?) it was to join you, not Aaron, as you had been reverting everything well before Aaron even arrived. - Kev 12/07/03

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Contents

1 Dec 12 2 An attempt at peace... 3 More of the same 4 Dec 11 5 Dec 13 6 Dec 14 7 Dec 16 8 Dec 17 9 Dec 18 10 Dec 20 11 Dec 24 12 Jan 1 13 Jan 2 14 Jan 5 15 Jan 15 Dec 12 I really can't understand why a debate so stupid as the definition of anarchy debate broke out. Look at dictionaries. What do they do when people have different meanings for words ? They put more than one entry under a word. Arguing over the "one true" definition of anarchy is foolish when there can be more than one definition of a word. Trying to force your definition as the sole definition is your problem. This article can easily handle the problem by specifying that it is using a specific definition of anarchy. No notice of the debate is necessary, as multiple definitions are commonly accepted by dictionary readers (if not Wikipedia contributors). – Olathe I agree, and this is the approach I tried myself. See my recent summary of this dispute under "More of the same" (which might be overlooked since not at beginning or end of this page). Needless to say, this didn't seem to satisfy my detractors. -- VV 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) I'm a little confused. Who here is arguing over the "one true" definition of anarchy? Certainly not VV, myself, Aaron, or Rad, who have all stated in one way or another that there are multiple (often conflicting) conceptions of the word allowed for all of them to be present in one form or another on the page. Obviously there are more than one different conceptions of what the word means, and everyone here has their own ideas that have been expressed at one point or another, each with its own supporting claims. It is important to state these and work through them to understand when and why certain edits on the mainpage might be appropriate, I certainly don't find that process to be stupid or foolish. However, I readily agree that no one should try to force one particular definition as the sole definition, that is in fact the reason for most of my edits. Claims to any particular definition of anarchism which are presented here should be stated as claims, and should be indicated to be a particular definition of the word before or when it is used for the first time in the page. This doesn't need to be formal, a bold warning or something, but it does need to be worked into the text somehow. Doing so helps advocates and opponents of anarcho-capitalism, as it clarifies the matter to avoid misunderstandings. Anyway, I don't know about others here, but from my first post on this page I expressed a willingness to incorporate two different descriptions of "anarcho-capitalism" on this page. I'd still be happy to do so, but I've been under the impression that presenting another perspective on anarcho-capitalism would be viewed more as a critique and herded into a sub-section or off-page article rather than as a valid alternate definition and given equal placement on this page. Given that this is a page on anarcho-capitalism, I respect that their perspective should be given precedent and therefore did not attempt to divide the page into two equal parts, but instead to simply neutralize the language to allow for the possiblity of a conception other than the one being presented. - Kev 12/12/03 It is quite clear that someone, maybe not one of the ones you listed is arguing over the one true definition of anarchism. From the article: "Many modern-day anarchists within these traditions reject the term anarcho-capitalist, arguing that the term anarchist, as it has historically and most frequently been used, is consistent only with an anti-capitalist economic programme" This is, very clearly, putting forth the argument that one definition of anarchy, specifically the historical and most-frequently-used definition, is the only one that should be used – all others should be rejected. That it is "objectified" with the words "these people believe this" instead of coming right out and saying it is irrelevant. It's not truly objective; this can be shown with two points : If the person who originally posted that truly wanted to be objective, it would be better placed either in libertarian socialism or anarchism because it deals with the beliefs of some libertarian socialists and the word "anarchy", but not the beliefs of anarcho-capitalists; anarcho-capitalists' definition of anarchy is stated earlier in the article and we can leave it to the reader's skill in thinking to figure out that the definitions don't match. Concessions are made to the argument : "Because of the intense controversy and confusion surrounding the meanings and scope of these words, the catch-all phrase anti-capitalist anarchism will be used in this article for these contrasting positions, with the caveat that many anarchists consider it the only valid form of anarchism and do not feel it needs to be qualified" This shows that the person wasn't merely including a nice side note, but attempting to force their point of view. This could be easily shortened to "anarcho-capitalists mean ... by anarchy" on anarcho-capitalism and "libertarian socialists mean ... by anarchy" on libertarian socialism if we wanted to be truly objective, again leaving it to the reader's thinking skills. As it is, it appears that people are in fact being stupid and assuming that the reader is stupid (also, it is portraying socialist anarchists as so stupid they can't figure out the use of a different definition than they're accustomed to). I could care less that all sides are fairly represented on the main page; Wikipedia is not the place to go to see Wikipedians' wordy arguments, it is a place to go to learn about various things. The arguments can be left on the talk page or, as I've already said, on pages that pertain to the arguments (i.e. anarchism and libertarian socialism). &ndash Olathe December 17, 2003 I generally agree with you, and I say this as someone who wrote the "Because of the intense controversy..." text. My intent was to accommodate those who claimed that anarcho-capitalism was not anarchism and repeatedly altered the article to reflect this belief. By putting in stronger language emphasizing this point of dispute, I was hoping the broader use of "anarchism", marked as such, would become non-objectionable. I kept making the caveat language stronger and stronger so as to leave no room for confusion, but it still does not seem to have helped (as you can see by the litany of absurd accusations and dismissals levelled against me, as well as the endless reversions). As for the first sentence, its history is a little more tangled, but not wholly dissimilar. -- VV 02:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC) Fine by me. Feel free to remove any and all arguments for or against anarchism and libertarian socialism from the page without objection from me. I have long held that I do not insist that they be there, and in fact I'm not the one who put them there. Indeed, the person who did put them there probably either feels a little sheepish atm, or doesn't even remember that he did. Anyway, my primary concern is that this page reflects beliefs and claims like pretty much all politically oriented pages do on wikipedia (i.e. as beliefs and claims), and that the language be neutral in the sense that it does not rule out, at the outset, the very positions which anarcho-capitalists argue against. There are a number of neutral disputes here, in fact this page qualifies for all of the ones listed on the NPOV dispute page. You might also want to note that I have replied to you on the current dispute page. As I said there, I'm won't object to your suggestion that the page be explicitly POV instead of attempting NPOV, or that it be divided into two parts. But I have a feeling neither of those suggestions will go over well with others here when all is said and done. Also, I don't personally think anyone is being stupid, perhaps you do not understand the context or the motivations behind the placement of those arguments, so you might want to try to do so before you rush to judgment. And, as always in wikipedia, you might want to note that you are not addressing a single author. - Kev 12/17/03 I now realize that I was incorrect about the reason the changes were made. However, I still believe that the changes are bad for the reasons I stated. On the NPOV dispute (replied to here in order to reduce the effort in conversation), I pretty much agree with you. I believe that the article can present the viewpoint of anarcho-capitalists in objective language and that any opposing viewpoints can be placed in the respective articles. For instance, what anarcho-capitalists think about various viewpoints can be stated here and links can be provided to sections in other articles that deal with another group's viewpoint on anarcho-capitalism (for example, [[libertarian socialism#views on anarcho-capitalism]]). I agree about prefacing the viewpoint exposition with something similar to what you proposed. I have changed the header to one that makes it more clear that the article describes a controversial viewpoint and is not a debate message board. I hope that what I put is a good rendition. I have also removed the argument about whether "anarchy" is properly applied because it's extraneous (multiple definitions exist). Also, the argument is still covered in one of the links (Section F of the Anarchist FAQ, I believe), although it might be best to change the link description to indicate that disagreement about the use of "anarchy" is included there. I have also left other arguments in the article (such as whether the "forbears" of anarcho-capitalism would have supported it), because they aren't extraneous; they help the reader to understand anarcho-capitalism – Olathe December 18, 2003 I just wanted to note that the change of the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" link to the "Current disputes over articles" page might not be a good idea, given that the current dispute page begins with the warning: "Please do not add NPOV disputes to this page, but instead discuss them over on the expertly named wikipedia:NPOV dispute." Given that the discussion itself is apparently supposed to be taken elsewhere, actually linking to the page when it says not to put neutrality disputes there might be even worse. Maybe it could be linked there in some other form, rather than explicity in the neutrality warning. Anyway, the NPOV dispute page does already link to this discussion, so that particular link might want to just point to either here, or the NPOV dispute page. - Kev 12/12/03 An attempt at peace... I notice that one aspect of the present revert war is repeated back-and-forth sniping over the first sentence of the third paragraph: one side insists on anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism; the other side insists on anarcho-capitalism as "claimed to be" a form of anarchism. Of course, the problem with the former is that it is a tendentious claim for anarchists who conceive of capitalism as inherently hierarchial, and conceive of economic bosses as just as subject to anarchist critique as political bosses. The problem with the latter is that it replaces the tendentious claim with another one, while claiming neutrality. (Replacing "X is a form of Y" with "X is claimed to be a form of Y" superficially appears neutral, but carries a pretty clear implication that the claim in question is spurious. Imagine if an anarcho-capitalist went through a page on Kropotkin, and, allegedly to maintain NPOV, changed all the descriptions of Kroptotkin as an anarchist to descriptions of Kropotkin as a "putative anarchist" or "so-called anarchist".) Of course, this mostly highlights the difficulties attendent on writing NPOV articles about bodies of ideas where the logical implications of those ideas are contested. But perhaps there is something of a middle ground available. The language I've suggested is to restate it in terms of anarcho-capitalists' self-description. "Thus, anarcho-capitalists describe their position as a form of anarchism, in the sense of anti-statism..." That anarcho-capitalists so describe their position could hardly be denied by either side; and noting the self-description leaves open the question of whether or not the description is accurate, without leaning in one direction or the other. I've also made some other changes to the third paragraph. One of these changes is a matter of logical structure: I relocated some material from the second paragraph into the first sentence of the second paragraph, in order to elucidate what anarcho-capitalists mean by rejecting the state, and how it is a consequence of their position on markets and property. Another is to slightly flesh out the distinction between both positions and the colloquial use of "anarchy." Another of these changes are related to NPOV. Since part of the debate on these issues is related towards whether or not anarcho-capitalists can be seen in continuity with individualist anarchists, it's tendentious to identify anti-capitalist anarchism with "traditional" anarchism simpliciter. Similarly, I have no idea whether most modern-day anarchists are anti-capitalist or anarcho-capitalist, and I doubt that there is any verifiable data on whether or not this is true. Better to say "many" and to link it explicitly to the traditions from which these criticisms come. I doubt that anything we could come up with will resolve all points in this dispute or make everyone happy. But I hope that the introduction of a fresh perspective may make some progress possible. Radgeek 19:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) More of the same I've made a similar attempt at steering a sensibly conciliatory path in the first paragraph. The qualifier "which some credit as" on "Anarcho-capitalism is a view ... following in the traditions of both individualist anarchism and classical liberalism" is also a qualifier whose neutrality is dubious at best. (Particularly with the anonymizing "which some credit....") In its place, I have recommended "drawing from the traditions of classical liberalism and individualist anarchism." Whether anarcho-capitalism is best described as following the tradition of the individualist anarchists or perverting it, it can hardly be disputed that they draw from Tucker, Spooner, Nock, et al. (I assume that the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and classical liberalism is not so hotly disputed.) Radgeek 19:20, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) Thanks for getting involved. Good work on expanding on a lot of the points; it should hopefully be very helpful. However, I should note that I tried that compromise using "draw from" in the intro myself (as an alternative to the previous "is a synthesis of"), and was attacked for it. The counterclaim is that ancapism does not draw from "anarchism" at all but solely from classical liberalism. To accommodate that objection, I weakened it to "incorporates", removing the causal aspect, to just say it includes views found in anarchism. But that too was spurned, and in fact (the recurring accusation) I was told I wasn't genuinely attempting a change/compromise at all. Perhaps the "synthesis" claim could be resurrected, because it doesn't seem to assume any causality. Anyway, I hope your rich contributions help with this dispute. -- VV 21:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) Thanks, VV, for your kind words and for your notes on the history of the present debate. Whether this will ultimately be productive or not is something that we'll have to wait and see about; but I am enough of a Red to have some faith in consensus procedures and the possiblity of coming up with reasonable alternatives to most of these perpetual yea/nay slug-fests. Of course, "draw from" is meant here in a particularly weak sense (leaving open the question of whether the stronger sense applies or does not apply) — the same sort of sense in which everyone might agree that Lenin "drew from" the ideas of Marx and Engels, or that both Ayn Rand and Martin Heidegger "drew from" the ideas of Aristotle. (You might argue, and I think you'd be right, that Lenin's socialism ultimately had more to do with Chernyshevsky than it did with Marx and Engels, in spite of Lenin's identification as an orthodox Marxist, and that his use of Marxism was mostly a perversion of what they taught. But no-one could deny that there's a pretty important sense in which Lenin drew from Marx. I don't actually think that the relationship between anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists is like this; but even if it were, the use of "drawing from" would hardly be a mistake.) I tend to think that the most elegant, descriptive, and neutral way of putting it would be something like "synthesizes elements of classical liberalism and individualist anarchism." It cannot be denied that Spooner, Tucker, et al. were certainly important to, and respected by, people in the liberal anti-statist tradition (both before and after the development of the term "anarcho-capitalism," for what it's worth), and frequently reprinted and discussed in their circles. Whether they got these folks right is an independent question; here the important thing is that they got ideas and arguments (the "elements" of a political programme) from them that they didn't get from classical liberal minarchists. One might argue that anarcho-capitalism is just an appropriation of certain individualist anarchist ideas by a classical liberal ideology which is opposed to the essential features of individualist anarchism--but no-one said that synthesis had to be conducted on equal terms. On another subject, I'd be interested to add some material to the entry on the anti-statist flavor of libertarianism that emerged more or less independently of the emergence of Rothbard Austro-libertarianism: i.e., the circle around Bob LeFevre, Roy Childs, and Rampart College / Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought. I have some knowledge, and a lot of material, from them at hand, and can start plugging away at some of it, but my knowledge is by no means exhaustive or even particularly systematic, and I was wondering if folks here have anything that they can put up about it. Cheers. Radgeek 23:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC) I see another discussion has already started below, but I wanted to add to the comments already made here, particlarly since I hadn't before noticed the additional section "An attempt at peace" above! First, I definitely think the synthesis version works well (Although synthesizing elements almost seems redundant, since a synthesis presumably couldn't draw entirely from one of the movements and thus only takes "elements".), but I made arguments similar to yours before and they did not go over very well. The synthesis assertion got pounded with qualifiers such as "is perceived to be" and so on, so I tried "draws from", then "incorporates", then finally let it collapse to "some credit as". As for the "is a [sic] claimed to be a form of anarchism" dispute, it too has a history. The original claim that ancapism "is a form of anarchism" was of course attacked, so I tried "considered a form...". But then qualifiers such as "sometimes" were sought, and I proposed "often", and back and forth it went. Since the claim that anarchism just means "no state" was rejected, but that does seem to be the ancap interpretation, I offered that there were de facto (by usage) different senses of anarchism, one could say a "literal" and an "organic" meaning. *Which is which? The literal meaning of the word anarchism is rather uncontroversially "absence of rulers," or maybe "no rulers," straight from the greek. The organic meaning could be said to be any meaning other than the literal one, thus chaos and riots in the streets, rejection of all forms of coercive hierarchy, anti-statism, or almost anything else people might imagine. BTW, I really like the "pounded with qualifiers" description above. - Kev VV Literal: No government. Organic: Beliefs/movement/actions of self-described. So your evidence for "no government" being the literal definition of the word rather than "no rulers" would be? - Kev VV Rather than get sidetracked on the "literal" concept, I'll re-emphasize the main point, the de facto multiple senses. Sure, no denying that. Feel free to offer it up as "an anarcho-capitalist interpretation of the word anarchism." I don't recall ever rejecting any such statement. - Kev VV Obviously a negative formulation; hence, in the sense of anti-statism. I then tried "is a form of anarchism in the sense of anti-statism". That, however, did not do the trick, as the "claimed to be" battle attests. I do feel the "in the sense" part should only be needed if it is not within an attribution, including "describe their position as". Also, you mentioned below the "so-called possessive property" phrase. I used so-called because it's not clear what the phrase means, and clearly it's meant to be a term of art. Just saying "possessive property" with no definition is not clear. It was not meant to weaken the phrase, but to note that it is a piece of terminology (and in this case from a wholly different viewpoint). *Given that this wholly different viewpoint is precisely what is being explicated in that sentence, I don't see anything inappropriate about using their terminology to describe their position. Anyway, a page dedicated to the meaning of the word for individualists and linked to from its use here would satisfy your objection. Though I do find the objection a little strange, given that you didn't much like it when I tried to indicate that "free market" was being used in the sense of a market free from interferance by government. You said that it was a technical term and didn't need qualification, yet here you are saying that a term needs qualification because it is technical. - Kev VV But it was linked to free market, which at any rate is a well-known term. Link "possessive property" to a descriptive article and no prob. Also I added the parenthetical "in the sense of", maybe do that here too? Whatever floats your boat. - Kev VV Clarity does. But only in certain, very telling, cases. - Kev VV Fine, go on and tell me about my "biases". You obviously have me all figured out. (But you're not a "mind-reader", that's me.) As for the revert war you mentioned, it mostly centered around Aaron reverting my proposed anti-capitalist anarchism back to traditional anarchism, a recurring thorn of late. *I was under the impression that it centered on the "traditional anarchism" edit being reverted back to "socialist anarchism," the "anti-capitalist anarchism" bit was much more recent. - Kev VV Yes, more recent was referred to. Also the "reverts back" were almost always unreverts. Lol, almost always, as in, after the first time you reverted an edit that someone else made, your subsequent reverts were unreverts of the reverts that they made to put their edits back in. I love your rhetoric VV. When you revert it is "unreverting." When others revert it is "stonewalling." - Kev VV Ahistorical, but I'd be wasting my time rehearsing why. However, I pulled other edits, in particular the bit about "... the absolute rejection of all government, including that of property", to me obviously presumptive and indeed obnoxious. *Why is it presumptive and obnoxious to clearly state the position of anarchists (anti-capitalist anarchists) in a sentence specifically refering to them? They do believe that non-possessive property is a form that government takes. We even presented you with dictionary definitions which strongly affirmed the claim that this was so by definition, when you challenged that claim. What is more, you then admitted that there was a "weak" sense in which the claim was correct. Thus, I am greatly confused that a statement refering specifically to a given POV, one that you admit is correct "in some sense of the words," would be not only be "presumptive" but even "obnoxious" to you - Kev 12/12/03 VV It asserted the position. Your dictionary definition argument was a joke. Because? We claimed that property was a form of government by definition, you seemed to deny this (I say seemed because as usual you didn't even bother to address it, you just wrote it off with a snide remark). How else would we demonstrate that one word is entailed by another "by definition" other than to give the relevant definitions? - Kev VV By definition claims are almost always problematic, Fine, but that would be a complaint about the type of argument in general, not this particular instance. At the time, you made no mention of this whatsoever, you simply scoffed at the very idea that it could be government by definition. When you were given rather clear evidence on the matter, you then wrote the entire thing off as "a joke." - Kev not least because dictionaries do not always capture the sense precisely enough for such fine distinction. But that is not even at issue here, as multiple definitions were listed, of varying scopes and strengths, and you chose those which suited you. Of course we did. No one claimed that property is government by "every possible definition and conception known to man." The fact that it is government by even one conception (much less several), one directly applicable to its use in this essay, is plenty enough for all the points made to stand. Of course, if you bothered to read my responses in the first place, you will probably notice that I never actually made this claim. I only tempted you into denying it. - Kev Even that is not at issue, as your claim is indefensible anyway. Many (perhaps most) political thinkers regard property rights as prior to government. I'm not sure if I should dismiss this as a bandwagon ploy or a call to authority. Maybe both. Regardless, both of these statements would be (if they were not blatant fallacies) arguments against the position, not evidence that the claim is outright "indefensible." But you are rather keen on making your case sound stronger by using adjectives that your evidence can't support. So much for "clarity," but it makes good rhetoric for those who don't notice the inconsistency. - Kev VV The indefensible claim is that it's by definition, which excludes these views, whether fallacious in your view or not. And spare me your rhetoric. You even seem to recognize this, with your "possessive" (and "self") distinction. You lost me on that one. Possessive property and claims against property as a part of the self require that property rights are "prior to" government? - Kev VV You seem to regard anarchy as consistent with poss property. Somehow not gov't by definition? I admitted no such thing; this is a perfect example of how you don't even pay attention to what I say, the "straw-man" brouhaha being another. I noted govern has other "weak" senses ("mit governs the dative"), as possess has strong ones. -- VV 01:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) I see, so govern has other weak senses, none of which entail or imply or really have anything to do with the definition of property, eh? Cripes VV, you say that my argument was a joke, and here you are the one making me laugh. - Kev 12/12/03 VV You seem to have not addressed my largest concern, your gross misattribution. No VV, I readily admitted that, if you are actually presenting the position I outlined above, "govern has other weak senses, none of which entail or imply or really have anything to do with the definition of property" then I did indeed make a gross attribution. You see, when you said, "government has other weak senses" I mistakenly thought you meant that it could in fact share some of the definition of property. But apparently my attempt at sarcasm yesterday was actually a point-on presentation of your position. So sorry, had no idea you were seriously presenting that kind of declaration, I have indeed made a gross, nay, even an egregious, misattribution. One that I have unrelentingly pounded you with in my "ridiculous," "incomprehensible," and "absurd" responses. A wonder you even bother anymore, with adjectives like that to back up your lack of arguments.. - Kev 12/13/03 VV Said govern not government. Look again (you obviously haven't). Anyway, I see your incivility has continued unabated. Dare I speculate about what this says about you? -- VV 01:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC) Anyway, as you can probably guess this has been a frustrating experience for me, with my motives constantly questioned and much of what I have written here airily dismissed. Perhaps that's what I get for sticking my fingers into controversial issues. I hope you fare better. You certainly seem to have the energy, perspective, and attitude to do so. -- VV 09:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) Dec 11 Hello Rad, welcome to this page, and thank you very much for what is obviously a sincere attempt to work through these disputes. I very much appreciate many of your edits, even a few that I don't agree with I'm hard pressed to view as worse than any of the alternatives that came before. However, I still think there are a number of points we could work on. I should note that a some of these points are not addressing your edits in particular. Rather, they are parts of the text that I hope you can help us to move past the dead-lock on as you did well with several other parts. 1) "Individuals may take any legitimate steps within their property, including the self-defensive use of force, to protect whatever they have gained from such contracts." This claim, like the pre-existing, "Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think that violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and property." really requires that somewhere in the text (preferably prior to or immediately after the first instance of such a claim) it is detailed exactly what is meant by "self-defense" in this scenario. Since capitalists often legitimate the use of force even in cases where the physical body of the property owner is in no danger, these claims could be mistaken for ruling out such behavior when they do not. This is potentially all the more misleading because the wikipedia link could support such a conclusion as well, "Defendants who use this defense argue that they should not be held liable for what is normally a crime, since the actions taken were intended to protect the defendant or others from danger." Even amongst those who consider property to be an extension of the self to such a degree that self-defense could refer to either property or the body interchangably, I think most would be hard pressed to claim that a "defendant" in some case was necessarily in actual danger when, say, a trespasser is forcibly ejected from their property. Thus we can have cases when force, perhaps even violence, is used but the defense is clearly of property and not the self, unless we assume as above that property is an integral part of the self, something not explicated anywhere in the text. So I think that there are at least three alternatives. One, the sentences could be rewritten to refer to defense, rather than self-defense. Or two, self-defense could be defined in the text as refering to defense of property as well, given that it is often claimed by capitalists to be an extension of the self. Or three, both sentences could be edited to the very cumbersome "including but not limited to the self-defensive use of force," and "purely for self-defense of person and defense of property." Thanks for pointing out some of the weaknesses in these passages. As I think we agreed below, all of these discussions need to be qualified with a discussion of proportionality in defensive force. The easiest thing to do might be to put together a new section early on which explicitly deals with the Non-Initiation Of Force principle, which mentions proportionality of defensive force to the threat as an important legal principle for many (although not all) a-c's. Such a discussion ideally could also include the a-c application of NIOF to property, which most would either categorize as (1) a defense of the part of the self (as some would have it) or (2) self-defense against having one's labor retroactively conscripted into slavery (as others would have it). This would also be a good place to mention the issue of possessive property. (In the future, it would also be a good place to mention Georgist arguments on the nature of land ownership.) 2) While I know that many credit Anarcho-capitalism as drawing ideas from individualism (indeed, all the anarcho-capitalists who know the basics of their history seem to follow Rothbard in this), I myself am hard-pressed to find which ideas they are specifically refering to. For example, in a number of Wendy McElroy's articles she explains that Rothbard synthesized anarcho-capitalism in part from individualism because "Rothbard praised the two great 19th century American anarchists not only for realizing that government and individual liberty were incompatible, but also for exploring the ways in which individuals could cooperate together without the State to achieve what Tucker called a 'society by contract.'" But what I find curious about this claim is that many individuals in the history of classical liberalism and even some in libertarianism in general did exactly this, realized that government and individual liberty were incompatible, and explored ways that individuals could cooperate to achieve a stateless society. So I wonder what exactly is it that Rothbard drew from individualism in particular, rather than just as easily from classical liberalism in particular of libertarianism in general? We could say "its anarchism, duh" but that assumes the capitalist position at the outset, that anarchism is nothing more than mere anti-statism. What is more, there were anti-statist capitalists in the other traditions that Rothbard himself drew from. Obviously we couldn't just say that he adopted the general economics of individualists, not only because in that facet he relied almost entirely on folks like Mises and Molinari, but also because contrary to the individualists he endorsed rent, usury, and wage, all of which stemmed (in his mind) from a rejection of the theory of labor value that individualists embraced. So maybe I would have less problems with the claim "anarcho-capitalism draws ideas from individualist-anarchism" is you could give me a couple examples of ideas that actually came explicitly from individualist-anarchism that are not present in prominent figures of the other ideologies Rothbard expressly drew from. Because it seems to me that if there isn't a distinguishing factor between the ideas it claims to draw from individualism and those ideas that were also present at the time in say classical liberalism, then maybe there is some other more primary field common to both that it is actually drawing the ideas from (like say libertarianism). If this were the case, then Rothbard's high regard for Tucker and Spooner would not indicate that they were actually the source of the ideas, but rather that they were praise-worthy examples of a parallel. And anyway, no one is arguing that Rothbard did not claim to borrow from individualism, just that it was in fact a claim. All of these are quite reasonable worries, and I'll discuss some of them directly below. But I do also think there's an argument to be made for a more liberal use of terms regarding to influence, drawing from, etc. If you look at the articles that were being printed in, for example, Rampart Journal, it's clear that material from Spooner, in particular, and the individualist anarchists more broadly, was in heavy circulation more or less from the get-go. (Rothbard was not closely associated with the Rampart circle, but he did read and publish in the journal.) So while there are certainly some writings within the liberal tradition that could have, and did, contribute explicit anti-statist arguments to Rothbard and to other early a-c's, and while many (especially Rothbard, who had a very wide and deep sense of the history of thought) were aware of, and signed on to, classical liberal arguments from folks like Molinari and the early Herbert Spencer (who I have a bit more to say about below), I think that, chronologically and logically, it makes just as much sense to say that he got it from the individualist anarchists as it does to say he got it from the classical liberals. (If he'd gotten his anti-statism from Von Mises, then I'd say that Austro-libertarianism should have pride of place in the account of what Rothbard drew from, and both Molinarian anti-statist liberalism, and individualist anarchism, should have a distinctly subsidiary place in the list. But he didn't get it from Von Mises; Von Mises was a ultra-minarchist, not an anti-statist.) In any case, folks like Rothbard and LeFevre could have gotten anti-statism independently of their reading of the individualist anarchists. (Indeed, they could have gotten it independently of Molinari, too; Roy Childs became known as something of an enfant terrible in libertarian circles for his open letter to Ayn Rand, which argued that anarcho-capitalism was logically implied by Objectivist ethics--and his arguments applies just as well to any libertarian system based on a strict NIOF principle.) But the historical data seems to me to indicate that they didn't get it that way. So I'd argue that the attribution of "drawing from" the i-a tradition should be kept even if everything in a-c could have been derived purely from classical liberalism as it stood at the time. Radgeek 16:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) So again, if you could present a couple of these ideas, or explain to me why the claim of drawing from the individualist tradition would be valid even if we can't distinguish the source of these ideas, I would appreciate it. That said, here are a couple points on which the influence of individualist anarchism weighed heavier than the influence of classical liberals like Molinari. (1) The adoption of the term "anarchism" - Molinari, in particular, did not speak of freedom from government; he spoke of freedom of government, and what a-c's would call "defense agencies" today he called "competing governments." As far as I'm aware, it's from the individualist anarchists that Rothbard and later a-c's got the words "anarchy," "anarchism," etc. as descriptions of what they want and what they believe. Of course, you might argue that it's a very small point whether you fancy it a form of anarchism or don't fancy it a form of anarchism--after all, we ought to be more concerned with the concepts and the arguments used than with the letters A-N-A-R-C-H-.... I have a certain amount of sympathy for that feeling, but I do think there are some important senses in which this is relevant. First, terminology is often a potent sign for where influence comes from; the peculiarities of the argot that you use doesn't define the logical content of your position, but it does play a very heavy role in distinguishing its dialectical position--who you engage with as your conversation partners, where you locate your position within various traditions and movements, etc. (As a parallel example, think of the transition from the late 1960s terminology of "Women's Liberation" to the early 1970s terminology of "feminism." In some sense, this was mainly a terminological shift; the analyses that had been developed within the movement didn't make any decisive break in their logical content. But it was hardly a superficial change; calling it "Women's Liberation" aligned the movement with the theory and practice of the New Left, whereas "feminism" represented a major break from the New Left and a re-alignment with 19th century feminism--which the New Left had widely reviled through the old Marxist caricatures of the feminists as racist, classist, etc. stodgy "Bluestocking" liberals.) Second, closely associated with the first point, some of the decisive arguments against the monopoly State for early a-c's were not those of Molinari, who mainly appealed to economic arguments on the anti-competitive nature of monopoly government. They came from the moral and legal arguments in Spooner's "No Treason" (and other works), and in Spencer's "The Right to Ignore the State." (The early Spencer was working in the British classical liberal tradition; but his thought--or rather, proper understanding of his thought, as opposed to eugenicist perversions of it--came to America mostly through Benjamin Tucker's journal Liberty. Another reason, from the opposite direction, for a nuanced picture of the relationship between individualist anarchism and classical liberalism / libertarianism.) Additionally, there are some specific debates within anarcho-capitalism where the individualist anarchists loom large. One especially clear example is the debate over intellectual property. While many anarcho-capitalists (including Rothbard) have defended the concept intellectual property, there are also many who reject it. Those who do reject it usually acknowledge a debt to the individualist anarchists--Tucker and "Tak Kak" in particular. While the anti-statist liberals (Molinari, Spencer, etc.) more or less univocally came out for copyright and/or patent restrictions, the individualist anarchists were divided (Spooner more or less supported Spencer's position; Tucker and "Tak Kak" opposed). Of course, opposition to IP is not a canonical part of anarcho-capitalism or of individualist anarchism, since they have both been divided on the issue. But the point I want to make here is the way in which debates and specific arguments from within the individualist anarchist tradition have weighed into the debates and specific arguments within the a-c tradition, and have contributed elements to the discourse that could not be gotten from the classical liberals. The same, I think, can be said of other debates; IP is useful just as an example that I know pretty well and where the decisive influence is very clear. Radgeek 16:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) 3) "anti-capitalist anarchism" Not refering to your edits here but hoping you can help with what is evidently an impasse. I understand why a capitalist would see this as a neutral disambiguation, but if the controversy over the use of the term "anarcho-capitalist" revolves around the very meaning of the word "anarchism," then doesn't it assume the "anarcho-capitalist" position to refer to what would otherwise be "anarchists" as "anti-capitalist anarchists?" In other words, to refer to them as "anti-capitalist anarchists" basically drives home the argument that anarchism is not itself anti-capitalist. Arguably, we should be assuming the anarcho-capitalist position in the context of the anarcho-capitalist page. However, the mere existence of this page and the explication of the philosophy is just that, I don't see a need for endorsing their terminology in said page, especially when "anarcho-capitalists" are still refered to by their chosen title outside of this page. Most of the alternate labels seem to have this exact same problem, "anarcho-socialist," for example. Libertarian socialist was a compromise I initially supported, but two faults have arisen with this term as well, first that it potentially excludes large parts of the anarchist community from these comparisons and claims (individualists, egoists, etc), and second that it rather arbitrarily pushes everyone other than "anarcho-capitalists" right out of the anarchist title while tellingly leaving the capitalists still in when making direct comparisons. I personally prefer "traditional anarchist" but this is argued against based on the claim that anarcho-capitalists have a tradition (something I don't think anyone denies or would be indicated by the label), even if it is inserted with the caveat "this is not meant to deny that anarcho-capitalists have a tradition of their own." I also think, though I'm sure no one will accept it here, that "anarchist" is perfectly acceptable, given that the anarcho-capitalists are always refered to in the article with the hyphen and many if not most believe that they did not actually arise from anarchism at all (but rather use the term simply as a descriptive given the meaning they ascribe to it, or perhaps remove from it). However, given the apparent reality that neither of these labels will be accepted, I was considering this. Why not just remove the whole "for the purposes of this article this contrasting position will be refered to as... blah blah blah" and instead refer specifically to "collectivist anarchist" and "individualist anarchist" whenever appropriate? At times this might be a bit wordy, when both collectivists and individualists share the same criticism of capitalism or whatever, but in some areas it would also better distinguish between the various criticisms offered, thus indicating exactly which ones are made by individualists and which ones by collectivists. It would also finally solve the problem of inappropriate labels, because both of these labels are accepted by the people they refer to and they leave the terms on relatively equal grounds concerning referance to "anarchism." Of course taking this option would require that several sentences be rewritten carefully as well. 4) "anti-capitalist anarchists often argue against the claim by noting that each of these individuals rejected some aspect of capitalist economics." All the arguments I have seen from anarchists on this subject state that these individuals rejected capitalist economics as a unit, rather than merely an aspect thereof. Of course, we could reduce any argument this way, claiming that Marx only rejected "aspects" of capitalist economics, or that pacifism only rejects "aspects" of violence. Regardless, I think there is good evidence that these individuals rejected more in capitalism than "some aspect" implies, and even if that isn't the case it certainly is the argument offered by anarchists ("anti-capitalist anarchists"), which is all that is stated here. 5) "and their emphasis on voluntary and free market-based approaches to social problems." Two quibbles here. First, voluntary is used now several times in this page without being defined. This is a problem because the claim that capitalist relations are voluntary is heavily contested and it is currently being used in part to contrast their stance with others. However, with the introduction of this sentence the defining of the term becomes critical, because most of the individuals in question did not believe that capitalist economic relations were voluntary. What is more, they did not believe that a market which included what was often refered to as "coercive usury" would be a free market. So, in essence, when we are saying that the capitalists emphasize the emphasis (not my fault, that really is the way it is written :p) on voluntary and free markets, we are neglecting to mention that the capitalists own emphasis on voluntary and free markets is in a different sense of both words! In other words, capitalists do emphasize what they believe to be voluntary and free markets, but not the voluntary and free markets that individualists did. The only voluntary relations and free market-based approaches being emphasized here are the capitalist ones, so in essence we are saying that the capitalists emphasize a capitalist approach and using a trick of rhetoric to over-lay this onto a parallel but very different claim on the part of individualists. 6) "Most anarcho-capitalists agree with the individual anarchist conception of government as an evil against natural law" A number of modern individualists reject natural law, I'm actually trying to think of any I know right now who endorse it. Perhaps more importantly, many of them now lately reject the particular moralist framework that would entail claims of "evil" in the form of a non-human ideology or basic theoretical institutions. I'm not sure how this could be rewritten to account for this. Maybe just a reduction to the, "all agree with the individualist anarchist judgment that government is unnecessary and inefficient," that can actually account for everyone in both traditions? 7) "with anarcho-capitalists being much more inclined than the individualist anarchists were to accept that features such as wage labor, rent, and corporate organization of commerce would arise naturally in a free society." I think this looks past part of the individualist criticism. Many individualists do not follow along the same classical liberal conception that just means entail just ends. If fascism arose naturally in a free society individualists would still universally resist it, so it isn't merely that individualists argue that these things would not arise in a free society (though that is an important part of it), but also that they are in themselves antithetical to the freedom of any society they do arise in. 8) "but which they should not and will not impose on others as long as their own rights are respected." It is important to note that many others simply have a different conception of rights. As such, these people would happily respect the rights of capitalists according to, for example, a socialist ethic, but to a capitalist this could very well be a violation of capitalist rights according to the capitalist ethic. Thus, to the socialist a capitalist would indeed be imposing their own system on others when they enforce/defend the capitalist conception. Of course, all of this is already qualified as what the capitalists defend, thus more or less indicating a claim, but it might be more clear to write something along the lines of "will not impose on others as long as their own capitalist rights" or maybe "property rights" or just "their own conception of rights is respected." In other words, if people don't violate the capitalist rights, anarcho-capitalists won't violate the whatever rights of the other party. (personally I'm not so sure if this would even be the anarcho-capitalist claim. Some I know only claim that they would not impose their system onto those who have the same basic conception of rights, they are under no obligation to refrain from enforcing their system in the face of competing rights systems. In other words, they only object to enforcing their economic system if one assumes their economic standards at the outset.) This problem also applies to this passage, "They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal" way to promote or impose their views" and this passage, "There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system." This passage is especially problematic because many anarcho-capitalists claim that medieval Icelanders were anarcho-capitalist, or even that individuals in the "wild west" in American history were anarcho-capitalist. These people undeniably used violence to defend their system according to anarcho-capitalists, impose it according to many others. So at the very least this claim is disputed and needs to be stated as a claim. VV might want to pay particular relevance to this, as previously the discussion seemed centered on anarcho-capitalists in the present government systems. 9) "Many anti-capitalist anarchists, on the other hand, criticize the anarcho-capitalist reading of the individualist anarchists, and argue that their criticisms of capitalist practices are essential to individualist anarchism." Trying to get my head around a potential technical problem. I assume "their" is meant to refer to the individualist anarchists, but I can't tell if from a grammatical standpoint "their" would default to the other two parties mentioned previously. Should this just be split into two sentences (already long anyway)? The second reading something like "The anti-capitalists argue that the individualist criticisms of capitalist...." also "Those who accept this critique typically" Is just as well written "These anti-capitalist anarchists (as the label stands atm)," since we already made clear who it was making this argument and "those who accept this critique is just an extraneous qualifier. 10) "Anarcho-capitalists have very widely differing social views, ranging from the conservative and often religious paleolibertarians to moderate liberals to the far Left." Not an edit or criticism or anything. Just curious. Have you ever actually met or heard of an anarcho-capitalist on the "far left?" If I count as an anarcho-capitalist (which is an issue that could be argued at great length with lots of arguments and quibbles on both sides) than I am one such anarcho-capitalist. If I'm too much of a Red to count as an a-c, exactly, then my friend and former teacher Roderick Long is one such. For what it's worth, what I mostly had in mind when I split up these three categories were (1) Von Mises Institute paleolibertarians, (2) the anarcho-capitalist end of the Reason magazine crowd, and (3) Roderick, respectively. Radgeek 04:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) 11) "The only important political issue, however, is that people are free from the threat of violence no matter which community they live in" A question, again not an edit. I know many anarcho-capitalists accept lethal violence as a direct defense against an attacker. But isn't it true that some of them even accept capital punishment of already subdued criminals? Well, at least, I have heard of people claiming to be anarcho-capitalists making such a claim. Given that, wouldn't it be clear that an underlying threat of violence does exist in certain anarcho-capitalist communities for certain degrees of social deviation? I'm sure we could always claim that those anarcho-capitalists are not actually anarcho-capitalists, but for some reason I doubt many people would want to get into that kind of claim atm. Some a-c's accept after-the-fact retaliatory violence, other's don't. (Of course, all non-pacifist a-c's accept after-the-fact force to procure just compensation from the rights-violator.) I suppose that those that do might very well sign on all the way up to capital punishment, although I don't have any first-hand testimony one way or the other on the issue. In any case, punitive vs. compensatory-only justice, in general, is a hot debate within a-c legal theory at the moment, and ideally should be mentioned somewhere in the article. But "threat of violence" here means threat of aggressive violence, and the whole issue between punitive and anti-punitive a-c's is whether punitive violence counts as an initiation of force or as a form of defensive force. So this issue should probably be broached somewhere earlier in the article, as a qualification on all subsequent discussions re: defensive force. Radgeek 04:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) similarly, What they don't disagree about is which of these communities ought to be legal--they should all be allowed in a free society. I don't think this is positing an absence of law, since that is a cornerstone of anarcho-capitalist theory. So I'm assuming this is positing an absence of law enforcement on communities of dissenters? But doesn't that assume a few important conditions, like for example said dissenters not being say, "in dept" or in violation of other capitalist standards? For example, if a group of renters suddenly has a change of political ideology and decides that their claims to intimacy or maybe labor-mixing with a given property gives them the right to dissent from rent while continuing to occupy the land, certainly they would be considered in violation of several standards of capitalist law, and thus in all relevant senses their community (which given the vague data thus far could be capitalist or communist or whatever, just a different property justice standard) would be illegal? 12) "though most of them defend the necessity of violent action against criminal acts" This makes it sounds like capitalists are nutzos who would use violence against a shoplifter. Obviously a pacifist would deny the "necessity" of violent action against criminal acts. In fact, so would many non-pacifists anarcho-capitalists who would only see a necessity of enforcement, or others who do not even endorse automatic enforcement against all criminal acts. Maybe "though most of them defend violent action against particular criminal acts," or something like that. Anyway, the "necessity" part is highly problematic. I agree that "necessity" is problematic (certainly a-c's don't believe that there is some enforceable duty to use defensive violence--although they may certainly believe that it's a very good idea. Similarly, "violent action" muddies the case and neglects the principle of proportionality that many a-c's endorse. Probably "right to use defensive force" or somesuch would be better, and somewhere or another where defensive force is used, a brief mention of proportionality should be included. Radgeek 04:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) I agree that it is very important to include proportionality here. It is a source of many misunderstandings when it is not made clear that anarcho-capitalists only legitimate defensive force/violence used in proportion to the act they are defending against. - Kev 12/12/03 13) "the right of anyone to secede from a government he considers unfit should be respected (see secession and urban secession). If not, then non-cooperation is morally justified (see civil disobedience). " Another question. I assume this doesn't just mean to leave a government, otherwise it would be tantamount to saying that anarcho-capitalists don't endorse civil disobediance in a huge number of modern-day countries. Rather, I would think it means something along the lines of "can remove their home/land from the monopoly of enforcement by a government." But if this is the case, would it be possible for an individual who owns no land to secede from the local enforcement agencies that work for landowners in the area? In other words, yes this renter can leave, just like the individual in many states can, but can they legitimately claim to remove themselves from the enforcement power of a given owner/agency while still in a jurisdiction it claims (as seems to be the case in the state example used)? 14) Heh, another quesiton: "that governments represent natural monopolies rather than coercive monopolies on the defensive use of force." So are we saying that if a government arose that was a natural monopoly the anarcho-capitalist would have no objection? If so, then we must have a very very strict definition of state that coincides perfectly as only those governments which arise with coercion. Does this mean that, in theory, one could develop some fascist government in perfect accord with anarcho-capitalist values so long as it arose as a natural monopoly, and that the most severe response by an anarcho-capitalist would be a boycott of such a government once it was instituted and abused its power? This is a startling claim in the presence of the earlier admission to selectively endorse the use of large-scale conflict against particular countries viewed as aggressors. 15) "(b) that anarcho-capitalism will make it more likely for coercive monopolies (in the form of local plutocracies) to form." This is a call for an edit, I think. Couldn't there also be C) "that the natural monopolies are or can be coercive monopolies?" 16) "beyond so-called possessive property" Why is this so-called? I mean, of course, it is so-called, but so is everything. Why is this being emphasized? I agree that this phrase should be struck. I didn't endeavor to do it yet because I was occupied with other issues and didn't want to broach or expand on this one just yet. I think that the best thing to do is simply strike the "so-called" and provide a link that explains what possessive property is taken to mean. Or some similar solution. Does such a link target already exist, or will it have to be created? Further thoughts on phrasing? Radgeek 04:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) Now I have to sheepishly admit that I don't think such a link has been created yet. There is currently a page for possession, which details three different meanings of the word, one of which is "possession is also a type of ownership supported by some proponents of anarchism who seek to abolish private property as an institution of coercion." But I don't know if that would be detailed enough for linking to in its current form. Maybe a brand new page linked to from here and from the possession page titled something like "anarchist possession" (indicating it as an anarchist concept, not something all anarchists agree on) or "individual possession." Anyway, I think I could make such a page but I'm not actually an advocate of possession per se, so I will instead try to invite a few individualist friends to come create the page themselves. Feel free to start a new page yourself if you have the time/desire. - Kev 12/12/03 17) "many anti-capitalist anarchists — though not those who identify with the tradition of individualist anarchism — approach these from a collectivist socialist standpoint" This forgets egoists. As per my recommendation above, could this simply be, "many collectivist anarchists approach these from a socialist standpoint?" Eeeek. Very long. Take your time in responding, I've got a few days left on my self-exile anyway. - Kev 12/11/03 Thanks, Kev, for your detailed and thoughtful respones. There's a lot of good stuff here to chew on, and as you propose, I'll take my time in responding. I'll interleave a couple of things in response to your post tonight, and add some more tomorrow. Radgeek 04:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC) Dec 13 O.K., so it took me a bit longer to come back to this page than I had thought. Some more comments on Kev's comments are interleaved. Radgeek 15:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) I think that, chronologically and logically, it makes just as much sense to say that he got it from the individualist anarchists as it does to say he got it from the classical liberals. The case for that is strong enough that I would readily admit it can't be ruled out. But that is not too controversial, I doubt Rothbard would have claimed roots in individualism if it was clearly the case that he had no relation to it whatsoever. However, your above statement indicates the point that worries me. It might be that you were simply being generous in an attempt to foster civil dialogue, but if you meant what you said as a frank appraisal then it follows that it would also make just as much sense to say that he got it from the classical liberals as it does to say that he got it form the individualists. In other words, it is ambiguous, and as an ambiguous matter a claim concerning it really needs to be indicated as a claim. What pushes us toward claiming that it draws from individualism in an otherwise unclear determination is Rothbard's own assertions on the matter. This is also closely related to the arguments on the choice of the name "anarchism." However, while it is clear that Rothbard believed that anarcho-capitalism consisted, in part, of ideas from individualism, I don't think his belief alone is sufficient to assert that the ideas he drew were in fact (rather than just in claim) individualist ideas. For example, someone who comes at this from the position that anarchism is more than anti-statism, something I think that both collectivist anarchists and individualists anarchists would agree on, would not feel inclined to view this otherwise ambiguous attribution of source to individualism merely because Rothbard claimed as much. I'm not saying anyone thinks that Rothbard was engaged in deception, only that there is good reason to believe that he selected out a particular part of the meaning of anarchism, one thus distinct from the one individualists themselves used when he declared himself an anarcho-capitalist. It would make sense, if one decided to refer to oneself as an anarchist for whatever reason (and motivations are not something important here), that one would attempt to back that up with some support by showing parallels between ones own philosophy and that of some group of anarchists. But obviously to the individualists who call themselves anarchists for much more than purely anti-statist reasons those parallels would be just that, similarities in two different traditions. So for these reasons I don't find the mere fact that these ideas heavily circulated in liberal and libertarian circles or that he specifically chose the name anarchism to be, in themselves, compelling reasons to rule out the qualifier "claim," especially given the controversial nature of the attribution. Many ideas circulate through many traditions, and many people claim many different titles for any number of reasons, I simply feel we would need more tangible evidence of a direct relation in order to overcome the worries that anarchism itself is being changed from even the most broad meaning it had to individualists even as we attribute the ideas to them. What I find much more compelling is your knowledge of early anarcho-capitalists arguments against the state taken from Spooner in "No Treason" and other works. Perhaps I'm just not familiar with them, and learning about them might help me to better understand whether the arguments we are refering to are actually individualist arguments in general, or rather just arguments held by one individualist in particular (Spooner). Of course the distinction is important, for example if a nationalist of some variety claimed to draw from anarchism by refering to anti-semitic arguments made by Proudhon to buffer his rejection of the state, there would be good reason to reject the claim, or at least doubt it, because the anti-semitism is not itself required by or central to anarchism (some would even argue it is anti-thetical to anarchism), but rather simply a peculiarity of a single anarchist. In the context of wikipedia it would not be appropriate to delete or censor any such claims, as that would rule out a potentially valid conception, but to demarcate them as claims would be appropriate given their basis. Thus, if you are refering, for example, to the "Natural Law" positions that Spooner held and their various entailments as one moral justification to reject the state, then I wonder if it would be appropriate to apply these back to a statement which indicates that the ideas are drawn from individualism itself. Of course Spooner was an anarcho-individualist and he believed in natural law, but he was also then and now in a small minority amongst anarcho-individualists on this point, often even ridiculed by other individualists who felt such beliefs were contrary to their views, which leads me to believe that individualism itself is agnostic on this issue. If that is the case, then his natural law arguments are not reflective of individualism itself, which would not necessarily imply or deny them, they are simply coincidental to it. So while in this case it would be correct to claim that "anarcho-capitalists draw certain ideas from an anarcho-individualist" or just "from Spooner" it would be misleading to conflate the person and the position and claim that "anarcho-capitalists draw ideas from anarcho-individualism." One could assert that the later is still appropriate by claiming that anarchism is anti-statism and thus arguments made against the state by an individualist must be anarcho-individualist arguments even if they are unique or rare, but in order to make this claim we must first assume the very point in contention, that anarchism is nothing more than anti-statism. There is also the minor point that Spooner believed that natural law had egalitarian entailments very distinct from Rothbard's conception, but if we accept that Spooner's natural law beliefs were not anarchistic per se the already tenuous point concerning the extent to which Rothbard borrowed from Spooner becomes a side issue. However, if the arguments on the part of the individualists in question are not of this type, then I think this would be very compelling. Maybe there are some other arguments explicated by Spooner and central to or at least commonly associated with individualism (i.e. either universally or at least widely held by individualists) itself that I'm simply unaware of. If that is the case, and Rothbard used any of these arguments at the same time that he began refering to his position as anarcho-capitalism, then I think it would soundly put to rest my contention concerning the use of a qualifier in the claim that anarcho-capitalism draws ideas from individualism. So, in summary, I think (I may be wrong, but thus far the statements seem to indicate as much) that we are in agreement as to the potential ambiguousness of this issue. Given that, and given the controversy of the subject, I feel that the arguments from use of the term "anarchist" and wide circulation of articles and texts do not adequately put to rest the call for (what I personally believe to be) a rather minor qualifier that addresses the concern that the text currently skews toward a particular conception of the relationship between individualism and capitalism not universally held. However, I think the claim that there are identifiable individualist arguments being used expressly by early a-c proponents (in particular Rothbard), is definately a promising path if we account for the worry above about distinguishing between positions coicidental to particular individualists and integral to (or mostly anyway, its an organic matter) individualism itself. So, I'm very interested in what knowledge you can provide me on the matter. (and I hope some of this made sense, been awhile since I sharpened the old philosophy axe) For the rest, I substantially agree with you on everything you have commented on thus far. The section concerning porportionality and the non-initiaion of force, with a possible intro to possession somewhere therein, sounds fine. Of course I'll have to wait and see exactly how it is worded before giving a personal thumbs up, but from the sound of things thus far and your own short description in this dialogue I find nothing objectionable. - Kev 12/13/03 Dec 14 I don't see that there is anything calling for a response in your latest round of posturing VV, so I won't bother. If there is something up there you really think is relevant at all, please feel free to try to express it again minus all the condescension and cute adjectives. - Kev 12/14/03 Dec 16 My week of voluntarily ceasing to edit this page is over. I hope it has done some good for VV. I now intend to begin editing again. As I did the last time I took a two week break, I will begin to insert one edit at a time, explaining on the discuss page where necessary, and waiting a day or so before proceeding to the next. As with last time, if I find several of my edits reverted at once I will simply revert them back unless a compelling explaination is offered for each and every edit that is reverted. I will begin with edits that seem to have no objections or basic consensus. My first edit will be changing the link on the word "disputed" since that page specifically warns against putting NPOV disputes on it and that warning is precisely concerning an NPOV dispute. Since the discussion currently linked to is arguably important, however, I will place a new link to that as well. - Kev 12/16/03 Dec 17 Removed "so-called" as discussed above. There is currently no article specifically detailing the anarchist concept of possession, but the article that exists to disambiguation gives a brief account and is now linked to. Eventually a dedicated page might be a good idea, but it is important to have input of many different kinds of anarchists on this as the concept has many interpretations, so a vague referance for now would best account for all of them. Also removed "so-called" from green anarchism, as a link already existed for it. - Kev 12/17/03 Dec 18 Now this is interesting. On the current dispute page Olathe argued that this page is about a POV, thus did not require a NPOV for its presentation. But now the header reads that this explaination of anarcho-capitalism is non-negotiable -because- it is NPOV. A POV article about anarcho-capitalism is for rather clear reasons not NPOV. Further, the use of "objective" in that header is misleading. I could easily write another parallel article to this one claiming that anarcho-capitalism was something else entirely and claim that it was an "objective" portrayal of a given POV on anarcho-capitalism. If the article is to say whatever anarcho-capitalists themselves want it to say, but nothing that people who are not anarcho-capitalists want it to say, then it clearly isn't neutral, but rather specifically biased toward the anarcho-capitalist POV. That, in itself, is fine with me. But to then add a header claiming neutrality and objectivity seems to rather stretch the boundaries of reason. POV the article all you want, but don't expect others to accept a header claiming NPOV and objectivity at the same time. - Kev 12/18/03 Is this an encyclopaedia or a propaganda leaflet? Should we let Nazis decide what goes on the Naziism page, or let them write the history of World War II from their own "objective" perspectives? I had always assumed that objectivity meant displaying all viewpoints in a non-biased manner. I must voice my dissent with regard to the new changes. The point of the page is to give readers a good understanding of anarcho-capitalism - and our points are that anarcho-capitalism cannot be understood without also understanding, in a clear and unbiased fashion, the perspectives of the very people whose philosophy the ideology is based on. -- Aaron 11:20, 18 Dec 2003 I think there is definately some confusion on this page about what is meant by neutrality. So here are some quotes from the NPOV page to help out. In regards, for example, to the first sentence: "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so." Thus, some people believe that anarcho-capitalism draws on the tradition of individualism, and some people do not. To state that anarcho-capitalism does draw on the tradition of individualism, when many if not most individualists themselves would disagree, is clearly non-neutral. In regards to certain individuals not caring if all views are represented fairly: "Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly." It goes on to make a very important point about supposed objectivity: "This is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, which would be the one unbiased, "objective" point of view. The Wikipedia neutrality policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." The header, as it currently exists, disregards all of this. Indeed, I think this article is currently headed in the wrong direction on two fronts now. Not only is it moving toward explicitly detailing only one POV without any address of contrary POVs, an explicit violation of NPOV policy. But it is doing so under the pretenses of being both neutral and objective. This is simply not satisfactory. - Kev 12/18/03 I have not argued that the article should be POV. I've argued that the article should objectively declare what anarcho-capitalists believe (objectively describe their POV). It shouldn't describe other groups' arguments against anarcho-capitalism because that would take several million bytes (for all the millions of groups that might have something to say about anarcho-capitalism). If there is contention about an issue such as where anarcho-capitalists objectively draw inspiration from, that is one thing, as it deals objectively with the anarcho-capitalist point of view. That another group wants the term "anarchism" for themselves as a sort of trademark because of the reputation they've earned for themselves through the use of it (or for whatever other reason) should be on that group's article, because it is their POV and hence on-topic for their article. In other words, we should keep the article on-topic (specifically the POV of anarcho-capitalists), rather than discussing the POVs of other groups here just because anarcho-capitalists are the antagonists of the argument. For instance, if I started a POV called "Olathan anarchism", the historical anarchists would also not want me using the term anarchist for the same reasons. Should we copy the argument to each and every nonhistorical (or "incorrect"-definition-using) group that uses the name "anarchism" ? Would we copy the viewpoint that "Roman Catholics believe they are the true Christian church and all other churches have no claim to the name" to the articles on every single Protestant sect and vice-versa (leading to huge numbers of listings for each sect: "Roman Catholics believe that..." "Eastern Orthodoxers believe that..." "Southern Baptists believe that...") ? No, although we might include that in the Roman Catholic article because it is objectively part of their viewpoint. My point was not that we abandon all objectivity, but that we keep the thing on-topic, without burdening the article with extraneous tangents. The key ideas I'm advocating are "stay on-topic" and "the topic is the point-of-view of anarcho-capitalists". I am not advocating an anarcho-capitalist free-for-all. – Olathe December 18, 2003 I'm not going to respond to the paragraph about arguments against anarcho-capitalism, as I've already repeatedly made my position clear on that and don't know who you are directing it toward. I agree that the article should stay on topic, and so long as the anarcho-capitalist POV is indicated to be such, you will find no complaints from me. I do think the header is currently far too unwieldy and redundant: "This article attempts to objectively explain the viewpoint of anarcho-capitalists." If by this we mean that the article attempts to give a neutral presentation of the anarcho-capitalist POV, then it doesn't need to be said, as neutrality is the stated policy of all of wikipedia. If this is something more, like giving "the" objective POV, then it ought not to be said, as that is a violation of the neutrality policy. This pretty much applies to the entire thing, if you have a problem with the edits people are making and want to warn against certain ones or emphasize that certain edits are inappropriate, feel free to use encoding to add it to the edit page but not have it appear and take up so much space in the article itself. Or just bring it up in the talk page. In addition, you removed the NPOV dispute, which still stands and provides a link that puts this page on a list of NPOV disputes, where it currently belongs. So my edit for today will be a revert of that entire paragraph back to its previous state. - Kev 12/18/03 Dec 20 Hi folks. I'm not going to get involved in this debate, I'm just passing on something I put in The Machinery of Freedom and then decided would probably be better here. When you decide what you want to do with the article, you may want it. Vernor Vinge published a short story, "The Ungoverned", set in a society based on the principles outlined by Friedman and focusing on how it would deal with crime, disputes, and invasion. Cheers, Tualha 01:41, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) My edit for today will be the second sentence, which used to be the first sentence. I know this will raise a lot of hairs, but it has remained unmodified on the article page for almost two weeks now despite a great deal of discussion on this talk page. In regards to the neutrality policy I refered to above in conversation with Olathe, and the reasonable objections to the view that anarcho-capitalism specifically draws ideas form the individualist tradition that I discussed with Rad, I think that the minor modifier along the lines of "claim" (or whatever else will account for the fact that this is not an open and shut case) is valid. Again, this is in full keeping with the neutrality policy of wikipedia, especially since this is the first time in which this claim is dealt with in the article. Also, I'm still happy to accept evidence that arguments/ideas taken specifically from individualism were used by those who first declared themselves anarcho-capitalists, if they account for my previous contention that not all arguments made by individualists themselves necessarily represent individualism itself. - Kev 12/20/03 Dec 24 Today I have modified the section on individualism to more accurately account for the differences between the two theories. In several places the same words were being used to describe two distinct ideas, so some effort has now been made to indicate that there is more disagreement here than was previously apparent. This is discussed in more detail in my above responses to Rad. - Kev 12/24/03 Jan 1 Happy New Year's, all. Sorry I've been away for a while; holiday travel and other projects have kept me occupied. I was rather alarmed to see some of the edits that have occurred while I've been away. In particular: Thus, anarcho-capitalists describe their position as a form of anarchism, in the limited sense of being against certain state-like actions (for instance, coercion via personal violence, forcible reductions in personal liberty, private property destruction, or forcible private property transfer) rather than being against all hierarchy (for instance, coercion via withholding excess vital supplies). They believe that there are certain proscribed actions, but no proscribed inactions. Which actions are proscribed is a matter of varying opinion because the choice is subjective. For instance, some believe that an avenger killing a murderer a week after the murder is allowed for utilitarian or emotional reasons; some believe that it is proscribed for moral or philosophical reasons. . . . and following paragraphs are completely unacceptable. I want to work for compromise solutions here, but this is diatribe and mischaracterization. I can only say the same thing to you that I said previously to Olathe. You should be careful not to assume you know who the author of a given passage is if you haven't gone back and checked, and you should futher be careful not to assume their motivations. The person who wrote that passage clearly thinks he is protecting this article against misrepresentation by others, something I find a tad ironic. - Kev 01/03/03 Kev - I am sorry if you thought that I was picking on you specifically. I didn't mean to suggest anything in particular about who made the edits, just to comment on the edits themselves. (If I recall at least some of them were under an IP address in any case.) If I did convey that impression accidentally, I apologize. Radgeek 06:26, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) Insofar as there is a need to distinguish between positive and negative conceptions of rights it should be done in a section on the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, not here. Moreover, the anarcho-capitalist position is simply manhandled in the process. "against certain state-like actions ... rather than being against all hierarchy." The issue, first, is not that certain actions are state-like, but rather that they are violations individual rights. Second, although some anarcho-capitalists look down their nose at egalitarianism, others do not. The reason is that anarcho-capitalism per se does not imply a commitment one way or the other. There are plenty of hierarchial social arrangements which are not violations of non-initiation of force (say, setting up a racially segregated dining hall on your own private property). Anarcho-capitalists can (and most anarcho-capitalists do) think that such things are stupid, and that they are indeed evil. They just don't think that they're initiations of force. (Justice is the not the only virtue. It's just the only virtue that's enforceable.) "Which actions are proscribed is a matter of varying opinion because the choice is subjective." This is crap. It's a matter of "varying opinion" because there are hotly contested and unsettled philosophical debate. That doesn't mean that there aren't solidly argued reasons for choosing one side or the other in the debate, and it doesn't mean that there isn't an objective fact of the matter as to who's right and who's wrong. Radgeek 03:59, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) The edit of this: many were also influenced by specific individualist critiques of the State and individualist arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it. (Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority was widely reprinted in anarcho-capitalist journals.) Anarcho-capitalists also follow in the individualist anarchist condemnation of all forms of collectivist coercion, which are equated with state coercion. To this: Many anarcho-capitalists were also influenced by Lysander Spooner’s critique of the State and his arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it. (Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority was widely reprinted in anarcho-capitalist journals.) is an inaccurate limitation of the statement. Spooner was certainly the most important of the individualists for early anarcho-capitalists, but he was not at all the only influence. Many early anarcho-capitalists disliked Tucker, but others saw him as an predecessor. This passage did not refer to some vague influence, but to "specific individualist critiques of the State and individualist arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it." Seeing Tucker as a predecessor is not the same as drawing a specific individualist critique from him, so this is not evidence in support of the previous version of the passage. - Kev But Kev, the passage as it has been redacted (and as it was originally was written) already gives a specific example. If you really want more mentions by name I can put some more together. Spooner is just an easy and well-known example of a general trend. As for Tucker, Rothbard among others frequently cited him in his writings. Here, for example, is how he listed his influences as of 1962: "Originally, our historical figures were men such as Jefferson, Paine, Cobden, Bright, and Spencer; but as our views became purer and more consistent, we eagerly embraced such near-anarchists as the voluntarist, Auberon Herbert, and the American individualist-anarchists, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker. One of our great intellectual heroes was Henry David Thoreau, and his essay, 'Civil Disobedience,' was one of our guiding stars. Right-wing theorist Frank Chodorov devoted an entire issue of his monthly, Analysis, to an appreciation of Thoreau." (MNR, "Confessions," Ramparts Vol. 6 1962, p. 50) Again, I can come up with some more extended citations if they are needed. (Of course Rothbard was also very critical of Tucker on certain points: R. repudiated the labor theory of value, and he detested Tucker's attacks on natural rights theory. But he disagreed with just about all past writers on economics, and in the egoist vs. natural rights debates he was taking the side of one individualist anarchist faction — i.e. Spooner's — against another. Indeed, his ethical positions derived far more froom Spooner than they did from Von Mises, who was a subjectivist on questions of ultimate value.) Liberty mainstays such as Auberon Herbert were widely reprinted and admired. Hebert Spencer's works were also tremendously important; I do not understand why you are refering to two people who were not individualist anarchists in order to justify the the claim that anarcho-capitalism draws from arguments made by individualist anarchists. If you want to claim that it draws from arguments made in Liberty, then please feel free, but the fact that Liberty printed many works by people who were not individualist anarchists, like Spencer and Herbert, is not evidence that the later tradition of anarcho-capitalism drew from individualist anarchism. - Kev Kev, I explain the citation below. Auberon Herbert was not part of the American individualist anarchist movement (since, among other things, he was not American, and not exactly an anarchist). But so what? Herbert was closely connected, intellectually, and the individualist anarchists saw him as making important contributions to their own project. The same goes for Herbert Spencer. As I say below, this is good reason to see the anti-statist liberal and the individualist anarchist traditions as being something other than entirely alien to each other — and not just in that modern anarcho-capitalists claim to draw on both. The individualist anarchists were also influenced by the anti-state liberals. (Tucker thought of his project as voluntary socialism; but he also thought of it as the logical completion of the liberal programme of free trade, and he said as much, frequently.) If you think that anarcho-capitalism is strictly the descendent of anti-state liberalism, without much in the way of significant input from individualist anarchists, then that simply makes it a sort of cousin of individualist anarchism rather than a descendent. And as I've argued here and before, there are several important ways that such a case falters. he is properly classed as an anti-statist liberal rather than an individualist anarchist, but as it happens his thought mostly came to the United States through its being reprinted and discussed in Tucker's Liberty (another reason to be a bit suspicious of the attempt to treat the anti-statist liberal tradition and the individualist anarchist tradition as wholly alien to one another). Radgeek 04:34, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) This phrase: At the strongest, anarcho-capitalists merely defend capitalism (in the second sense of the term) as a legitimate choice among these forms of organization . . . which they should not and will not impose on others as long as their own conception of rights is respected. Has been edited to: At the strongest, anarcho-capitalists merely defend capitalism (in the second sense of the term) as a legitimate choice among these forms of organization, . . . which they should not and will not impose on others by force. Dealing with the qualification was stylistically clumsy, but moreover unnecessary. However, I've brought this up because the phrase I deleted is illustrative of a certain kind of error. Several times during the course of edits, statements making use of disputed concepts — "rights" being a case in point — has been "qualified" to say things like "their own conception of rights" instead of "their own rights" (similar things were done with claims about defense of property, etc.). The problem with such language is that the "qualification" actually just ends up making the sentence false: from the stand-point of the defensive use of force, anarcho-capitalists do not care about whether their conception of rights is respected; they care about whether their rights (under an a-c conception of rights) are respected. The former is a matter of philosophical agreement or disagreement, not a matter of aggression or defense. (A fascist can publish diatribes in favor of the right to shoot Jews at will all that s/he wants--but s/he cannot go out and shoot Jews at will.) The general moral here is to make sure that if you qualify a particular claim in an effort to highlight the fact that a term is being used in a disputed way, you should make sure that the sentence is still about what it is was about before--that sentences about particular things remain about those things, rather than being about the thoughts, conception, or feelings of a particular group of people about those things. Radgeek 05:05, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC) A very good point. I didn't make any of these recent edits, but I have made such edits in the past and will try not to in the future. - Kev Jan 2 This phrase: Indeed, individualists would argue that a market which included usury and wage labor would not be free at all, and therefore relationships within could not be based on voluntary association. has been struck from the discussion of points of agreement and disagreement between individualists and anarcho-capitalists; it is an inaccurate representation of the individualist position. (Tucker, for example, did not regard interest, rent, etc. as actual invasions against individual liberty; he regarded them as exploitative arrangements that were propped up by other, genuinely invasive institutions--such as government restriction of competition in banking and money, illegitimate restriction of homesteading on unused land, etc.) Assuming this is correct (and I'm not so sure, I remember a quote of Tucker saying that usury deprived individuals of their earnings, and I have trouble believing that he thought a direct restriction of the collection of those earnings (i.e. rent, interest, etc) which is upheld by force would not be an invasion against their liberty), it still doesn't seem to apply to the above passage. As the article exists, it misleadingly conflates the "free" market that capitalists refer as the same one that individualists refer to, drawing a much closer illusory parallel then the evidence actually calls for. Individualists do not think that a market which includes capital relations is "free," many of them have said so many times, I would be happy to provide quotes if necessary. Further, the belief that capital markets are not "free" markets is not limited to Tucker. Are we in agreement that individualists did not view capital as a part of "free" individual relations? If not, I'd be happy to provide the evidence, if so, I don't see what is wrong with the edit. If you are worried that it states or implies something other than this, then please rework it. To simply delete it instead is to prefer one form of misrepresentation to another. - Kev 01/03/04 It's right to say that Tuckerian individualists would sharply criticize the claims of some anarcho-capitalists about the "voluntary" nature of corporations, etc., and argue that the exploitative nature of certain key "capitalist" arrangements has to color the understanding of certain arrangements as "voluntary" or "involuntary." But it's not right to put it in the way it was put here. I am trying to think of a better way to put this point; I'll post again if I come up with something. Radgeek 01:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) Jan 5 Rad: I am sorry if you thought that I was picking on you specifically. I didn't. What I did see was that you seemed to misinterpret the motivations of the individual who made the changes, otherwise I don't know why you would use such harsh language to address someone with the same motivation as you (to accurately represent this page). While I might agree that several parts of this article constitute a "diatribe", "mischaracterization," or "man-handling," of various subjects, I think such interpretations do not lend the benefit of the doubt to the editor and are likely to lead to the same kind of edit war you came here to help stop. The edits were described as mischaracterization, diatribe, etc. (and hence as completely unacceptable) because that is what they were. I understand that the motivation was not to insert diatribe or to mischaracterize, but that's what ended up being the result of the editing process. I don't want to fall into a renewed edit war, or for dialogue to break up out of hard feelings, but part of the process of avoiding that is recognizing certain formulations as problematic and others as simply unacceptable. (Hence, why I like to emphasize trying to find alternative phrasings rather than arguing for either of the old alternatives. Unfortunately in a couple of places I've just deleted things because I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment and haven't had as much time to think about certain phrasings as I would like — but there were changes which, although well-intended, made things worse rather than better.) Radgeek 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) I am sure Olathe wants nothing more than to help you in making this page accurately describe anarcho-capitalist views, espcially given his repeated assertions that it is currently being used by critics to misrepresent the theory. Anyway, I think all the edits made under an IP address were mine, I coupled all of them with a discussion passage with my name attached to make that clear. Rad: But Kev, the passage as it has been redacted (and as it was originally was written) already gives a specific example. Are you refering to the example of Spooner? If so, then the passage as it was rewritten still included that specific example. If not, I fail to see a specific example of an argument taken from individualists, all I see is a referance to such arguments. Here is how the passage originally read: many were also influenced by specific individualist critiques of the State and individualist arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it. (Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority was widely reprinted in anarcho-capitalist journals.) Here is how it was later edited to read: Many anarcho-capitalists were also influenced by Lysander Spooner’s critique of the State and his arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it. (Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority was widely reprinted in anarcho-capitalist journals.) And here is how I most recently edited it to read: Many anarcho-capitalists were also influenced by individualist critiques of the State and their arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it (as, for example, in Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, which was widely reprinted in early anarcho-capitalist journals). The point that I am trying to raise is that the middle version inaccurately limits the scope of influence. Yes, Lysander Spooner was an influence on anarcho-capitalists. And yes, his influence is probably greater than that of any of the other anarcho-capitalists. But the way that the middle version was written suggests strongly that it was only Lysander Spooner's critique of the State that influenced the anarcho-capitalists. That's not what the anarcho-capitalists say about their own influences, and it's not what shows up in their writings. Rothbard, for example, explicitly credits Tucker (and Spooner, too) for moving beyond No Treason-style arguments for the individual right to ignore the State and introducing essential work on the actual framework of what a free society would look like (see, for example, Wendy McElroy's essay at http://www.zetetics.com/mac/talks/americananarchism.html , particularly the quote from Rothbard at the close). He endorsed Tucker's conception of "defense associations" (although he could have gotten the idea just as easily from Molinari's "competing governments" — it seems to me impossible, not to mention fruitless, to try to separate out which of the two was the definitive influence on this issue. Rothbard's theory of land ownership is also clearly influenced by (although not in complete agreement with) Tucker, as is his endorsement of peasant uprisings for land reform in the Third World. He cited Tucker's arguments against the Georgists. Etc. Radgeek 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) Rad: If you really want more mentions by name I can put some more together. Spooner is just an easy and well-known example of a general trend. As for Tucker, Rothbard among others frequently cited him in his writings. Here, for example, is how he listed his influences as of 1962: You have brought this up now on three seperate occasions, and each time I have given you the same answer. I'm not arguing that Rothbard didn't claim individualists as an influence, obviously he did. All the qoute that you inserted suggests is a repeat of this fact, that Rothbard considered himself to be influenced by indvidualists. I have to confess, Kev, that I am more than a bit puzzled by your reaction to the quote. Certainly Rothbard's own say-so about his influence is not as conclusive as a detailed consideration of his actual citations in his work, etc. But it certainly does seem to me that when someone says "I was influenced by X when I said Y" that's a pretty strong prima facie case for accepting that s/he was indeed influenced by X when s/he said Y. Thus far I had assumed that your argument was that the early a-c's simply didn't much care about the individualist anarchists, and that claims of influence are actually just latter-day revisionism once the a-c's began discovering parallels between their own ideas and some of the ideas of Tucker, Spooner, etc. If that was a misunderstanding, I apologize. Here you say (1) that Rothbard (and a similar case could be made for other of the early a-c's) certainly did consider himself to be influenced by the i-a's, but (2) that you don't necessarily believe him. That seems to me to be a pretty perverse position to take unless you have some very strong reasons to take it. Do you think that Rothbard was being dishonest about his intellectual influences? Or that he was just mistaken about them? If the latter, what exactly does that mean, and how is it different from the claim that he was influenced by them, but just misunderstood them on some points which you consider (and which they would have considered) pretty damned important? Radgeek 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) None of it shows what I asked for above, an actual argument taken from individualists that is A) not found in the other theories anarcho-capitalism claims to draw from and B) actually representative of individualism rather than coincidental to particular individualists. I don't disagree with you that something that meets both (A) and (B) would clearly make the case; but I do wonder why these are the specific requirements you insist on. The issue, after all, is not the modal properties of anarcho-capitalism — what folks like LeFevre and Rothbard and so on could or would have been able to come up with if they had only read Molinari and Bastiat and so on. The question is who actually did influence them, who they actually did, and so on. As I argued earlier, and elaborated in the paragraph above, there's lots of reasons to include the individualist anarchists on that list. There are some specific arguments (some of which I've cited) on which I think both (A) and (B) are satisfied, and others where (B) is satisfied but not (A) (such as the endorsement of Tucker's defense associations). And other lines of evidence which have to do with matters of dialectical positioning rather than the citation of a specific idea. Rothbard or LeFevre could, for example, have written just as a Molinarian advocate of "competing governments," but for a variety of reasons they didn't. Rothbard and many others identified themselves explicitly with the anarchist tradition; LeFevre contributed to the theory of anarcho-capitalism but rejected the identification in favor of "autarchy." I made this point at some length earlier, with an analogy to the shift represented by the adoption of "feminism" by the movement formerly known as "Women's Liberation." The point here is that how these folks located themselves, who they saw as their conversation partners, etc. was pretty significant - LeFevre and Rothbard had something serious to argue about. I happen to think that LeFevre was wrong and Rothbard was right to make the identification with anarchism (though he was wrong about many other things). But in any case the point here is that whether the a-c decision to identify with the anarchist tradition was wise or ill-conceived, the decision was made, and that counts as a pretty significant reason in favor of attributing an influence (again, separating that question from the separate question of whether the effect of that influence was following in the i-a tradition or perverting it). That was much more long-winded than I intended it to be; I apologize, but it is too late tonight to try to fix it. The upshot of what I'm trying to say here is that I understand why a critical piece of argument or evidence that meets both (A) and (B) would be sufficient for saying that a-c's draw on i-a thought. (And I think that there are cases that meet those criteria, though you have disagreed on some of those and may disagree on the ones I am introducing.) But I don't understand why you insist that it's a necessary condition. It certainly seems to me that there a lot of lines of evidence that could be drawn, and have been drawn; and while these lines are somewhat messier than the lines of evidence based on the consideration of conditions like (A) and (B), it seems to me that intellectual history just is a messy affair and it's often neither possible nor desirable to try to draw up the sort of clean and definitive family trees of ideas that seem to be embodied in the insistence on (A) and (B). Radgeek 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) Rad: and in the egoist vs. natural rights debates he was taking the side of one individualist anarchist faction — i.e. Spooner's — against another. But we can't neglect the fact that natural rights were already a very established part of the other theories anarcho-capitalism claims to draw from, the fact that he "took Spooner's side" indicates nothing more than a concurance of values. It is like Kropotkin arguing for involvement in WWII, it doesn't suggest that he endorsed the statism of the countries he believed should fight, nor does it belie some close relation between some "faction" of anarchists and statists. The point wasn't that taking Spooner's side necessarily committed Rothbard to drawing from the i-a tradition. (Ayn Rand and Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas would all have taken Spooner's side against Tucker, but none of them could conceivably be located within an anarchist tradition of any kind.) The point, rather, was that Rothbard's attack on Tucker on this point didn't commit him to disaffiliating from the individualist-anarchist tradition. (A secondary point was that it also indicats the degree to which Rothbard had read, and written on, and was concerned with, the discussions of the individualist-anarchists. That's not definitive evidence for any kind of affiliation with them, of course; he might be looking in as a disinterested scholar (hardly likely!) or as a somewhat friendly fellow traveler drawing from a separate but parallel tradition (much more likely). But it does seem to me to count as some evidence towards the overall conclusion, and the point is not whether this isolated fact makes the case or not, but rather how it holds together with the rest of the points being made. Radgeek 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) Rad: Kev, I explain the citation below. Auberon Herbert was not part of the American individualist anarchist movement (since, among other things, he was not American, and not exactly an anarchist). But so what? The "so what" happens to be rather relevant, as you were citing Spencer and Herbert as evidence for a direct relation between individualism and anarcho-capitalism. This simply makes no sense, as neither of them were individualists. If you want to refer to their relations as indicative of the associations many liberals held with libertarians in the past and present, or specifically of the associations between classical liberals and individualists, then by all means do so, but that is not itself an indication that anarcho-capitalism drew from individualist ideas and positions, only that it drew from the ideas and positions of people who associated with individualists but were not themselves individualists. Surely you can see the difference? Or should we now claim that Mao was heavily influenced by Bakunin simply because Bakunin was printed in many of the same papers as Marx? Again, this line of argument, that these people frequently associated, does not provide the evidence necessary to show a the kind of relation between these theories that your quotes by Rothbard claim (i.e. actual arguments taken by the individual who first refered to himself as an anarcho-capitalist from the individualists that cannot be found elsewhere in his close influences and are representative of individualism itself rather than some parallel set of theories). As I say below, this is good reason to see the anti-statist liberal and the individualist anarchist traditions as being something other than entirely alien to each other — and not just in that modern anarcho-capitalists claim to draw on both. I don't recall ever claiming that these two traditions were alien, that would be silly. But then again claiming that they are cousins or brothers or children is just as silly, a metaphor used to glance past the actual substance of their relation. If all or even most individualists universally looked upon the corporations that many capitalists endorse as wonderful institutions that protect freedom, and called the same statists who support government protection of private property restrictions allies, then none of this would be a problem. But to pretend that no controversy exists here as was originally done in this article, or to ignore that controversy while stating things like "anarcho-capitalists draw from individualism in their theories" and "anarcho-capitalist agree with individualists on the free market" as it currently does, when the very name anarcho-capitalism is in question, is simply unacceptable. We need wikipedia readers to understand that anarcho-capitalists are NOT using the same terminology when they refer to a free market, and it is a MISREPRESENTATION to indicate that they both support a free market but not account for this fact. We need wikipedia readers to know that anarcho-capitalism does NOT necessarily draw from individualism, regardless of the merit of the claims themselves, because many individualists themselves disagree and have good reason for doing so. These changes are simple and totally in keeping with the neutrality policy of wikipedia, to inform the readers when a claim is a claim, to inform them when a word is being used in two different senses, and to refrain from making claims stated as fact that we back up only with further claims rather than the actual arguments we refer to. As I've said before, the first two simply need to be changed, and the third is still awaiting the evidence necessary to sustain it. If you think that anarcho-capitalism is strictly the descendent of anti-state liberalism, without much in the way of significant input from individualist anarchists, then that simply makes it a sort of cousin of individualist anarchism rather than a descendent. I guess that depends on the emphasis you place on the values each group held dear and the reasons that certain people (like Spencer and Herbert) were not in fact anarchists despite being similar in many ways. If these two theories were such close cousins, then it is strange that the individualists hated their capitalist cousins so, or that capitalists tend to be so very hostile toward socialism (of which the individualists were, by their own accounts, a part). Of course we can always rely on that old rhetorical standby that when an individualist said "capitalism" they didn't mean what we do by capitalism, and when they said "socialism" they didn't mean what we do by socialism. But it just so happens that what they DID mean by those words still indicated their rejection of practices essential to what we mean by capitalism (i.e. capital itself in the form of rent, interest, and wage), and still indicated their embrace of methods held in common with what we sometimes refer to as socialism. Regardless, even if we accept that anarcho-capitalism is a cousin of individualist anarchism, even if we accept that a metaphor can skip past the very important differences between these theories, it would not be appropriate to emphasize this relation as one of only two traditions it draws from in the very begining of the article. That sounds more like a parent or a sibling, not some second cousin twice removed. This would be like claiming in the first paragraph of an article on Stalinism that it draws from the traditions of Marxism and classical liberalism. It would be true in a technical sense if we were very vague and fuzzy about our influences, as Stalinism does requrie both of those traditions to found its own politic, but it would also be very misleading in to emphasize classical liberalism right alongside the far more influential Marxism. Further, I wouldn't doubt that a large number of liberals would rightly object to any such representation. And as I've argued here and before, there are several important ways that such a case falters. To my knowledge I've responded to each and every one of those arguments. - Kev 01/05/04 Thanks for your long and well-thought responses, Kev. I apologize that I haven't been able to get to all of them tonight, but I do have to turn in at some point. I'll hopefully get to some more of them in the morning. Radgeek 06:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) Jan 15 I had wanted to wait until Rad finished his responses, but it looks like that might take awhile so I will go ahead and post my own. Anarcho-capitalists promote individual property rights and free markets (in the sense of freedom from violent interference) as the most just and effective way to organize all services. The "free" markets advocated by anarcho-capitalists in fact supports violent interference in economic relations, that is precisely what founds institutions like usury, at least in the eyes of individualists. Given that, this recent change once again makes fuzzy the distinction between multiple uses of the word "free market" in an attempt to obscure the fact that "free" in this context really means "what anarcho-capitalists consider to be free." As such, it is not a fact that anarcho-capitalists promote free markets in the sense of freedom from violent interference, that in itself is a claim that assumes the a-c position. It is a fact that anarcho-capitalists promote "free" markets in the sense that they do not want their own methods interfered with violently. It is definately NOT that they will refrain from interfering in the methods of others with violence, only that they will attempt to refrain from using violence illegitimate according to their own peculiar standard of when it is justifiable to interfere with others and when it is not. The fact that anarcho-capitalists attempt to define other ideological positions out of existence by claiming that the violence they legitimate is not violence because is "self-defense" is something that should be explicated (in a more neutral way then I have done here), granted, but not by assuming their position at the outset and using language that rules out any contrary viewpoint. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, emphasize the individualists' critique of collectivist politics, and point out that the individualists denounced the use of violence to oppose the economic relationships that they considered exploitative, and emphasized voluntary, free market approaches (such as boycotts, labor strikes, and the formation of workers' cooperatives) to achieving social justice. Again, this edit glances past the fact that "free market" and "voluntary" are being used to mean things other than what individualists used them to mean, and this edit was made long after I brought this up directly to you Rad. I'm having trouble now believing that this is not intentional, that it is simply a mistake that the article currently conflates two different interpretations of a word and makes it appear that only one is being used to describe this relation as much closer than it actually is. Or maybe you have a disagreement and believe that this word is being used in the same sense in both cases, but you haven't said as much. I have tried to excercise the utmost restraint of late, only editing one thing at a time, one day at a time, and always discussing things long before any edit took place. In the case of my discussions with you I have put my edits on hold for weeks at a time even while watching you continue to insert edits that I have objected to previously. But now I find my own edits summarily deleted -before- discussion, even while edits like this take place, flying in the face of objections I have repeated over and over. Until some proportionality is returned to the considerations being given to my own edits, I'm going to be very tempted to simply start deleting things like this instead of waiting for further discussion. Claiming that you don't have time to properly deal with my edits is a lame excuse. If you have time to delete them, you have time to account for them first. If not, I don't know why you are bothering to edit it at all, you are not improving the status of the page by keeping the status quo when the status quo is flawed. Rothbard, for example, explicitly credits Tucker (and Spooner, too) for moving beyond No Treason-style arguments for the individual right to ignore the State and introducing essential work on the actual framework of what a free society would look like And don't you find it just a tiny bit strange that the very components which would distinguish an individualist society in the absence of a state from anti-state liberalist society were removed from this vision he imported? Or maybe you can point out what part of the anarcho-individualist tradition Rothbard used to build his own framework of a future society that was not already present in, and is still very much a part of, the liberal tradition. Because when I look at the society Rothbard proposed I find it strangely absent of interest-free banks, of businesses that do not rely on enforcement institutions to extract economic profit from its workers, and of workers free from wage relations, all the very hallmarks of individualism. Sure, it is one thing to credit another person as having the vision to go beyond the state, it is an entirely different thing to use that vision as a framework for ones own ideas. I see the former in Rothbard's works and words, I see the latter only in his words. He endorsed Tucker's conception of "defense associations" (although he could have gotten the idea just as easily from Molinari's "competing governments" — it seems to me impossible, not to mention fruitless, to try to separate out which of the two was the definitive influence on this issue. I can't agree more. That is precisely why I am so confused that people have insisted on importing such interpretations to this article, stating the influences side-by-side as though we have already determined that both are equally worthy of mention and refusing to include even the smallest of caveats to indicate that individualists themselves would have good reason to reject that they have provided an influence when their ideas were stripped of the very components they repeatedly insisted were essential to them. I have to confess, Kev, that I am more than a bit puzzled by your reaction to the quote. Certainly Rothbard's own say-so about his influence is not as conclusive as a detailed consideration of his actual citations in his work, etc. But it certainly does seem to me that when someone says "I was influenced by X when I said Y" that's a pretty strong prima facie case for accepting that s/he was indeed influenced by X when s/he said Y. I have repeatedly stated that it would be silly to deny that there was any influence here, that Rothbard in fact did claim such influences, and that this case is far too ambiguous to deny his claim. What more is it you want from me before we can move past this constant attribution to me of a position I do not hold? It is not the existence of an influence that I am denying, but the degree of it. Simply saying that anarcho-capitalism is influenced by individualism means nothing in itself, anarcho-capitalism is influenced by thousands of theories, events, and individuals that bear little or no direct relation to it. It is not the fact that there is some relation between anarcho-capitalism and anarchist individualism which I have been denying, for there is "some relation" between capitalism and communism, between Buddhism and Christianity, between ying and yang. It is the assertion that this relation is "very close," and the many aspects of this article which suggest or directly state as much, that seems entirely out of order given that many would view that relation as more antagonistic than anything else. The fact that Rothbard felt this influence was prominent, or claimed as much on occasion, is plently enough evidence for the existence of "some" relation, but it is not in itself a strong prima facie case for a prominent influence or essential relation. We have some facts here, what Rothbard believed, that there was some influence, that individualists of the past associated with anti-state liberals amongst so many others. Then we have an interpretation, that Rothbard's belief was correct (this is currently being implied by the repetition of the evidence that Rothbard believed it, as though they are one and the same), that the influence was essential, that the associations between anti-state liberals and individualists indicates a strong association between indvidualists and anarcho-capitalists. I find the former set of facts entirely appropriate for including in this article, I find the latter set of interpretations entirely inappropriate for determining the status of individualism in this article as such a major influence as to be not only justifiably placed side-by-side with classical liberalism, but even as to rule out any language that would suggest this not to necessarily be the case. Thus far I had assumed that your argument was that the early a-c's simply didn't much care about the individualist anarchists, and that claims of influence are actually just latter-day revisionism once the a-c's began discovering parallels between their own ideas and some of the ideas of Tucker, Spooner, etc. If that was a misunderstanding, I apologize. Here you say (1) that Rothbard (and a similar case could be made for other of the early a-c's) certainly did consider himself to be influenced by the i-a's, but (2) that you don't necessarily believe him. Well I don't necessarily believe him, nor should you. But I've long since given him the benefit of the doubt, as I would just about anyone, and the argument you have explicated here is not the one I have given. I am careful not to let my language assume that Rothbard was in fact influenced by individualists to the degree he claimed, because I don't want to confuse the argument and I don't think that point is particularly relevant to it, but apparently this had the exact opposite effect that I had desired. Let me be clear. Rothbard did, by all appearances, consider himself to be influenced by individualists. As far as I am concerned, someome who considers themselves to be influenced by a given event pretty much automatically is, it would be hard to be aware of anything and not be somewhat influenced by it in the relevant context, especially when one believes that one is. However, this point is not particularly relevant in our own determinations (to be distinguished from those of Rothbard) of the extent to which Rothbard's actual position reflects that of individualism versus other parallel theories. The presence of influence is not in itself indicative of the degree of that influence (above zero point anyway), no matter how many times we repeat the same bit of evidence that demonstrates some presence. If we should find that his position is closer to another theory or set of theories than he described it to be, or even identical to them, then his description should be viewed as a mistake or as an ambiguous determination, not as evidence in itself against our findings. No, I don't necessarily believe him, but neither am I inputing him to be a liar or even to be mistaken. I am simply remaining open concerning his claims, and attempting to interpret them with all the data available to me. If the latter, what exactly does that mean, and how is it different from the claim that he was influenced by them, but just misunderstood them on some points which you consider (and which they would have considered) pretty damned important? That is a fairly good way of putting it. Though I would like to add that I do think some revisionism is occuring in this context. Today many capitalists are placing an even greater role of influence on the individualists than even Rothbard himself, or any of the other early a-c's, would have. What is more, some are clearly attempting to distort and selectively interpret particular parts of individualist texts to make them appear closer to a-c then they actually are. I could give more examples on this than either of us has time to contend with on this point, but the link to Caplan's FAQ from this page alone provides numerous examples. What we find today is an entire generation of capitalists educated at the hands of these revisionists, who don't even know enough history to know that Tucker was himself an anti-capitalist, and that is having a direct effect on the content and direction of this page. Of course this would be a discussion more appropriate for a forum if you are interested. I don't disagree with you that something that meets both (A) and (B) would clearly make the case; but I do wonder why these are the specific requirements you insist on. Precisely because it "clearly" would make the case. A and B would clearly demonstrate the case, and pretty much all the evidence I have seen you offer thus far is (by both our standards it seems) is messy and ambiguous. I've got nothing wrong with a mess in philosophy, often that is the strongest case that can be built from the available evidence, and I'm not claiming that there exists evidence to make a strong case that you have yet to offer. But most of the authors of this article are very adverse to describing this attribution of influence as ambiguous at best. It is, to them, clear that anarcho-capitalism follows in the tradition of anarcho-individualism, and anything (including hard facts) to the contrary is anathema. Now, if we are coming at this from the belief that the lines of influence here are not clear (as we both seem to be), then we must first admit that much as we might personally prefer one interpretation of these influences over another, neither is appropriate to be definitively stated as fact in the article, assuming that any interpretation is necessary or desirable at all. Thus, if we are going to try to state definitively that individualism is the essential sort of influence it is currently portrayed as in this article, without even the necessary qualifiers to note that this is a claim rather than a fact (a very controversial claim at that), then we really do need evidence so incredibly strong and clear as to demonstrate this beyond even the slightest doubt. It is the fact that there are dissenting opinions here that calls for this requirement of clear evidence, not murky or ambiguous evidence that can be (and is) read either way. Now I'm certainly not claiming that this is the only possible standard of evidence, I'm sure there are a number of avenues available to make a clear and unambiguous case that I simply don't have the time or imagination to think up. But I am claiming that of all the evidence proposed so far A and B would be the only evidence sufficient to support the article as it currently exists, and put to rest the many doubts that have been raised by myself and others over its presentation. Absent that, most of the qualifiers which have been so strongly rejected should be thrown straight back in, along with far more detailed explainations of the ideas presented and the context of many of the words being used. And I want to be clear here. It is not that I think the fact that these people associated and that Rothbard attributed individualism to his list of influences is irrelevant to the subject of anarcho-capitalism. I seem to have given that impression, and that is simply not the case. A thorough understanding of the subject requires such knowledge. What I think is irrelevant to this is something more specific, that is, to changing our conclusions of how close these ideologies have actually ended up as is evidenced by the real meat and bones of the arguments we find both parallel and identical. I think the evidence clearly demonstrates a relation that is antagonistic, others seem to believe it clearly demonstrates a close to identical set of theories, insisting there are only one or two minor exceptions that can easily be cast aside. But both of these beliefs are interpretations, neither is a statement of fact, and giving Rothbard's own accounts as though they put to rest this contention once and for all is inappropriate. Rothbard's statements have little sway here, the fact that he believed it does not make it the case that individualists would have believed the same thing, and much more importantly, it does not make it the case that what he believed was in fact true. In summary, I propose A and B as tentatively necessary conditions because the scope of claims being made here demand strong, unambiguous, evidence. In the absence of such evidence, and in the presence of the controversy surrounding many of these claims, I think a very large round of edits is necessary for this article to move it back in the direction of neutrality as concerns issues like these. That's not definitive evidence for any kind of affiliation with them, of course; he might be looking in as a disinterested scholar (hardly likely!) or as a somewhat friendly fellow traveler drawing from a separate but parallel tradition (much more likely). Or a crass opportunist who saw the political expediency of associating his own theories with what would otherwise be one a group of its greatest intellectual threats, and marginalizing the individualists themselves at the same time. Far be it from me to claim that Rothbard was disinterested. If you think there is no evidence for this interpretation, then please email me in private or we can bring this to a public forum and I will provide, but as I said before, his motivations are not an appropriate subject for this conversation. As such, I don't think either one of us should be exploring them here, or even be overly concerned with them in this context, as it would cloud our judgment. We can assume the best or worst motivations we want, it shouldn't change the relevant arguments. But it does seem to me to count as some evidence towards the overall conclusion, and the point is not whether this isolated fact makes the case or not, but rather how it holds together with the rest of the points being made. I'm not one for leaky bucket philosophy. Admittedly, if there is a preponderance of strong evidence then the position is held. But if each and every point is ambiguous, or they are variously ambiguous, weak, or simply false, then the position itself is ambiguous, weak, or simply false. I understand that many in philosophy would disagree with me on this, but I'm happy enough to rest in the company of those who agree that no matter how many shaky arguments we come up with the conclusion will still be as shaky as the arguments which constitute it. Strong evidence provides the support for strong claims. Given all of this, I simply don't understand how you can count Spooner's belief in natural rights as evidence toward the "overall conclusion" that Rothbard followed in the tradition of individualism when you agree that natural rights are not necessary or universal to individualism, and in fact Rothbard himself attributed his belief in natural rights to other sources. At most this would be the kind of correlative evidence that would only lend to a conclusion if you have something much more solid to back it up, and if Rothbard didn't explicitly attribute this belief to other sources. As it is, all I see in support of this supposed evidence is more evidence of the same type, conjecture and correlation that claim a far more substantive base than actually exists. You have made clear since you arrived that indicating certain claims by a-c's as claims might be technically correct, but it gives the impression that these statements are false given the way it can be read. I am saying that in order for us to stray from the "technically correct" terminology, in order for us to sacrifice clarity in this case in favor of a kindler and gentler presentation of a-c we require evidence strong enough to put to rest all the reasonable objections that deserve to be represented without being ruled out in the very first sentence. Because in this case a kindler and gentler description of a-c may very well mean a dubious or even false description of several other traditions, and that is simply not acceptable to me. - Kev 01/15/04

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Contents

1 Justification of non-use of "traditional" 2 more discussion arising from the justification of non-use of "traditional" 3 Alternative names 4 Libertatis Aequilibritas 5 Left ac's? 6 Semantic and Substantive Points 7 Continuation 8 Is this really what they say? 9 A view? Eeek Justification of non-use of "traditional" Per Keveh's request. To talk about "traditional anarchism" is unclear. What tradition, where? If you are talking about Bakuninist thought, that's not the same tradition as the American individualists. A-C, on its own, is a tradition that goes back about 150 years in its current form, and 40-50 years under its current name. - Nat Krause 06:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Okey, I'll refrain from reverting given that it could be unclear. But the claim that AC goes back 150 years in its current form is revisionist history at best. Not only has it changed a good deal since its inception 50 years ago, and not only is the previous tradition recognizably different in numerous ways, but claiming that the previous tradition of anti-state capitalism did not change at all (i.e. "in its current form") when those advocating it started calling themselves anarcho-capitalists only serves as an argument against the inclusion of ac within the domain of anarchist theory, given the undeniable hostility that all anarchist theory had to capital predating ac. Such an argument would pretty much cement the hypothesis that ac is nothing more than a subversion of anarchism. And in case you are under a mistaken impression, the tradition of american individualist anarchists is no less hostile to capital than that of bakunin, kropotkin, proudhon, or any other anarchist predating ac. Kev 10:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Traditional is not just problematic but also adds nothing. The "history" section of Anarchism can give all the details instead of a prejudicial one-word summary. VV 09:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) "If you are talking about Bakuninist thought, that's not the same tradition as the American individualists." You are correct in saying that the individualists were not "Bakuninists". But both Bakuninists and individualists, along with adherents to a whole host of other "anarchisms", are part of a single tradition of which anarcho-capitalists are not. This unbroken tradition is that of the historical anarchist movement, which has always been characterized by both anti-statism and anti-capitalism. The majority of anarchists today identify with this movement. -- Spleeman 01:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) My opposition to saying "traditional anarchism" is basically that people who don't know what you mean won't know what you mean. Kev, I should have said, "in an explicit form", because A-C has certainly changed in the intervening 150 years. I would be surprised if left-anarchism hasn't changed as well. And I wouldn't agree that anarcho-capitalism is a subversion of hard-left anarchist thought; it is something entirely off to one side of it. I know that you two would like to claim the American individualists as the property of left-anarchism. I don't really know their thought well enough to argue much, although I've been doing some reading lately. On the other hand, A-C's like Murray Rothbard, Wendy McElroy, Roderick Long, and Bryan Caplan argue that the I-A's are fundamentally on our side. I like Rothbard, et al., but I know they aren't right every time. I got nothing against you, either, but you sure aren't always right -- for one thing, you're socialists, which is like 2.5 strikes in my book. So, I don't know. For Spooner, at least, I've never seen anything to indicate that he was a socialist. Tucker definitely wrote some stuff that was pretty sketchy sometimes. Simply being "hostile to capital" isn't sufficient to disqualify one from being an anarcho-capitalist, at least not by much. A lot of A-C's are hostile to capital. I believe it was Murray Rothbard who said, "We trust capitalism, not capitalists." - Nat Krause 17:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Nat why do write stuff that makes you sound ignorant? If you "don't really know their thought well enough to argue much" why must you argue at all? I don't claim the American individualists as the property of "left-anarchism". The term "left-anarchism" itself is one invented by anarcho-capitalists and their ilk to distinguish between themselves and the rest of anarchism. Before the emergence of anarcho-capitalism, there was no "left" or "right" anarchism; it was all one "anarchism", one tendency of thought that was characterized by opposition to both capitalism and the state. If I claim the individualists for anything, it is for this anarchism, for "anarchism without adjectives" as some have called it. Nevertheless, I don't deny, nor have I ever denied, that there are major differences between 19th-century American individualist thought and the rest of anarchism, but neither do I see this as excluding the individualists from a tradition of which they clearly considered themselves a part. In other words, I'm not saying the individualists were left-anarchists, commie anarchists, or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that they were a part of the main anti-capitalist anarchist tradition, and that they placed themselves within this tradition by their own words and deeds, especially their association with what you call "left-anarchists". Benjamin Tucker even called himself a socialist! What I object to the anarcho-capitalists doing is claiming that Tucker and the rest were their ideological forbears or that they were "anarcho-capitalists without knowing it". The anarcho-capitalists may very well "draw inspiration" from the individualists, but this does not change the fact that anarcho-capitalism emerged out of classical liberalism and not out of the historical anarchist movement. By the way, Kev didn't say "that anarcho-capitalism is a subversion of hard-left anarchist thought". He said it was a "subversion of anarchism", which, from a certain point of view, is true. Anarcho-capitalists have declared from the beginning their intention to "reform" anarchism, i.e. eliminate its anti-capitalist tendencies. From a "left-anarchist" view, this could definitely be considered "subversion". Also, you know exactly what he meant by "hostile to capital", so you can take your semantics games somewhere else. The individualists were opposed to the system of capitalism, just like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Goldman, etc. Also, thanks for pointing out your already obvious bias: "for one thing, you're socialists, which is like 2.5 strikes in my book". -- Spleeman 18:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Nat, it is too bad that you come into this discussion with a mind so set against socialism, especially since you probably don't understand the meaning it has for most anarchists. The individualists were socialists by their own repeated admission, this would be as difficult to deny as it would be to deny that they were hostile to communism. And I very much hope that if you read a statement in which they denounced communism you would not assume them communists, as you seem to be doing in the case of capitalism. Perhaps if you were able to understand anti-state socialism (especially that of the individualists), removed from the context of anarcho-capitalists who attempt to distort their views in order to claim their tradition, you might not give us so many strikes at the outset. I'm not all that hot on enforced economics myself, but no anarchist worth their salt is suggesting any such thing. As to your knowledge of individualism, I'm not sure what would satisfy you. Tucker was clearly against capitalism, he held an almost identical view as Proudhon in rejecting property beyond possession, he also rejected usury, rent, and wage. I really think you would do well to read exactly what someone like Mr Caplan claims on his FAQ, his very careful use of only those quotes that defend his position and his careful cropping of even those quotes themselves, and then read the primary texts for yourself and see just how badly Caplan is manipulating his audience into believing something that clearly isn't the case. I could give you many examples if you need, but it would be far more compelling if you find them yourself. As for Spooner, he soundly rejected wage, something many believe is a primary component of capitalism. He decried the institution of diverting any part of the laborers effort or reward to an employer, advocating universal self-employment, as most individualists did. He believed in a market, as do most individualists, but in a market squarely against one in which capital investment and wage play a primary role. I suppose if you can bring yourself to accept that someone could reject all of these things and yet embrace capitalism with open arms then there is simply nothing I could write to convince you. You would have already defined away any ability to prove you wrong as some capitalists do when they posit all human interaction as necessarily capitalistic. But if you do see the contradiction between the individualists and the capitalists from these statements above I would be happy to supply the quotes necessary to prove their source. Anyway, you seem to assume some things common of those not used to dealing with anarchism. For example, I do not consider myself a left-anarchist. I suppose if you consider a rejection of capitalism to automatically make one a leftist, then yes it would be hard to deny that the individualists were and are leftists. However, many people then and today reject such an assumption, and I do not believe that title "individualist" should be owned by anyone, certainly not the libertarian socialists whose tradition is united in anarhism but distinct from individualism in a number of important ways. I hope you can move past your bias against socialism and understand that regardless of ones views on the merits of capitalism the questions of historical fact that should determine most of the content of wikipedia ought have the same answers. Even if I believed that capitalist claims to anarchism were valid, almost all of my edits to wikipedia would be the same. Though admittedly my emphasis would be different. Kev 07:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) I dare say your edits to talk pages might be a bit different... ;) Sam [Spade] 07:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) Spleeman wrote: "Nat why do write stuff that makes you sound ignorant? If you 'don't really know their thought well enough to argue much' why must you argue at all?" Well, who's arguing what? I'm disputing a few fairly tangential points, but the main thing I'm doing is just pointing out that authors such as Rothbard, McElroy, et al., disagree with you. You are arguing with them. They say that the individualists, especially Spooner, were somewhat close to their position and somewhat at odds with the rest of anarchism. Kev says that Caplan quotes selectively to misrepresent the individualists' intended meaning，but I suppose that Caplan would argue that Kev and the Anarchist FAQ do the same thing. Now, on to the tangential points. It is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you guys mean by "socialism", and it could well be the case that I don't know what Benjamin Tucker meant by it either. Can it be that you, as well, don't understand what anarcho-capitalists mean by capitalism? Roderick Long believes that "voluntary socialism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are synonyms. I don't know. I must insist that really don't know what "hostile to capital" means, although I can think of some possible meanings. Taken literally, hostility to capital is nonsensical, because capital is an inanimate object that just sits there; clearly, the expression requires some interpretation. The more specific term "capitalism", as I learned from Wikipedia, was not coined until 1906, after the I-A heyday, which meant that they did not have much chance to weigh in on it pro or con. The "socialism" of their day was not so dominated by Marxism as it is today, so that word no doubt held different connotations. I agree (for once!) with something I read in the sui dissant Anarchist FAQ [1]: "When reading the work of people like Tucker and Warren, we must remember the social context of their ideas, namely the transformation of America from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist society". This makes it hard to fit the individualists into modern categories (not that it stops the FAQ from trying). Simply rejecting wage labor hardly makes you a model capitalist, but it doesn't make you a socialist either (not sure what you mean by "capital investment" here). Spooner was a businessman himself, for crying out loud! Many A-C's are skeptical of wage labor, too, and believe that it would have a considerably reduced role in a stateless economy (I recall David Friedman making a statement to this effect once). I don't doubt that Spooner went somewhat further than this. The claim of the oft-cited Rothbard, Long, et al., as I understand it, is not that the individualists were secretly anarcho-capitalists, but that their views were, for the most part (not unfailingly) compatible with each other. On the charge of subversion, simply to say "subversion of anarchism" is very misleading at best. A-C is really its own development (emerging primarily, as you say, out of classical liberalism), not claiming to have much to do with Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. I could see "subversion of individualist anarchism" specifically, because A-C does claim to have something to do with that and does modify its doctrines. I don't really object to you conceiving of left-anarchism as "traditional anarchism", because it is, after all, the older tradition and at one time was much more influential. However, I still object to referring to it as "traditional anarchism" on this page, just because I think it would be confusing. Finally, I have, of course, never denied being against socialism (as I generally understand it). I'm not sure I would trust someone who had no opinions of his own. - Nat Krause 16:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) Kev says that Caplan quotes selectively to misrepresent the individualists' intended meaning，but I suppose that Caplan would argue that Kev and the Anarchist FAQ do the same thing. And it is all the same to you because you are unwilling to do the research to find out which claim is true, if either. Thus you hide your own ignorance of the subject behind NPOV policy. The crazy thing is that I offered to do all the work for you if you proved too lazy, and not only did you not take me up on my offer, not only did you not do this research yourself, but you maintained your position in the face of it all. Do you really think it is a wise policy to simply ignore evidence that challenges your position? BTW - Wendy McElroy has enough intellectual integrity to admit that all the individualists pre anarcho-capitalism were staunchly anti-capitalist. If you haven't figured that out by reading her articles yet, then send her an email and ask her yourself. She at least isn't some dead person who can be "interpreted" to the point of claiming the exact opposite of what she wrote. At least, not yet. And as for Rothbard, his claims to anarcho-capitalists tradition in individualism amounted to nothing more tangible than "inspiration" and "influence", which I could claim from almost any tangentially releated philosophy about another. Can it be that you, as well, don't understand what anarcho-capitalists mean by capitalism? Of course it is possible. However, I have been immersed in such dialogues and philosophy for long enough that I find it highly unlikely. Roderick Long believes that "voluntary socialism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are synonyms. And most anarcho-capitalists do not agree with this, meaning their own conception of capitalism is quite different than that of Roderick Long. Simply rejecting wage labor hardly makes you a model capitalist, but it doesn't make you a socialist either (not sure what you mean by "capital investment" here). Spooner was a businessman himself, for crying out loud! Of course he was! You continue to use your own ignorance as some kind of argument. Tucker was also a businessman, and he considered his form of anarchism socialist. That is because not all forms of socialism are contrary to market economics, like for example the market economics advocated by individualists who -still- deny property (upholding possession instead) and thus are not capitalist. There are still many individualists today who follow in this tradition, who advocate small business and market economies but reject capitalist economics on several levels. The claim of the oft-cited Rothbard, Long, et al., as I understand it, is not that the individualists were secretly anarcho-capitalists, but that their views were, for the most part (not unfailingly) compatible with each other. That all depends on what you mean by "for the most part". Sure, if you glance over parts of their ideology that the individualists themselves claimed were critical or essential to it, then it is pretty easy to claim compatibility. All the more easy since the individualists you refer to are now all dead and can't look at such equivocation in horror and say, "why the hell are you trying to twist away parts of my ideology that I said were of utmost importance?" Kev 18:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) Sorry to take so long between responses -- I've had somewhat intermittent internet access lately prior to yesterday. I guess I'll abandon the Talk:Anarchism discussion, which is okay because I think it was past the point of affecting the article. The same is probably true of this discussion, but I've got a couple things I'd like to say in the interest of exchange of information. For one thing, I want to make it clear that I'm moderating a couple of positions that I took at the beginning this conversation. A-C in an explicit form goes back arguably to Molinari (I think this is primarily a semantic argument). The American individualists were outside the mainline Bakunin-etc. anarchist tradition and/or compatible with A-C in the opinion of some authors. This is all that needs to be said. I know from experience that it can be irritating to be on the business end of NPOV, but my conclusions from my research (with or without Kev's assistance) are really not very important from Wikipedia's perspective. This is a good thing, because I admit to a certain level on rational ignorance on the grounds that I am just not very interested in the individualists, except for Spooner, and, even there, I'm not terribly interested in his ideas on economics. I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist, although I did find a Wendy McElroy article where she lumps him in with Tucker, etc. in describing them all as anti-capitalist, although in that article she is not very clear what she means by that. On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property. Kevehs: And most anarcho-capitalists do not agree with this, meaning their own conception of capitalism is quite different than that of Roderick Long. I have to say that I have read a fair amount of Long's writing and I have never found anything unusual about his definition of capitalism. Therefore, I have to conclude that it is the concept of socialism that he understands differently, perhaps more or less clearly, than other libertarians. Basically, it occurs to me that a key problem I have in understanding what you are talking about is the meaning of the word "socialism". In general, to understand the meaning of a word, I try to compare information from a source like Wikipedia with what a dictionary (such as [2]) has to say. However, in this case, Wikipedia offers a confusing morass of definitions, and Merriam-Webster's definitions mostly revolve around state ownership, which I take it is not what you mean. So, for my edification, what is it that you mean by the term socialism? Does it have something to do with collective control of capital? If so, it is hard to see how this would allow for someone to own a business. A related topic: I have yet to grok the anarcho-anarchist distinction between "property" and "possession", on which Wikipedia does not have much information. Any recommendations for sources to clarify that subject? - Nat Krause 15:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) The American individualists were outside the mainline Bakunin-etc. anarchist tradition and/or compatible with A-C in the opinion of some authors. Hard to deny that, but it is also the opinion of some authors that Bill Gates is an alien and that Ouija boards can contact Elvis, I don't see why either of these opinions should affect the Elvis or Bill Gates wikipedia pages. Do you? Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist... I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property. All depends on what one means by socialist. One use of the term in Spooner's time was to mean nothing more than "anti-capitalist", which Spooner explicitly was. I believe that is about the extent of his "socialism". And I would love to see those quotes, because I seriously doubt they support the capitalist conception of property. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Therefore, I have to conclude that it is the concept of socialism that he understands differently, perhaps more or less clearly, than other libertarians. I don't see how this changes the relevance of my comment that his views are non-normative within the anarcho-capitalist community, thus not appropriate to represent them with. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) However, in this case, Wikipedia offers a confusing morass of definitions, and Merriam-Webster's definitions mostly revolve around state ownership, It is odd that we could read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. I saw 4 different meanings, only 1 of which necessitated a state, 1 of which offered state ownership as a possibility amongst others, and the other 2 which gave not even the implication of state involvement. Yet to you this is "mostly" revolving around state ownership? Anywho, my definition of socialism depends on the context, and tends to be more inclusive than any given dictionary would allow. With the individualists I generally mean what they meant, anti-capitalism. With the syndicalists I tend to take their own meaning, collective control of the means of production. Thus when I say "all anarchists are socialists" I mean it in the weakest sense which would most broadly apply, in this case the one the individualists tended to use. Does it have something to do with collective control of capital? If so, it is hard to see how this would allow for someone to own a business. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Certainly capitalism entails the control of capital by someone right? And I would assume you think people can own a business in capitalism. But answering this question would require that I first know exactly what you mean when you say "capital".Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) I have yet to grok the anarcho-anarchist distinction between "property" and "possession", on which Wikipedia does not have much information. Any recommendations for sources to clarify that subject? Proudhon's "What is Property" explicitly details the distinction and why it is appropriate, many subsequent anarchists simply assume these arguments without stating them directly, like Tucker and at times Kropotkin. Given that many no longer hold to the labor theory of value the reasoning behind the distinction has changed, though the practical upshot has not. The syndicalists tend to argue that it is the difference between "the means of production" and other forms of private property, most anarchists I talk to today distinguish more organically/subjectively between property that is part of an "active use pattern" and that which is not. Futher, not all anarchists uphold possession, as some deny all forms of property as coercive. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) more discussion arising from the justification of non-use of "traditional" Hard to deny that, but it is also the opinion of some authors that Bill Gates is an alien and that Ouija boards can contact Elvis, I don't see why either of these opinions should affect the Elvis or Bill Gates wikipedia pages. Do you? Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Well, what I meant was that it is in the opinion of relevant and important authors. Now, one can debate the relevance and importance of Rothbard, et al., to world of general thought, but on the anarcho-capitalism page, their bona fides seem reasonably unquestionable. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) My only concern about your refering to these authors as some kind of authority on the subject relates to their relevance to anarchism in general and to anarchism as it compares with anarcho-capitalism. Obviously they are appropriate for discussions confined to anarcho-capitalism and therefore this page. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) All depends on what one means by socialist. One use of the term in Spooner's time was to mean nothing more than "anti-capitalist", which Spooner explicitly was. I believe that is about the extent of his "socialism". And I would love to see those quotes, because I seriously doubt they support the capitalist conception of property. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Here is the sort of thing I had in mind: "The science of mine and thine—the science of justice—is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Natural Law (the first sentence) "These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another." Natural Law "How do many millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory---each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others ..." No Treason "It would be unnecessary and silly indeed to assert, in a constitution of government, the natural right of individuals to protect their property against thieves and robbers." Trial by Jury "the right of property is the right of supreme, absolute, and irresponsible dominion over anything that is naturally a subject of property, - that is, of ownership. It is a right against all the world." Letter to Grover Cleveland Now, I will admit that, as you have pointed out frequently in the past, I have not read the cited essays in full, but these are the among the quotations I had in mind. I don't know if this means that Spooner supported your conception of a capitalist conception of property -- but then, I don't know if I support that, either. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) None of these quotes, as you seem to already know, demonstrates that Lysander Spooner held the capitalist conception of property, and in this instance I mean only the conception of property beyond possession. Demonstrating this point is absolutely critical to your assertion that he was not a socialist -because- he supported property. Proudhon and Tucker both supported property in two different versions of anarchism, both explicitly rejected the capitalist conception of property, and were both socialists by the standards of the very capitalists they rejected. Supporting some form of property does not make one a capitalist, if it did than the vast majority of socialists both state and non-state today would be capitalists. And in fact there are a lot of other quotes in the very same texts that you cite here that seem to indicate a view much more akin to anarchist possession than capitalist entitlement: "The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people have advanced beyond the savage state, and have learned to increase their means of sub-sistence by the cultivation of soil, a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others, [*17] who had either accumulated any property that could be seized, or had shown, by their labor, that they could be made to contribute to the support or pleasure of those who should enslave them. " - Natural Law Since of Justice "Thenceforth their fate was, as slaves, to cultivate for others the lands they had before cultivated for themselves. Being driven constantly to their labor, wealth slowly increased; but all went into the hands of their tyrants." - Natural Law "In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class --- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth --- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-hodling class --- their former owners --- for just what the latter might choose to give them. Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative --- to save themselves from starvation --- but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that." - Natural Law "The aggregate wealth of society would there­fore be increased by just so much as the labor of all the members of society should be more productive than the labor of a part. It would also be increased by the operation of another principle, to wit: When a man knows that he is to have all the fruits of his labor, lie labors with more zeal, skill, and physical energy, than when lie knows-as in the case of one laboring for wages-that a portion of the fruits of his labor are going to another. Under the influence, then, of this principle, that each man should have all the fruits of his own labor, the aggregate wealth of society would be increased in two ways, to wit, first, all men would labor, instead of a part only; and, secondly, each man would labor with more skill, energy, and effect, than hired laborers do now." Poverty: Its illegal causes and legal cure "In order that each man may have the fruits of his own labor, it is important, as a general rule, that each man should be his own employer, or work directly for himself, and not for another for wages; because, in the latter case, a part of the fruits of his labor go to his em­ployer, instead of coming to himself"- Poverty But really all of this is beside the point, because it pretends that Spooner existed in a vacuum. Of course we both know he did not. He worked with anarchists, considered himself an anarchist, wrote in anarchist publications, and generally advocated anarchism. Yet I am to believe that his conception of property was so wildly different than all the other anarchists of his time that it indicated some very close relationship his ideology has with modern day anti-state capitalism. And why am I to believe that his conception of property was radically different, that he rejected possession and endorsed capitalist property? Not because there is a shred of evidence to support this view (none of your evidence did), but rather because there is a great deal of evidence which does not explicitly contradict it. Give me a break. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) It's not so much that I know that the quotes show one thing or another, it's that I knew you were going to say that. You wanted to see quotes where he supports property, and I provided them; as for what kind of property he supported, that will of course require more research on my part. You gave your opinion in advance. And you will recall that the cause of this current fit of citation is this comment from me: "I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist ... On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property" -- a fairly mild claim, after all. I should say that the first quote you give from Poverty goes a ways to addressing the socialism issue (the three quotes from Natural Law were irrelevant), but in switching the argument from "property" to "capitalist property" you are trying to get me to defend something I never asserted (although it might well be true, I don't know). Lastly, by your "not writing in a vacuum" argument, do you mean to say that it is far-fetched that Spooner might have had a difference of opinion with other anarchists? They were, after all, individualists, i.e. liable to have their own ideas. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I don't see how this changes the relevance of my comment that [Roderick Long's] views are non-normative within the anarcho-capitalist community, thus not appropriate to represent them with. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) What you said was And most anarcho-capitalists do not agree with this, meaning their own conception of capitalism is quite different than that of Roderick Long. It may be that his view of the similarity between A-C and voluntary socialism is not normative, but his view of capitalism itself appears to be plenty normative. Hence my tentative conclusion that it is his understanding of socialism that is unusual within the A-C milieu. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) This is fine, but I will repeat, I don't see how this is relevant to delcaring that his views are non-normative (we have in fact agreed on this part now) and thus not appropriate to represent anarcho-capitalism in general with. 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) My point was not that Long might be considered normative, but that he might be considered correct (possibly). I wasn't suggesting that we alter the article to say, "Anarco-capitalists believe they are voluntary socialists, because Roderick Long says it." - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I don't recall ever saying anything which indicated or implied that Long couldn't possibly be considered correct. Kev 17:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) It is odd that we could read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. I saw 4 different meanings, only 1 of which necessitated a state, 1 of which offered state ownership as a possibility amongst others, and the other 2 which gave not even the implication of state involvement. Yet to you this is "mostly" revolving around state ownership? Well, Merriam-Webster gives three main definitions, one of which is divided into an a) and b). The first refers to "collective or governmental" ownership. In other words it indicates that socialism is not necessarily governmental, thus already contradicting your claim that this definition "mostly" revolves around the state, unless of course all the other definitions necessitate a state. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) The third refers specifically to a stage in Marxist theory which corresponds to Leninist or Maoist governments. According to who, you, Marx, Lenin, or Mao? I'll give you a hint as to why this is a bad inference to draw, you would all give an entirely different answers. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) The second definition is bipartite: the a) section says nothing one way or another about the state, but the b) section specifies that the "means of production are owned and controlled by the state". So the only definition that doesn't refer directly to the state or government or to state-socialist theory is directly linked to another that specifies it. That was a very good attempt, but apart from the implications you have imported I'm only seeing ONE definition that necessitates a state. The first clearly gives two alternative and thus does not, the second is split into two parts only one of which does, and the third only necessitates a state depending on who you ask (in other words, it doesn't -necessitate- a state at all). Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Well, I formally withdraw from this thread of discussion on the grounds of it not being important. I agree that, if my understanding of Marxist historical-progression-to-communism-phase theory is flawed, then the dictionary's definitions do not all revolve around state control. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Now, a dictionary definition is far from definitive, but I'm still trying to understand what "socialist" means to anarchists. For you to define it as simply anti-capitalism, while I appreciate the effort, doesn't do me a lot of good, since "capitalism" also tends to be rather vaguely defined. People's concepts of capitalism tend to be a mirror-image of their concepts of socialism, "capitalism" having been coined by history's most prominent socialist, after all. It appears to me that socialism as anti-capitalism leads back to some form of collective ownership of capital. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Because capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital? I can think of many systems in which capital is privately owned to some degree but "capitalism" is not present, and many instances in which capital is privately owned only to a limited degree but the economics are still described as capitalist. Certainly you do know that there was private ownership of capital before capitalism, or are we now going to sorta skip over history and call pre-industrial societies capitalist? Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) I would say, yes, the way I use it, capitalism is defined by private (or corporate) ownership of property. That's consistent with some of the definitions that used to appear in the wikipedia capitalism article and with the definition given by merriam-webster. Therefore, any modern or pre-modern society with private capital ownership I would describe as capitalist, although there may be cases where this classification is not important in practice (for instance, if the society's members generally choose to refrain from invoking their property rights). It also means that societies where "capital is privately owned only to a limited degree" are genuinely capitalist only to a limited degree, regardless of what they are called. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) (in response to Nat Krause: "Does it have something to do with collective control of capital? If so, it is hard to see how this would allow for someone to own a business.") I'm not sure what you mean by that. Certainly capitalism entails the control of capital by someone right? And I would assume you think people can own a business in capitalism. But answering this question would require that I first know exactly what you mean when you say "capital". Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) When I said "it" I meant "socialism". To answer your question, capital is a man-made good that is used in the production of other goods. Then now I need to know what a good is, because I don't readily believe that a good produced by a toothbrush, used by one person for their private benefit and tucked away in a cabinet of a residence, is the exact same as pertains to economic discussion as a good produced by a steel-mill, used by thousands for the benefit of millions and standing in the middle of a bustling city. Yet I have a funny feeling you do. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Not sure how to answer that. No, they are not the same: one is one thing, the other is another; they impact people differently because there are differences in making them. But they are both goods produced using capital. "A good in economics is anything that increases utility" [3], which is to say, someone wants it. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Fine fine, then you simply stand against the entire anarchist tradition, and in fact the neo-classical liberal tradition, since according to your definitions capitalism runs rampant in anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, Soviet communism, anarcho-individualism, and many others. Makes it a little difficult to communicate with you, but what can I do? Kev 17:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) This is basically the definition that Wikipedia ascribes to David Ricardo. There are various qualifications that tend to get made implicitly according to context, such as including land under the definition of capital, or excluding raw materials. But, generally speaking, I use "capital" as stated above. Now, under this definition, I don't see how a socialist in the sense of opposing the ownership of capital can own a business. A business is capital (and often some land), nothing else but. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Sure, if we use this definition then a socialist could not own a business. Then again, according to this definition no anarchist (and few state-communists) have been socialist, since almost all of them believe in possession and even the ones who don't advocate a right of defense for use patterns, and it turns out that possessions and use patterns generally involve man-made goods of -some form- that are used to produce other goods of -some form-. Indeed, according to this definition the very evidence you offered from the dictionary is in contradiction, because the Marxist transition between capitalism and communism would not be socialist either. But the real problem with this definition as it pertains to our discussion is that it wipes out an entire area of human action that anarchists believe is vitally relevant to their theory, so using these particular definitions of capital and socialism to demonstrate the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is rather stacking the deck. And, again, even if this wasn't the case we would have to radically change most of our current conceptions of socialism and communism if we accepted these definitions. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) Is it possible that this whole disagreement between different types of anarchism comes down to semantic misunderstandings? Maybe. But it's unlikely. Less unlikely is that it might be based on semantic differences along with differing predictions of what will result from various contingencies, that is, non-prescriptive theoretical differences. This is essentially the position taken by the Black Crayon guy, and his analysis seems plausible on its face, although I would have to research and consider more before committing to agree with it. Is it possible that this hypothetical syncresis would also include Marxism? That seems somewhat less plausible. Does the Marxist "socialism" stage really involve private ownership of capital? - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I suppose it isn't necessary to believe so, but I can't imagine how else it would be. In Marxism socialism is a transition stage, which means it can't possibly happen all at once. If a socialist society replaced the capitalist society instantly then there would be no need for socialism at all, it would in fact move straight from socialism to communism. But Marxists believe the socialist state must exist precisely because there will be counter-revolutionary elements (i.e. capitalists and others) who will need to be suppressed. What all this boils down to is that yes, private property must exist on some level or a socialist society could not exist because it is defined -as- a transition in progress. Kev 17:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Alternative names The article Anarchist symbolism mentioned the term "free-market fundamentalism" as an alternative name for anarcho-capitalism. I moved it here since it's not particularly about the symbol. But I'm not sure that it's well integrated into the article. I assume that this name is used primarily by anarchists that object to classifying anarcho-captialism as anarchist, although I don't know this for certain. But more generally, the list of alternative names could use a lot of clarification along those lines. Which of these names are used by anarcho-capitalists, and which by their opponents? I don't really know, but it would be nice to have that information here. -- Toby Bartels 00:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) The current list of alternate terms is not a very good one. By far the most common synonym in use by the principals themselves is "market anarchism" (in fact, I have sometimes considered whether this page should be moved to market anarchism), sometimes additionally qualified as "free market anarchism." Other alternate terms I have heard include "private-property anarchism", "private law society", "ordered anarchism", or "radical capitalism" (although the last two can have other meanings). It's also damn similar to voluntaryism, panarchism, polyarchism (I'm not sure about that one), and agorism, although these terms express subtle and obscure distinctions. Hans-Hermann Hoppe just calls it "natural order". "Anarcho-liberalism" I've never heard before, but maybe somebody uses it. Ditto for "neo-classical liberalism", but that seems wildly unspecific. "Free-market fundamentalism" sounds like a plausible term of abuse, although I suspect it is more commonly applied to more common targets, like supply-side economists or House Republicans. As for what the opponents of anarcho-capitalism do call it, I'm not sure. "Crypto-fascist pseudo-anarchism" maybe? There are plenty of them around here that we could ask, though. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) I suppose that I'm an "opponent of anarcho-capitalism"; at least within the context of anarchism broadly, I am. But I've never understood the objection of my fellow social anarchists to the term "anarcho-capitalism". To name a philosophy with a contradiction in terms is the perfect way to highlight its flaws! (I'm being somewhat jokey here; but the bottom line is that I call anarcho-capitalism only "anarcho-capitalism".) -- Toby Bartels Market anarchism, or free market anarchism, are simply unacceptable. Individualist anarchists are market anarchists and to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism would be to either entirely over-write their tradition, ignore it completely, or pretend they are basically one and the same when they clearly are not. There are many people who use the alternate terms currently listed, many of them do so because they closely identify with the various figures who existed before anarcho-capitalism (the ones you seem to believe are part of the same tradition) and either agree with anarchists that the term anarcho-capitalist is faulty or believe that their own position is better indicated by "anti-state capitalist" or "neo-classical liberal". Another term they used a lot around Rothbard's time was "propertarian," but recently that has fallen out of use because it has been co-opted by anarchists as an insult. I highly doubt "free market fundamentalism" would be anything but an insult, I've certainly never heard a anarcho-capitalist identify that way. Kev 09:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) Individualist anarchists are market anarchists and to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism would be to either entirely over-write their tradition, ignore it completely, or pretend they are basically one and the same when they clearly are not. (Kev) I have no doubt that Kev probably knows more anarchist history than I do, but I do know that within the current non-anarcho-capitalist anarchist community many people believe that Free Software shows at least some aspects of anarchism; just look on talk:anarchism. IMO it definitely has socialist overtones. By Noam Chomsky's definition of anarchism (defining by the process of increasing freedom over time, and not to the final resulting society) the Free Software movement fits the definition of "left" anarchism. If you doubt that Free Software has socialist overtones, go to the GNU home page or to the Free Software Foundation homepage and read their philosophical documents! "Free means free as in freedom, not as in beer." (Richard Stallman) The Free Software concept was created for the direct benifit of everyone (socialism), not just those who might make a profit from it (capitalism). However, Free Software encourages a market of exchange. I still have a personal choice between multiple vendors, or I can go so far as to compile my own version of the GNU/Linux software if I choose. This gives me, as a user, far more freedom than simply accepting the contracts of use (you really don't own any programs that you buy) given by gigantic corporations like Microsoft, which have historically shown a trend towards monopoly. So saying that "left" anarchists are against market economies is simply a fraudluent statement. millerc 21:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) The question of whether or not "market anarchism" is a misnomer is somewhat to the side of the question of whether it is the most common synonym for anarcho-capitalism, which it is. Actually, as I have maintained in the past, I would say that it is "anarcho-capitalism" that is the misnomer, because most of the A-C's that I am aware of are market anarchists first and supporters of capitalism only as a correlary or a prediction. "Anarcho-capitalists merely defend capitalism (in the second sense of the term) as a legitimate choice among these forms of organization, and argue the science of economics demonstrates that it is the choice which is the most efficient for a prosperous and vital community — but one which they should not and will not impose on others by force." - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) So we should then conflate two different traditions and pretend they are one? Wikipedia is not here to act as a grandstand for anarcho-capitalism, it is here to illustrate what anarcho-capitalism is. To then conflate anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism when there is a previous tradition which already calls itself market anarchism (in what many would view as a crass attempt to gloss over the differences between these two traditions and push ac propaganda) would be a discredit to wikipedia. The term anarcho-capitalism is a bad enough misnomer as it is, to blatantly co-opt the title of an actual anarchist tradition just because of a recent fad on the internet in which acs call themselves market anarchists (and really, this is mostly confined to the internet rather than literature) is to remove all hope of ever getting this page to NPOV. Kev 17:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Well, my point is, and somehow I feel like I'm repeating myself here, that: a) market anarchism is the most common alternative name for anarcho-capitalism, so if we are going to list any alternative names, it would be counterinformative for to not say that; b) market anarchism is no more of a misnomer for this thing than anarcho-capitalism is. Do you really think that the terms people use to describe political movements are ever going to be totally unambiguous? Your preferred alternative, "neo-classical liberalism", don't you see that that could easily be be interpreted in several different ways? - Nat Krause 10:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) No, market anarchism is not the most common alternative name for anarcho-capitalism. It is 1) a relatively recent fad, 2) almost entirely confined to the internet and 3) almost impossible to judge just how common it is much less whether or not it is the "most" common (even assuming we use the same standards to judge this). Regardless of whether or not it is more or less of a misnomer than anarcho-capitalism it is a name of an already existing political theory and to falsely conflate here is only to push for the anarcho-capitalist POV. Finally, yes there are many ways in which neo-classical liberalism can be interpreted, but that is because it is a larger category into which anarcho-capitalism falls. The assertion that anarcho-capitalism falls into the category of anarchism, much less the subcategory of market anarchism, is far more controversial. Kev 12:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Libertatis Aequilibritas Although I like the idea of having an image for this page, I'm not sure about the current libertatis aequilibritas that we have up. For one thing, it's not a very good libertatis -- it doesn't really suggest a yin-yang, it just looks like a dollar sign inside a circle. Reminds me of the S on Superman's chest more than anything. For another thing, the libertatis isn't really that widely accepted as a symbol; it just looks strong by comparison because its only competitor is that weird red-and-black flag some guy came up with. It would have more meaning if the dollar weren't an artifact of the federal government in the first place. An additional problem: the image's copyright status looks iffy. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) But dollars (and the symbol "$") were around before the United States. You could take the symbol as promoting the right of free individuals to coin their own dollars, opposing the federal monopoly on coinage. (Just hypothesising; I don't know what the creator meant.) -- Toby Bartels Hmmm ... shows what I know, I guess. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) By that weird red and black flag some guy came up with do you mean the flag of the anarcho-syndicalists? If so, I hope you were just trying to make a joke by that statement. I doubt that any anarcho-syndicalist would accept anarcho-capitalists using that symbol as their own. That flag, BTW, has an older history and a lot more symbolism than you lead me to think you understand. Red, for one, is considered to be the socialist color, and black is the color of anarchism (socialist anarchism). millerc 20:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Not joking, just a little confused. There was a guy who came up with an anarcho-capitalist flag, and I think it had red and black on it. So I got that mixed up with the syndacalist flag. But the A-C version does not appear in wikipedia and need not, due to lack of notableness. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Left ac's? I noticed the removal of the claim that a-c's can be leftist. I had been skeptical of that as well, but Radgeek's comments (now archived) made a persuasive case that such a combination does exist. VV 23:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Given the context -- "anarcho-capitalists have very widely differing social views, ranging from the conservative and often religious paleolibertarians to moderate liberals to the far Left" -- I inferred that "far Left" referred to what might be termed "permissive social views". However, the idea that such views are necessarily "left" is a false one; Leftists can be prudes too (look up "Bolshevik modesty"). The terms "Left" and "Right", I think, are best understood in an economic sense, and in that sense, anarcho-capitalists CANNOT be left. However, many anarcho-capitalists are genuine "social libertarians", so I chose that term. I'm not sure it's the best term -- suggestions for an alternative welcome -- but I think it much less confusing than calling extreme rightists "left". Hopefully that explains things. Happy edits! -- Spleeman 00:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) Nota bene: when I said earlier that a-c's (or market anarchists) can hold hew far Left, I meant not only social libertarianism (although I did mean that), but I also meant in the sense of opposition to centralized corporate economics and solidarity with non-coercive organized labor efforts. Roderick Long is one of the most prominent examples--although he (like I) increasingly dislikes the term of "anarcho-capitalism" because he doesn't think that "capitalism" has a coherent meaning. As for how terms such as "Right" and "Left" should be applied, I do *not* think there is any good historical case for understanding these terms in an exclusively economic sense. Right and Left have always been first and foremost distinctions about *power*; Rightist thought originated among French ultra-Royalists who defended traditional power structures as ordained by Almighty God, and Leftist thought as such originated amongst those who rejected the pretensions of princes and potentates. The Right at the time were mostly old guard mercantilists--not "capitalists" (in *any* popular sense of the term) and not free marketeers. The modern notion of the distinction as a purely economic one is the result of the colonization of the Left by Bolshevism and the opportunistic use of corporativist economics posing as free marketeering by the old and new Right, and I think using it that way conceals more than it reveals. In fact whether free market economic views are of the extreme Right or of the Left depends a lot on how they are being deployed and how the arguments are related to existing power structures. If anyone proved this, it was Benjamin Tucker. 68.42.114.145 04:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Whoops! The nota bene was from me, Radgeek, since I was mentioned above. I guess my login zonked out before I finished typing. Radgeek 04:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Just my two cents on this left/right thingie. Personally, I dislike distinctions between economic issues and non-economic issues, because every issue is economic if one treats it as such. Economics is a method of analysis, not a distinct subject matter. Still ... let us speak of controversies about a societies predominant means of production (PMOP for short). If left and right are defined by PMOP, than is anarcho-capitalism necessarily on the right? O don't think so. I would consider the "right" PMOP to be the existence of a sovereign, with a government, consisting of an extended kinship network, who also occupy most important financial and business positions in that society, and talk a lot about private/public "partnerships" because the border is so permeable. Crony capitalism, in short. Anarcho-capitalism, by proposing to eliminate the myth of sovereignty and the regulatory/subsidizing government, would severely interfere with the cronyist networking process. Insofar forth, it has some similarities to the left. On the PMOP, then, anarcho-caps ate generally centrists, although their tone can vary from left to right. --Christofurio 20:03, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) The terms left and right originated during the period of the French Revolution. The right comprised the conservatives who supported the "establishment" and the left were radicals who supported revolutionary social reorganization, in some form or another. Anarcho-capitalists are tricky because while they do support the current establishment, that is, capitalism, their beliefs can be quite radical/extremist. This I believe is deceiving, however. If we are to judge a society by it's underlying economic structures as you propose, then anarcho-capitalists are of necessity "right", as they are the most ardent supporters of the capitalist mode of production. Also, a-caps do not, IMO, wish to change the fundamental nature of power and authority in society, as they do not wish to abolish government so much as to privatize it. I disagree that "right" must necesarily be defined by government or crony capitalism. What is your basis for this definition? -- Spleeman 19:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Anarcho-capitalists don't support the "current establishment" in the sense that the "current establishment" involves sovereignty. I notice of course that when you use the phrase "the current establishment" immediately qualify it, "that is, capitalism," presumably because you believe capitalism to be the most fundamental fact ABOUT the status quo. But which of us gets to decide what is "fundamental"? It seems to me, as an anarcho-cap myself, that sovereignty, and governments ruling on behalf of the sovereign, constitute -- alas! -- a pretty fundamental feature of the world, one that has a lot to do with production, too. Why is opposition to that feature not opposition to the "mode of production" that now exists? Why did Michael Milken go to prison? -- I would like to suggest that the reason concerns the fact that he was not a member of the ruling elite, so he wasn't going to be allowed to be successful capitalist. Why is that not as "fundamental" as anything else one might name about the present system in most of the world? No, the most fundamental fact ABOUT the status quo is the authoritarian relationships present, all of which are based on political or economic power. As Spleeman has already stated, the act of privatizing government, for the benifit of those who can pay for it, isn't in any way fundamentally changing society. In fact, I would say that taking a goverment which, at least on its surface, claims to be controlled democratically and delivering it into the hands of private powers is a step backwards (making it extreame rightist). Noam Chomsky, and others have claimed that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally no different than feudalism. Going by the article on crony capitalism in wikipedia I really can't tell the difference between crony capitalism and capitalism (with no adjectives). Simply privatizing the government's functions wouldn't keep others from colluding with the new private agencies to keep power. If anything it would probably increase the collusion, since those in power would no longer depend on public support. If capitalism is based on "rational" self interest, then it shouldn't be supprising that those with privaledge would act in such a way as to prevent others from liberating themselves. millerc 18:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Why do you, or Spleeman, or Chomsky, or any other bearers of names you might want to invoke get to tell me what is "fundamental" and what isn't? First, honesty and rationality would seem to be best served by abandoning "claims" we know not to be true, rather than hanging ever more tightly to them for all that for fear of being labelled rightists if we see through them and say so. But, second, even if a government is "democratically controlled" rather than just claiming to be, that doesn't mean it's no longer what you call an "authoritarian relationship." Its just an authoritarian relationship with majority backing. If we want to change things so as to abandon such relationships, we ought to defy, not deify, majorities. I certainly agree that the privileged want to prevent people from liberating themselves. For example, many black Americans in the inner city exercise their entrepreneurship by selling drugs which the powerful have criminalized. My sympathies as an anarcho-capitalist are, in that instance as in so many others, with the entrepreneurs. I believe that the myth of sovereignty is part of the mechanism that keeps them locked up. I also regard that as a pretty fundamental issue, one that is relevant to left-right alignments if those terms mean anything at all. In general, the privatization of functions now considered governmental wouldn't be a privatization of government, but an abolition thereof. The people exercising those functions would have to meet market disciplines, which are much more severe than the disciplines of the ballot box -- which is why they now prefer the latter, and evading the former. --Christofurio 18:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) Why would privatization of these functions suddenly make them non-governmental? Many of them still perform governing duties, so how would privitizing them eliminate government involvement? It just shifts the balance of power from an elite hidden by a fake democracy to an elite not hidden at all. Honestly, what the heck would someone unable to afford representation in one of these non-governmental governing services care about whether or not they meet market discipline. Is a boot in my face less ominous when it is more economically efficient? Kev 22:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) If I own, say, a television, it is rational for me to pay for the folks who will put a well-deserved boot in the face of someone who breaks into my home and walks out with it. But it isn't so rational for me to pay to put boots in the faces of people who like different programs than those I watch, or enjoy different lifestyles. So in an anarcho-capitalist society, it will be much easier than it is now to live a life of one's own choosing without having an (undeserved) boot in one's face. That is why the boots will become less ominous. Furthermore, the elite won't be so elite without the levers of sovereignty, without democracy and the other fakeries behind which they now hide. They adopt what you rightly call their fakery for a reason, because it is useful in preserving their elite status -- and the rest of us should want to deprive them of that hiding place for the same reason. --Christofurio 13:27, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) I think it would be advisable for the participants in this discussion to either clearly distinguish between "government" and "state" or explicitly not distinguish between them. In ordinrary conversation, people tend to use them synonymously, but traditionally, in anarchist parlance, they are considered distinct. Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to want to eliminate government, in the sense of some kind of mechanism for some form of law and order, and it's not clear to me that anarcho-socialists want to eliminate that, either. - Nat Krause 07:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Good idea. I'll be explicit. Personally, I use "government" to mean an institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use or licensing of violence within a given territory. Generally, when an institution makes this claim it does so on behalf of a state or sovereign, conceived of as "We the People" perhaps, or as a personal monarch, or whatever. The distinction between "state" and "government" is that between the (alleged) principal and its (alleged) agent, roughly the difference between Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair. As to my own anarcho-capitalism (I speak for no one else, of course) I regard Liz as just an elderly woman with some nice dogs and a big house. So I regard Tony Blair as the leader of an institution that makes an unwarranted claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use or licensing of violence in the UK. Of course, anarcho-caps don't dispute the need for "some sort of mechanism" for the preservation of order. To adopt Kev's terminology -- some people DO deserve to have boots in their faces now and then. The rest of us need to be able to hire the wearers of boots to protect us from those who deserve that fate. But if that mechanism isn't monopolistic in character, I for one don't think it warrants the term "government." --Christofurio 13:27, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) So if its not a monopoly "on violence" (confined to a certain geographical area of course, since there are many state governments in the world) its not government? That's a really odd definition of government. Especially since things like farms and ranches have a monopoly on cultivating a particular geographic location, but you probably wouldn't consider them a monopoly "on cultivation". Yet by the definition of "natural" rights used by many Libertarians and ac's you would up hold such land privileges. Would you enforce the privilege of landowners to protect their own land? If so, what about those who have no land (a possibility all too real, when the economic system is set up and enforced in a way that assures an increasing divide between those few who have wealth and those who do not)? Will they have to submit to the landowner's will -- or else, would they be violating the landowner's "right" to the land, and in such a case the landowner wouldn't be "initiating" violence? What makes the landowner different from a king in such a case? Yet, you wouldn't consider him or her as having a monopoly "on violence", since he or she didn't "initiate" the violence. Does it really make a difference if the army is a collection of "privately" hired individuals; doesn't our government really just hire individuals to protect their political power? Hell the US government even advertises such jobs on TV! The problem is that ac's don't think abstractly about these sorts of things. Kev's "boot to the face" doesn't have to be a litteral boot to the face, it only has to be a means by which someone might be able to force others to accept his or her will. If your life depends on the demands of a small class of elites, you are not really free (starving to death is no more morally acceptable when it is preventable, than is exocution). It seems that ac's have some sort of ahistorical mythical utopian view of "real" capitalism where everyone would do what was best for their costomers and their employies, and everything would tend towards some mythological equilibrium where all resources would be "efficently" allocated. "Real" capitalism is a fraud. Economic power games are a reality; crony capitalism is capitalism, state or not. There is no difference that I can see between Lenin's intellectual/party elites, Hitler's genetically superior race, or the economic elites created by a capitalist economic system (none of them deserve my trust). millerc 22:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Semantic and Substantive Points Let me dispense with the two points I consider peripheral and semantic. First, as to the definition of "government," I'm sorry that it seems "really odd" to you. I believe I remember hearing something very similar to this definition from a professor of political science in my undergraduate days but ... that was the late 1970s, so I might as well let it slide. It is, I think, a reasonable definition in capturing what I mean to oppose when I say I don't believe in legitimate government. I make no claims for it beyond that. Second, yes, I understood that Kev was using a figure of speech. I meant my own use of his phrasing in the same spirit. What I think all three of us agree on (tell me if I'm wrong!) is (a) there are some people who will prey upon me if I let them, people who deserve to have a boot in their face once in awhile, and that is likely to remain the case for the indefinite future, utopian visions of a perfected humanity notwithstanding, (b) the rest of us are entitled to protect ourselves against such folks, either by wearing the "boots" ourselves (the community-policing and militia-organizing solution) or by hiring someone who does, (professional police and standing armies) and finally (c) the substantive questions are of how this is done, how the bootwearers are to be paid, and how the boots are to be kept out of the faces of people who don't deserve them! These are all more important questions than what names to give things. So now, onto substantive points. You justifiably draw my attention to the divide between rich and poor, which you relate to the distinction between landed and unlanded. My response is to ask you to ask yourself what part of that gulf is itself the result of the myth of sovereignty? Consider the "war on drugs," which is in large part a war on the most entrepreneurial residents of inner cities, and keeps the inner cities of the United States impoverished by keeping the more enterprising of their would-be residents locked up. Drug legalization is not a matter of anything so jejune as "lifestyle choice" in the usual left-of-center lingo. It is a matter of sovereign distortion of the means of production. To end that misguided war would be an important reform of PMOP in the US. On the broader point of land rights, allow me to say, first, that you have put into my mouth the phrase "initiation of force" and then asked whether I would apply the label to trespassers. I never use the phrase myself, although a lot of libertarians do -- not so many anarcho-caps do as you might assume. The notion that anything is fair in retaliation if somebody else does the initiating seems to me a very dubious one. So ... no. I don't believe that an anarcho-capitalist society would routinely execute trespassers. I don't believe it would encourage retaliatory uses of force in general, although it does make sense to hire people to exact compensation for harm the trespasser does, (if he tramples across someone's garden, say) assuming no agreement can be reached. There will be competition among protection agencies and the market-based arbitration systems that will spring up to serve them, and rules will develop for handling such controversies according to the principle of spontaneous order. The political problem is to prevent government (or mob) interference from short-circuiting the higgling and haggling necessary to bring about such a bargaining solution. Dissolving the myth of sovereignty is an important part of the long-run solution to that problem. --Christofurio 00:39, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) No, I don't think I can agree on your begining points. While I do think there are people who would prey on myself and others given the opportunity, I don't think merit enters into the scenario at all for me so I don't understand your belief that these people "deserve" one or another response by you. To me even the predators in life are peers of some kind, the fact that they act in ways I abhor does not strip them of their humanity in my eyes, and I do not grant or withdraw merits and priviledges from my peers. Indeed. A similar sentiment on my part was precisely why I disputed the notion that Millerc tried to impute to me that if one party "initiates" violence, then the other party's response is necessarily justified. It isn't. Even in responding to blatant aggression, there are issues of proportionality -- and it is seldom as clear who "initiated" anything as the "retaliators" would like observers to believe. So it is important to keep one's sense of common humanity -- I said so myself and am happy to see that we agree. --Christofurio 19:25, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) In fact, I cannnot. The important aspect here is not that I disagree with some of the practical upshot of your begining assumptions (that sometimes we have to defend ourselves), but that I disagree with the assumptions you use to frame the scenario to begin with, and thus a great deal of the emphasis in your conclusions. Of course it follows then that I don't think our response to such individuals has anything to do with entitlement either. I really wouldn't care what we are entitled or not entitled to in such circumstances, my response would be the same either way. Actually, I'm lost as to who or what would be doing the entitling here anyway. Call her "Gaia" as you do below in a different context. Our entitlement to protect ourselves comes from whatever that is to which we give thanks for the benevolence of the natural world and for our own abilities. More importantly, I disagree that I have any "priviledge" or "entitlement" or really simply legitimate power to hire others to my defense. First, because I believe that wage labor is coercive and I would not put other people in the position of needing to fulfill my desires/needs/whims in order to survive and restricting their access to the resources they need in order to acquire their servitude. Second, because I have little faith in most people and do not believe that individuals who amass such security power will always or even usually refrain from applying it in unjust ways to their own advantage. As such, I would rebel against the formation of security forces commanded by individuals other than those individuals themselves, and I would also refrain from supporting any such force myself. Last, I do not believe the substantive points are how to pay these boot wearers or how to keep their boots out of the faces of the people you or I believe don't deserve them. Indeed, I think you have overlooked the really substantive points above. And as an aside, I am particularly disturbed at your ready acceptance of what you percieve to be the need of an institution of these people in the first place. It is apparently no longer a question of how to remove the boot from the face of humanity, but which part of humanity we should apply the boot to, that centers in the minds of many people. Thank gaia that Orwell is dead and does not have to see this reality, in which the very concept of freedom is lost to most, come to pass. Kev 04:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Here we do approach an issue of substance. If we are entitled to protect ourselves (or, as you may prefer to put it, if one sometimes simply must act to protect one's self) then we are also entitled to work co-operatively with other humans to that end, when we judge combinations to be more effective that a solitary David Carradine approach. If we work together, even in a small group, for a common defense, then there will naturally come to be a separation of functions. Is that unobjectionable thus far? If so, I see no principled objection should someone better capable of kicking butt agrees with someone less capable, but possessed of disposable income, that this separation of functions should take on an employer-employee character. Should the elderly lady who just wants to keep her flower garden untrampled have to personally confront would be tramplers herself? --Christofurio 19:25, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) I agree with what Kev has said above; however, this coversation has devolved into an argument over who's correct. I don't think this is going to get us anywhere. So, I would like to propose a compromise, one that would also have the effect of making the article more academic, to the question that started this debate (can AC's be leftist? or can AC's be radical?). I propose that if you can find a notable AC who can be quoted as X states that "I'm a leftist/radical", and you can give the relevent quote not taken out of context, then I will support such an inclusion in the article. Heck, if you give a qoute not taken out of context, then there is no way to dispute such an inclusion on NPOV grounds. millerc 19:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I agree with Radgeek's comment, above, about Roderick Long. The article should perhaps mention him as an example of a thinker who might well be classified as both leftist and an anarcho-capitalist (though he is, for sensible reasons, wary of both labels himself). --Christofurio 20:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) Could we be given some reason as to think that a person who apparently doesn't consider himself an anarcho-capitalist is "a notable AC"? But before we get to that point, I think we would have to demonstrate that Roderick Long is notable, the first time I ever heard of him was from Radgeek. If he is a substantive figure in anarcho-capitalism I suppose there should be lots of articles published by him in AC journals and perhaps even a few referances by other notable ACs to him. Kev 23:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Your first question is merely a semantic one: Long, of course, admits to being a so-called "anarcho-capitalist", but he apparently has doubts about whether this is the appropriate name. Actually, I've never read anything where he expresses these doubts, but Radgeek knows him personally, so he knows better than I do. As for whether he is notable or not, that all depends on your standards for notableness. According to his website, Long has been published in Philosophical Review, Social Philosophy and Policy, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Ideas on Liberty (which is the same thing as The Freeman, a venerable Libertarian publication), Review of Metaphysics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. He has written two books available on Amazon and contributed essays to a few more. A quick search on Amazon comes up with a handful of references made to him in books written by other people. As for references by other ACs, I'm not sure how to document that; he appears to be in pretty good with Rockwell, which is a little unusual because Long disputes some points that Rockwell considers to be important. - Nat Krause 02:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Continuation It's not so much that I know that the quotes show one thing or another, it's that I knew you were going to say that. You wanted to see quotes where he supports property No. I wanted, and asked for, quotes in which he supports "a capitalist conception of property." In fact when I asked I made it clear that I have serious doubts as to whether or not such quotes even exist. Why would I ask for quotes to demonsrate something I already know (i.e. that he supported property)? And really, please get on with your research, don't let me get in your way. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist ... On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property" -- a fairly mild claim, after all No, it isn't, because it presumes a faulty background assumption. You continue to assume that one cannot defend property and be a socialist, which would indicate that a very large number of anarchists who associated themselves with socialism were also not socialist, and in fact that socialism has never existed and only on the most rare of occasions even been advocated. I simply don't think it is proper form to define away all of your opposition in one swoop as your primary argument against them. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) but in switching the argument from "property" to "capitalist property" I never switched any argument, my statements concerned capitalist property from the begining. Why would I argue against property when Proudhon himself supported a form of property? When Tucker supported a form of property? When most anarchists today support property in the form of possession? You think I switched the argument because of your faulty assumptions. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lastly, by your "not writing in a vacuum" argument, do you mean to say that it is far-fetched that Spooner might have had a difference of opinion with other anarchists? They were, after all, individualists, i.e. liable to have their own ideas. If I had meant to say that then I would have. The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Spooner supported anything beyond possession, what almost all anarchists support. So yes, in order to come to the belief that he, as an anarchist, had a different opinion than most other anarchists in regards to possession, I would actually need to see evidence that he did, rather than to just believe what appears to be nothing more than a hunch on your part. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) I would say, yes, the way I use it, capitalism is defined by private (or corporate) ownership of property... Therefore, any modern or pre-modern society with private capital ownership I would describe as capitalist, although there may be cases where this classification is not important in practice (for instance, if the society's members generally choose to refrain from invoking their property rights). Well okies, some capitalists do have a tendency to completely ignore history when coming to their conclusions, or even to ignore entire parts of definitions that don't support their argument, but don't blame me if this comes back to bite you in the butt later on. Equating all forms of private ownership with capitalism... who would have guessed that the ancient Chinese, Greeks, Egyptians, heck even the Cherokee and the Aztec, were all capitalists this whole time. But might I suggest that it would be a little more reasonable to narrow your category by extending the definition a tad (like most modern dictionaries do)? Nah... you are right, slavery is a form of capitalism after all. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Kev, I'm tiring very, very quickly of trying to discuss this subject with you. But I do want to ask you how anything I've said can be conceived of as "ignoring history". Please explain. - Nat Krause 10:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Sure, you throw in comments about those who coined the term capitalism while ignoring what they coined it to mean, the very fact that it was meant to refer to the post-agricultural societies that are relatively recent in history. You ignore the fact that socialism has had a very broad definition throughout history and instead confine it solely to a false dichotomy with capitalism (private ownership/public ownership). You talk of capitalism according to a perspective totally removed from the complexity of its actual dictionary definitions (www.m-w.com), instead prefering an overly simplistic one that just happens to support your particular position and define away the position of those who disagree with you. You also define it in such a way that it would completely change the modern and historical economic understandings of dozens if not hundreds of societies. I mean really, you expect people to seriously consider that the Lakota were capitalist just because they had certain forms of limited private property relations? That anyone who advocates any form of private property cannot possibly be a socialist? You ignore history because you ignore the numerous counter-examples to this view. Well that, or you simply disregard them as insignificant in your world perspective. Kev 12:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) Well, it's true that I don't use the word capitalism quite the same way that Karl Marx would. I'll cop to that. The connotations and context Marx gave it don't make sense outside of Marxist theory. If we tried to take it with the exact same meaning, which to us is uselessly incoherent, we would have to respond to its use with nothing more than silence, or start debating Marxist theory at every turn, which would hardly serve to facilitate communication with the rest of society, who are by and large not Marxists either (although Wikipedia tells me that the the word Marx actually used was just kapital, and that we have Werner Sombart to thank for kapitalismus, further complicating the situation). Do you define capitalism exactly as Marx or Sombart would? No, but I don't define it in such a way as to ignore or contradict all or most of its other meanings just to support my argument, either. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) I don't think my definition of capitalism is very far removed from the dictionary definition, and, if is, I might decide to take the dictionary's advice and qualify it some. What merriam-webster says is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Now, the first clause specifies private capital ownsership. The third clause specifies a free market, which strikes me as a very likely correlary to private ownership, but not conceptually necessary, so I exclude it. You exclude it because capitalism can exist without the kind of free market the dictionary is refering to here? Come again? Oh right, according to your definitions communism can be capitalist. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) The second clause specifies investments that are determined by private decision, which I would say follows naturally from any situation with private ownership and a free market. Then it sorta sounds like you disagree with the individualists who believed that usury in the form of investment would destroy the functioning of a free market, and thus that not all forms of investment are compatible with the free market. But your disagreement is not grounds to continue to strip out all the parts of the definition that don't meet your standards, first its historical context, then its "extraneous" sub-components. And why? Because it turns out that your own interpretation of what private ownership means is so universally applicable that everyone would have to come to the same conclusions you have (and lets ignore the fact that the Marxists, the anarcho-individualists, and the writers of various dictionaries, not to mention most historians, did not because they must all simply be wrong or something). Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Well, what I meant was that one could imagine a hypothetical situation in which capital is privately owned but in which it is not feasible to trade it, thus negating the free market. And, yes, I certainly do disagree with the individualists on many of their economic theories -- labor theory of value and all that. Maybe I should include more clauses in my definition simply because what is obvious or a tacit correlary to me might not be so to others. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) You don't just disagree with the individualists. From what I can tell there is only a very narrow band of economic theory you would be able to agree with. And yes, you ought to include more clauses in your definition just for that very "simple" reason that not everyone holds your assumptions or considers your reasoning automatically valid. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) It was not me but you that set socialism up as an opposition to capitalism I stated explicitly what was already implicit in your argument, that one is public control and the other private, you had already said that repeatedly. And I never denied that socialism is defined in part by its opposition to capitalism, what I deny is first, your attempt to -base- their opposition on private versus public control, which I find to be a misplaced emphasis, and second your attempt to base their opposition -solely- on this factor, which I find overly simplistic to the point of misrepresentation. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Okay, that's fine, although I have no idea what your first sentence means. You did more than just say acknowledge that socialism is defined in part by opposition to socialism, you said that for some of the individualists at least, it was defined in full by opposition to capitalism. As I mentioned at the time, that doesn't tell me much, because I don't know what you mean by capitalism, hence the confusion over emphasis, etc. But let's drop this line of argument for the time being, please. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Rather, I explained that for some individualists and others socialism is defined by opposition to capitalism, but that this was and is only a small part of the total definition. And please do me the favor of not telling me to drop a line of discussion and then adding in one last comment in some attempt to get the final word. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) What I meant was, let's drop the line of argument about the meaning of the word capitalism. Just for the record, I didn't mean, "don't respond to this post". - Nat Krause 05:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) in the context of the individualists (which is what we've been discussing). These are quotes from you: All depends on what one means by socialist. One use of the term in Spooner's time was to mean nothing more than "anti-capitalist", which Spooner explicitly was. I believe that is about the extent of his "socialism". and my definition of socialism depends on the context, and tends to be more inclusive than any given dictionary would allow. With the individualists I generally mean what they meant, anti-capitalism. I never said that I think that socialists cannot advocate property, although I can see where you might have gotten that impression. So can I: "I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist....On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property." Gee, where did I get that impression? Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yes, that is where you would have gotten the impression, although you got the wrong one. My point (which may or may not be correct) was not that socialists cannot advocate property, but that, if a writer makes frequent positive references to property, this is evidence implying that he might not be a socialist; lauding property is a trope associated with non-socialists (for instance, you yourself have said that "propertarian" used to be a common alternative name for anarcho-capitalist, but that it has since become an insult among socialist anarchists). You have already stated your argument that the Spooner's support for property does not give this implication in this case, and I will not comment further on that argument's merits. It adds to the confusion that you (in the comment that I was directly replying to above) referred to "individualists who -still- deny property (upholding possession instead) and thus are not capitalist," (emphasis mine), reversing what is apparently your usual line that possession is a form of property. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Fine. You seem to then agree that advocation of property does not necessarily rule one out of being a socialist, you are simply stating that it can be evidence that one is not a socialist. I agree, that when all things are equal a person who advocates property is less likely to be socialist than someone who doesn't. But this is as clear a case of things not being equal as we can have. Again, and I can't really emphasize this enough, Lysander Spooner was part of a tradition. He -intentionally- associated himself with anarcho-individualism. Anarcho-individualists all advocated one or another form of possession in following with Proudhon's critique on non-possessive property. Now here is the key factor. ALL the other individualists ALSO advocated property, usually just as strongly as Spooner did. Wouldn't that put to rest once and for all the claim that this ALONE can act as evidence that he was not a socialist, when he have already agreed socialists need not reject property and it is apparent that other anarcho-individualists considered themselves socialists and also advocated property? As to the confusion concerning the use of property, yes I trip myself up constantly in this because it is simply impossible to bridge the communication gap. Modern day anarchists generally do not consider possession a form of property and thus contrast the two. Proudhon did consider it a form of property, the only just form, and the individualists (yes, this includes Spooner no matter how hard it may be for you to hear that) followed him in this. Most capitalists consider possession a sub category of property usually based on arbitrary or inconsequential distinctions. I have yet to find a way to account for all these positions when speaking of these terms, and I don't find it useful to over-ride definitions as irrelevant or inconsquential whenever I disagree with a particular usage (as you apparently do), so the end result is that it can be very confusing at times. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I said that, if socialists oppose property in capital, then it's hard to see how they can own capital (assuming they are not hypocrites). And a definition cannot have "counter-examples". That's apples and oranges. Counter-examples are for factual assertions. - Nat Krause 08:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) And as I've already said, those socialists who advocate property in the form of possession either have a different definition of capital than you do, with different implications, or would not claim to oppose all forms of capital ownership and thus not meet your definition of socialist. But I still don't see how any of this demonstrates anything but your ability to define away the positions of those who disagree with you. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) It demonstrates our continued mutual inability to understand what the other means by use of words. But I should say that the meaning of the word "capital", unlike "capitalism" or "socialism", normally has a fairly stable and widely-accepted meaning. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) lol, whatever Nat. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I'm glad you're amused. Maybe I can work some of the material from this discussion into my stand-up act ("Didja hear the one about the definition of socialism?") Fortunately, I think that our palaver (this particular one, anyway), is just about at an end. Cheers. - Nat Krause 05:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Is this really what they say? "libertarian socialists agree with anarcho-capitalists that one has a right to own one's own labor, but argue that no such right exists in the case of natural resources; since natural resources are ultimately required in the construction of any object, libertarian socialists conclude that all property is illegitimate)." Hmmm. It seems to me that I've often heard socialists (with or without adjectives) assure me that yes, they do believe that some sorts of property are legitimate -- one can legitimately own one's own books, and a bookcase to keep them in, for that they draw the line at the ownership of the means of production. Ownership of the timber or the wood-working facilities that the bookcase comes from is necessarily illegitimate. I'm not a socialist of any sort, so I'd appreciate clarification. Are there, by common consent among socialists, some sorts of socialism that allow for the legitimacy of property in personal items and others that don't? And is "libertarian socialism" on the latter side of that dichotomy, as the above quoted passage suggests? And ... a separate point ... shouldn't this stuff be in the separate section on criticisms of anarcho-capitalism that's a little further down in the article? It only seems fair or NPOV to me to state an ideology clearly before introducing the criticisms, and that statement can include a brief discussion of some of the internal disagreements of holders of this ideology -- that still isn't the right place to interject the external critics' views. Should we move the above quoted graf and related stuff? --Christofurio 21:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) I agree that this passage would best be moved to the criticism section. The passage is problematic in that while it is true for some libertarian socialists it does not apply to all. In this case it would be true of those libertarian socialists who still advocate a conception of "rights" (not all do), and of those who deny that possession is a form of property (the vast majority do today but again not all) or who believe that possession is a form of property but do not support it either. Might be best to simply qualify the paragraph to indicate that "some" libertarian socialists believe this. Of course there is still the question of whether or not libertarian socialist is the best choice of words to represent these people, but those improvements would help for now. Kev 01:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the encouragement. I've made some changes, both in placement of this material and in the wording of it. --Christofurio 03:26, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Well, "libertarian socialists" are not "socialists" per se and I don't think the phrase is used very often outside academic circles, Wikipedia, and perhaps some useless sectarian groups. It's useful in that context, I guess, but it's also misleading to those not familiar with the nuances of boring 150 year old irrelevant politics (as is clear by your "with or without adjectives" claim; it's like calling an apple a red orange in reality, as opposed to encyclopedias). Libertarian Socialist is usually a synonym for "anarchist," to distinguish from Authoritarian Socialists and some other trends of the amorphous thing called "anarchism." Murray Bookchin is famous for this, denouncing "lifestyle anarchism" whereas many anarchists today are trying to escape the boundaries of theory, intellectualism, and irrelevancy. .... "one can legitimately own one's own books, and a bookcase to keep them in" - Yes. Anarchists believe in "free association", "mutual aid", etc. which would all contradict the notion of stealing from other individuals. But an anarchist would also put many other priorities before the right to own things: for example, under what conditions was that product made? What effects does it have on the community, other individuals, the environment? I think many would be opposed to owning land, though, in favor of communal living. But a book, certainly. Although we all should share ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 20:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Sharing is good. But if the book is an heirloom, of unique sentimental value to me (my grandmother handed it to me on her deathbed) then I may think it rational to refuse to share that particular item, even if I am generally of a generous temperament. As for "libertarian socialism" meaning anarchism, perhaps it means some kind of anarchism. Yet one must be wary when a Chomsky says on the one hand that he is an anarchist and on the other hand that "what we need now is more government." That "now" will prove infinitely elastic if one follows such a lead. Real anarchism is a denial of the myth of sovereignty, without any saving clauses preserving the prerogative of the right-thinking folks to use that myth for their own ends. Over grandma's dead body! ;-) --Christofurio 22:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC) A view? Eeek Two notes: Somebody go archieve this talk, 98k is way 2 long. From the (way to long) leader: Anarcho-capitalism is a view... - eh, this is an encyclopedia, please dont use such a general terms. Is is a system? A political system? An economic system (note it is mentioned of both of those lists)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This archive page covers approximately Feb 2005 & Mar 2005. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Contents 1 Capitalism a free market? 2 Anarcho-capitalism is the same as free-market anarchism 3 Recent Edits 4 Alea iacta est. 5 New Intro Wording 6 Reorganisation 7 Intro 8 Austrians 9 Philosophy 10 The neutrality of this article is disputed. 11 Factual accuracy disputes 12 Any difference between Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism? 13 Odd 14 Initiation of force 15 Exploitation 16 Again with the "traditional" stuff 17 Initial conditions 18 Why not neutral? 19 NPOV sign removed, cleanup sign added 20 definition of capitalism footnote 21 In need of rewrite 22 Lost passage 23 Dan Sullivan Capitalism a free market? The current article reads: (in the sense of a market where all economic decisions and actions by individuals regarding transfer of goods and services are voluntary) This is not absolutely truth, it is truth according to the anarcho-capitalists who believe that institutions such as interest and rent can be voluntary. As such, it needs to be indicated that this is their view, or the process needs to be described without resort to the word voluntary, whose interpretation is heavily contested in this context. Kev 14:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Anarcho-capitalists explicitly advocate a "free market." The use the common modern definition of capitalism that says it is a system of trade based on a free market. A traditional anarchist doesn't use this definition or is not aware of it. RJII 18:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) The definition of free market in www.m-w.com is, an economic market operating by free competition. It is thus completely within the perview of individualists to object that the market advocated by capitalists does not allow for free competition. Merely defining your opposition out of existence is neither convincing nor sincere, but then again neither is relying on highly selective and particular dictionary definitions to define dynamic and multi-dimensional political theories. Or are you now going to accept the common definition that anarchists are those who use violent means to overthrow an established order and abandon the whole anarcho-capitalist title altogether? Kev 18:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ok, The definition of capitalism at m-w.com is: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." Whatever a "free market" is, capitalism is a system of trade occuring in a free market. So the answer to the question in the heading of this section "Capitalism a free market?" .. is clearly "yes." RJII 18:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) You seem to be missing the point. Have you seen me remove all referance to capitalism as free market from this article? Nope. What you have seen me do is question whether or not a particular viewpoint based on one particular definition should be the only one presented in regards to this subject. Given that there is a very relevant objection from a very relevant group of people on this very issue, NPOV would at the very least require that this be listed as a viewpoint, rather than simply stated as a fact. Kev 19:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) If you have a problem with the use of the term "voluntary" here, why don't you have a problem with it being used in the intro paragraph of anarchism, since you're so into "NPOV"? RJII 20:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Because that sentence begins with, " These philosophies use anarchy to mean..." making it very clear that the wiki article is explicating a point of view, not advocating it. The sentence in question here gives no indication that this is merely the point of view of capitalists, only that they are promoting it. In fact, in the absence of any qualifier, it implies that what they are promoting is in fact voluntary according to wikipedia itself. Kev 20:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) It says that Anarcho-capitalists/free-market anarchists believe in a free-market by definition, then relays the basic definition of a free market. I don't see any advocacy in that. RJII 02:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) You don't see -any- advocacy in having wikipedia declare that what is a free market according to capitalists is voluntary? You don't see that as, you know, sorta giving away the entire controversy to the anarcho-capitalists by definitively stating that institutions such a usury and rent are voluntary in nature? Give me a break here, this is -one- friggin qualifier to bring this into NPOV, why are you resisting it so much? Kev 02:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Anarcho-capitalist by definition advocate a "free-market." It's explicit in the definition of anarcho-capitalism. It's also explicit in the definition of a free market that it's one based on "voluntary" interaction. There is nothing POV about providing a quick definition of it that both sides agree on ..that it's "voluntary." If someone disagrees that what anarcho-capitalists advocate is accurately described by the moniker "free market" then that's another issue. I'd guess it would be a difficult claim to substantiate. RJII 03:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) If you really insist on being so pedantic as to define away the positions of those who disagree you will only find your foundations slipping away beneath you. If "free market" must be "voluntary" (something I agree with), then of course capitalism is not considered to be advocating of a free market to many people. Can you justify why this fact should not be reflected by the text? Kev 03:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have no problem with someone arguing that as a criticism in the text. But it would be a criticism of whether anarcho-capitalists advocacy of a free market is truly a advocacy of a what is defined as a free market, rather then whether a free market is a market of voluntary interaction. RJII 05:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Regardless of what it would be a criticism of, the text should not be left without a qualifier to indicate that the anarcho-capitalist claim is just that, a claim. Kev 05:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Well if you modify it to say that they "claim" to be in favor of a free market, then are you also willing to allow the traditional anarchism article to be modified to say that the anarchists "claim" to be in favor of "the elimination of hierarchy and imposed authority" and "claim" to be in favor of "voluntary cooperation"? RJII 05:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) You seem to be very confused RJ. Why do you think the very first sentence of the article begins with, "anarchism is a generic term describing...". Perhaps because people just like the phrase "generic term describing" and stuck it in at random? Because nobody thought to say, "anarchists are the folks who do X?" No... because by indicating the philosophy rather than the supporters, and explicitly refering to the title as generic, it rules out any particular group of people from -necessarily- claiming the title. In other words, it is descriptive of a phenomena, not proscriptive of a belief system. Wikipedia is not in the instance indicating what is, but rather what is described. And it is beyond argument to state that anarchism is at times used to describe social movements that advocate elimination of hierarchy, this is a fact regardless of whether or not the description is true. Your second example is equally lacking. I've already indicated to you that the sentence begins with the words, "These philosophies use anarchy to mean..." Now why do you suppose people decided on that wording instead of, say, "Anarchy means..." or, "These philosophies adhere to anarchism which means...". Because once again, and not purely by chance, wiki editors are being -very- careful to ensure that the voice of wikipedia does not bias the reader toward a particular interpretation of the text. Once again, it is a fact that these philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation. This does -not- necessitate that the society they advocate is based on voluntary cooperation, nor that anarchy does in fact mean a society based on voluntary cooperation. All it necessitates is that group X uses the word to mean Y, and again, we have in this case reached an undeniable fact. This is in marked distinction from a passage which reads, "Anarcho-capitalists promote individual property rights and free markets", which gives the distinct impression that there is a particular group of people called anarcho-capitalists who do in fact promote free markets. BOTH of the statements you indicated are already qualified in the way you have required, so I take that as a go ahead to qualify the anarcho-capitalism article in a like manner. Do you object? Kev 06:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Do what you want. I just want to point out in the article what a free market is, and that that definition of free market is what capitalists refer to when they say they advocate a free market. RJII 07:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) RJ's latest edit: (what they consider a free market is the generally accepted definition of one --a market where all economic decisions by individuals are voluntary) Are you -trying- to be antagonistic? Do you even realise who originally put in that tagline to explain free market? Why the heck is it required when you are already linking directly to the article from the text? Kev 04:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'm just trying to put in a quick definition of a "free market"...a defintion you already said you agreed with. It saves time for the reader; if he wants more explanation, he can click on the link. The fact that you dont want it there is highly suspect. I thought you were all about "NPOV." RJII 05:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Saves time for the reader my ass. You are trying to give the impression, using the voice of wikipedia, that the markets capitalists support are in fact voluntary. I played nice, I tried to discuss this before even editing it, I tried out several different edits to compromise, and you've done nothing but push this BS propaganda. I've had enough of that and will simply revert now if you continue. Kev 08:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's a true statement. I'm guessing the reason you don't want it there is you want to give the impression that anarcho-capitalists don't support a free market as defined ..one based on voluntary interaction. Let me guess, you're a leftist? Feel free to revert. I'll do the same. I see no reasons to delete a true statement. RJII 18:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) I happen to know Kevehs a little bit, and while I don't think he's the kind of guy to get into a revert war, he is ... persistent. Before casting the die, there is probably still room for a compromise here. Also being an anarcho-capitalist, I am inclinded to agree with... Kev. The parenthetical explanation of what a free market is is not required, and if it will only lead to acrimony and reverts, then it shouldn't be there. I know what a free market is; you know what a free market is; most people who read this know what a free market is, and those who don't can click it. RJII, there's no reason I can see that this link should get special treatment. For example, when we have a link to France, we don't usually add "(A country in Western Europe)," unless the explanation is specifically relevant to the surrounding text. I don't see a pressing relevance for the parenthetical explanation here. Long story short, there's no reason to have a war over that phrase, RJII. To many "leftists" (quotes used in lieu of having a better term, not to belittle or demean them), markets indeed do not necessarily mean voluntary exchange. Are they wrong? Perhaps. But that belongs in the appropriate market or free market article, not in one sentence in this article. One final comment, Kev, which may or may not be relevant to this argument - You say "the markets capitalists support" may not be voluntary, but does that apply to the term "free market" as well? What I mean is, are you saying free markets are bad, or that capitalists don't support free markets? --Golbez 22:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) What I'm saying is that there is more than one view of what a free market is, and that relying on a single dictionary definition to definitively declare that capitalists believe in voluntary exchange only serves to devalue the discussion by making basic disagreement (and an important distinction) impossible. Killing discussion in this manner doesn't serve anyone's interests, even the most die hard of anarcho-capitalists, it will just frustrate those unable to articlulate their critique. The individualist conception of a free market is different than that of the anarcho-capitalist, the fact that it is different is relevant given that they both share a claim to anarchist theory, and that fact should be reflected in the text (with a single qualifier, or with a short explanatory sentence, or with referance to an article that discusses this, or whatever else someone can think of). So short answer is that capitalists don't support a free market, but this isn't merely my POV, it is a standard POV of a well known and documented group of anarchists. Kev 01:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) First, the article is about anarcho-capitalism, not about socialist "anarchists" or self-proclaimed "individualist anarchists" (which seems to be a term for people who would be anarcho-capitalists if they understood economics, but are monetary cranks (like Tucker) since they don't) -- why do you want the article about anarcho-capitalists to talk about these other kinds of anarchists? It's a typical leftist tactic to redefine the commonly understood meanings of words to their opposites to make themselves sound sane -- witness the Communist countries calling themselves "democratic", and your argument over the use of the word "voluntary" -- everyone knows what "voluntary" means. Write about your POV on a page about your variety of anarchism. Write about anarcho-capitalism on this page. 218.101.86.241 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think what we need is an article on voluntary interaction --GiveBlood 11:39, March 3, 2005 Anarcho-capitalism is the same as free-market anarchism Someone is linking the Free-market anarchism article to "individualist anarchism" article when it should be linked here. Some on anarchism talk page are arguing that free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism aren't same thing, asserting that capitalism is anthethical to a free-market. RJII 18:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) The article should not be redirected to either page, but if it is going to be redirected to one of the two it should most definately be individualist anarchism as that movement pre-existed anarcho-capitalism and is accepted as legitimate by other anarchists. And again, it -does not matter- whether or not you agree with the argument that capitalism is antithetical to a free-market. All that matters is that such an argument exists and is not blatantly self-contradictory, and that this argument was given long before anarcho-capitalism even existed. NPOV requires that this fact be reflected in the text, and thus those who put that argument forward have far more legitimacy to claim the title free-market anarchists as they were the first to do so and very much defined what the term came to mean. Kev 18:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ok, who then? Who was the first to call himself a "free-market anarchist"? RJII 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Lets see, I've told you twice on the anarchism talk page, I gave you the exact book in which the collection of essays can be found, and I've refered you back to that evidence at least two more times since then. Heck, I even 'linked to an online version of it in case you were to lazy to find it yourself', and now you are asking me again? This is the third and last time... In the collection of essays 'Individual Liberty' Benjamin Tucker explicitly refers to what he advocates as a form of free-market anarchism, and explicitly rejects capitalism. Honestly, if you aren't even aware of Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, or the other individualists and their position in regards to the market, I think you should seriously reconsider your current crusade to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism. Kev 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't see them referring to "free-market anarchism." RJII 19:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) RJ, this is ridiculous. Are you aware that amongst most anarcho-communists the word anarcho-communist and anarchist are sometimes used interchangably? Are you aware that in doing so the libertarian socialists are conflating their own personal take on anarchism with anarchism as a whole? Do you think it would therefore be appropriate to refer to anarcho-communism as simply anarchism in wikipedia, and to redirect the page "anarchism" to anarcho-communism? No, of course not. Not only because there are other groups claiming the title, not only because anarcho-communists are not the only people advocating anarchism, but also because it would be a disingenuous attempt to redefine the terminology used by anarchists in such a way as to rule out even the very dialogue necessary to distinguish anarchism from anarcho-communism. Now... if this is inappropriate for anarcho-communism, why is it appropriate for anarcho-capitalism? Kev 19:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) RJII, Tucker and his circle repeatedly referred to themselves both as anarchists and as the most consistent proponents of the free market (or "Manchesterism"--meaning laissez-faire economics). This is interesting and a bit curious, in part, because they also referred to themselves as socialists and repeatedly condemned bosses, bankers, and landlords (among others). In any case: I don't know whether any of them ever used the phrase "free-market anarchists" but they certainly used the component phrases and thought all the terms involved were descriptive of them. This is also why, incidentally, I don't think that "free-market anarchism" should be redirected to the "anarcho-capitalism" page (or to the individualist-anarchism page either). "Free-market anarchism" is a broader category than "anarcho-capitalism;" you could give a good argument that all anarcho-capitalists are free-market anarchists, but Tucker et al. demonstrate pretty clearly that not all free-market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. (I've had some sharp disagreements with Kev here in the past over how to talk about the lines of influence, but it's pretty clear that describing Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker as an "anarcho-capitalist" is an anachronism, and gets at a genuine commonality between them and (say) Rothbard only at the risk of erasing or substantially distorting their important differences. Radgeek 04:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Recent Edits RJ, I think you might want to leave well enough alone. A couple of your recent changes altered parts of the article that were perfectly acceptable and made them questionable, this article has been through a lot in the past and I would prefer to avoid the kinds of conflict that took place previously. Of course, you already know that there is going to be objection from other anarchists (myself included) to labeling this philosophy free-market anarchism right in the first sentence. The article already makes clear that anarcho-capitalism is sometimes known as free-market anarchism, there is no justification in the wording "commonly known as", and again this is a contested referance that really doesn't need to be emphasized unless you are trying to cause trouble. Just because it has become popular on anti-state.com and a handful of other websites call anarcho-capitalism free-market anarchism does not mean this is a universal or even particularly wide-spread phenomena, the current indications in the text suit the situation just fine. As for this part of the sentence, is a view that regards initiatory coercion, regardless of what individual, group, or organization perpetrates it, . It is simply far too vague. Again, some view property claims themselves as an initiation of coercion, while others view property as neutral but property enforcement in cases of non-violent theft as initation of coercion. This would therefore require the qualifer, is a view that regards what anarcho-capitalists believe to be initiatory coercion, in order to remain NPOV. But that sounds stiff and over-qualified, so I'd rather avoid it if possible. What compelled you to make this change anyway, was there something wrong with the previous version? Kev 05:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) What was wrong with it is it wasn't decriptive enough. It didn't really encapsulate what anarcho-capitalism is, in my opinion. As far as "the article being through a lot in the past" I really couldn't care less. It's going to go through a lot more in the future. Of course I know that there are going to be objections and conflicts, and I welcome them. I'm not going to refrain from putting something there because I think somebody is going to be upset about it. I modify an article in order to make it more correct, according to my understanding of the concepts. Feel free to modify, or revert, or whatever rocks your boat. I'll be right there doing the same until I find it acceptable. It may cause complications for you, but that's just something you're going to have to work out isn't it? RJII 06:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Is this what you call discussion? I certainly hope not. I have raised substantive points and am requesting a response here. The attitude you are expressing now is exactly the kind of thing that starts revert wars. I don't want a revert war, and neither do most wiki regulars. Do you? Lets try and work this out through compromise before it comes to that. Kev 08:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ok. I think that "free-market anarchism" is a common enough term, second to "anarcho-capitalism," that is used to refer to the concept and that therefore it should be noted there. I don't see any harm in it; i think it makes the intro a little more informative. Personally, I had always heard the concept referred to as "free-market anarchism" ..much before I had heard the term "anarcho-capitalism." Again, in regard to the other changes of the intro sentences, I think they better describe the concept. It's not perfect and I'm not against me or anyone else refining it, but it's certainly not as "vague" as it was before. Does it really matter that one person thinks "coercion" refers to one thing and someone thinks it refers to something else? Coercion is what it is. I suppose we could literally spell-out what is meant by coercion if you'd prefer. RJII 17:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) Actually, RJII, folks I'm familiar with use simply "market anarchism", since an anarchic market must be, by definition, free. To say "free-market anarchism" is tautological. --Golbez 17:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) Given that NPOV is a primary goal of wikipedia, yes it very much does matter that some people will disagree that anarcho-capitalists oppose initiatory coercion. As for the harm in putting the term "free-market anarchism" in the first sentence, I've already been quite clear on that point. It is a contested term, it is already used to describe another group, and there is zero evidence that it is common. Of course it should be noted in the article that anarcho-capitalism is sometimes called free-market anarchism or market anarchism, but -it already is-. I would like to see an attempt made to literally spell out what you mean by coercion in that sentence, otherwise a qualifier will be required. Kev 18:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) OK. RJII 19:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) is a view that opposes the initiation of physical force Unless the reader agrees with the anarcho-capitalist contention that the self is somehow metaphysically bound to all property claimed by the self, then this sentence turns out to be false. Is it the initiation of force when one makes no contact with the owner at all to occupy a property long since left ignored? The answer is irrelevant other than to say that it is not universal. As such, it is simply not proper to claim that anarcho-capitalism opposes the initiation of physical force, because indeed it sometimes advocates the initation of physical force when its particular rights system has been violated. Such violation may or may not even involve force, much less physical force. Just a note.. that you're probably already aware of: It doesn't say they were against the use of physical force, but against the initiation of physical force. Initiating physical force is using physical force first. Physical force used in response to someone who initiates force in order to defend oneself from that force is acceptable. This is an essential distinction to understand libertarian philosophies. RJII 02:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'm aware of this distinction, but I appreciate the attempt to be precise. My problem with the sentence is that it turns out that anarcho-capitalists are only against the initiation of force if we previously accept the assumption that property roughly equates to the physical body, so that theft of property (even theft that includes no physical contact with the ownwer at all) or even simple trespass, is seen as initiation of force against the owner. Since this conception of a kind of meta-physical link between property and owner is not shared by all philosophies (indeed, it is not even shared by all advocates of anarcho-capitalism), it does not follow as fact that anarcho-capitalists only respond to force. For those who see no link, enforcement of property title will in some cases appear to be the initiation of force by the capitalist. As such, the sentence needs rewrite or qualification to be NPOV. Kev 05:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't think the conception of "metaphysical link" is necessary or even rational. Why is the body you inhabit "your" body? Because it is attached to your brain? If so, does a car in your neighbors yard become your property by physically attaching your body to it? I don't know of the various arguments of anarcho-capitalist theorists, but I don't think their ideas regarding property require anymore than practical arguments. For example, it's "your" body because it is being physically protected from the intrusion of others by any given method. Your "land" is not your land because you have some metaphysical moral right to it, but because it's being protected or controlled by you. And, a good reason to advocate that your body is protected is because it has good consequences for you if it is protected. The same argument for other types of objects besides the body. Anarcho-capitalists say that in order to maximize your liberty you should have the freedom to possess other properties besides your just your body and "personal possession." It's not a moral argument, but a rational or practical one. Maybe there are "moral" arguments for or against private property, but I'm not the one to talk to about that. RJII 02:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) I think I understand now. Your property is yours because you have the power to defend it in some fashion. In other words, you staked out a piece of land that you either found or became yours through some chain of process after which someone found and claimed it. You then told everyone around you that if they did anything to that land you didn't like you would use force against them to protect it. You initiated a threat of force against anyone who dissents from your absolute dominion justified by nothing other than the fact that you have the power to claim it. And you actually had the gall to rewrite the begining sentence to claim that anarcho-capitalists are against the initiation of force in threat, when here you are explaining to me that your philosophy is founded on it? Nevermind, I don't understand. Kev 05:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) First of all, I expect that you're using "you" in a rhetorical manner. I never said I was an anarcho-capitalist. Now then...By using someone else's property or land and refusing to stop, you are preventing the owner from having the use of that property that he would otherwise will. It's initiation of force for the same reason that it would be initiation of force if you began using someone's body and refused to stop, IF the case is that one's body and one's land belongs to them for the same reasons. And, the reason to claim that the body one inhabits (and the land he inhabits) is "his" amounts to "because I acquired these things without initiating force and using this as a criteria for determining what constitutes ownership is the best way to best insure my opportunity for maximum liberty , happiness, or wealth in the long run." A practical basis. Again, I'm sure someone has come up with moral arguments ..personally I'm wary of metaphysics. RJII 06:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Strange that you are so quick to abandon moral argument. If this is all about practicality then you would have a hard time claiming that anarcho-capitalists oppose initiation of force, because in fact they would only oppose such initiation when it is impractical, and it would be exceedingly unlikely that it would -never- be pratical for anyone to ever initiate force, even if that did turn out to be a good general principle. In that case, the sentence claiming that anarcho-capitalists oppose the initiation of force would be misleading to the point of deception. But all of that is beside the point. The position would be that they believe it is practical to prevent initiation of force. RJII 08:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) ATM you have me very confused. Above, you told me that, "your land is your land because it is being controlled and protected by you." Now you are telling me that something is mine if, "I acquired these things without initiating force." But you are of course changing your definition. Now it is, "this land is your land because it is being controlled and protected by you AND you acquired it without initiating force." Which does us no good at all, because it brings us straight back to the previous objection. Namely, how are you determining who initiates force, and does it not require agreement with the anarcho-capitalist conception that property damage somehow equates to bodily damage in order to claim that someone who damages property that I claim is aggressing against me. If agreement is required here than it is and NPOV violation to claim without qualification that anarcho-capitalists oppose the initiation of force, because a whole ton of people would disagree with this claim. If agreement is not required, you have yet to explain why it is not. Claiming that no such agreement is necessary because we only own the property we can protect doesn't work, cause it turns out that our ability to control and protect property is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to its ownership. At least according to you. Kev 07:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) The ownership of land would be the result of controlling that land, yes. But the rational justification for controlling/owning that land is not only that "I acquired these things without initiating force." I think you need to read the last paragraph a little closer. It said that "because I acquired these things without initiating force and using this as a criteria for determining what constitutes ownership is the best way to best insure my opportunity for maximum liberty , happiness, or wealth in the long run." It's saying that "it works best for me if what is regarded as my property is regarded such by virtue of me having acquired or recieved it without initiating force." It's just someone saying "it benefits me (or you and me) if we agree that X is going to be the criteria to label something as property." It becomes property not for metaphysical or moral reason, but simply by labeling it so and protecting it as such ..the same for land as for the human body. As for the rest of your message, I don't really understand what you mean .."How are you determine who initiates force?" By observing the person using my property against my protestations otherwise I suppose. The same reasons that you might claim that someone is not initiating force against "your" land by using it without your consent can also be used to claim that someone isn't initiating force if he uses "your" body. What makes the body yours? What makes the land yours? These are ultimately the result of control. There is no message from the sky telling us that "the body you inhabit is your property." It is your property because you and others agree to agree that it is and decide to treat it as such by protecting it from the intrusion of others. The same for land, etc. An anarcho-capitalist practical justification for regarding and treating some objects this way is that treating and regarding objects that were acquired or received without initiating force on what is already owned by someone else...body or other THIS WAY, leads to preferrable consequences. If using someone's body is initiating force then using someone's land is as well if what makes something someones body is the same thing that makes something someone's land. And, what makes something someone's land or body is arbitrary ...it's just agreed to and protected as such. RJII 08:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Assumptions abound. Again, as you did on the anarchism talk page, you seem to assume that all anarchists hold the conception of body as self-owned. I do not, nor do I see it as a rational concept, and most the anarchists I associate with would reject it out of hand. Depending on which of the many jusitifications one holds for this view is at best meaningless in its redundancy, often circular, and at worst self-contraditory. I don't see my body as "mine", but as "me". I am not removed from my body such that I can, should, or need to claim ownership of it like I do that which is external to me. In fact, if it turns out that I do own my body, then this relationship is by necessity different than all other property relationships, given that my relationship to my body is essentially more intimate, and one or the other relationship is probably mislabeled. Anyway, all of this is really ignoring the basic problems presented here. Again, you are offering up anarcho-capitalist reasoning for justifying the initiation of aggression and instead calling it "property defense". Nothing wrong with that, perfectly reasonable to have your own POV or express the anarcho-capitalist POV of this situation in explaining why someone simply standing on a piece of land is not being aggressed against when they are shot, it just needs to be indicated as a POV, because that is what it is. Further, you've entirely avoided the problem I stated, namely that your property entitlement boils down, essentially, to nothing more than having arrived on a piece of property first and then gone about "controlling and protecting it." In other words, having come upon something unused, claimed it as ones own, and actively restricted others from using it. To many this would appear to be the very definition of aggressive threat of force, and once again we are left with the undeniable conclusion that anarcho-capitalist "opposition to initiation of force" only extents as far as anarcho-capitalist assumptions about what makes something aggression. Again, this would necessitate that wikipedia not inform the reader that anarcho-capitalists oppose the initiation of force, but rather that they oppose what they take to be the initiation of force. Anyway, the current text is fixed, as it indicates that this opposition is typical rather than absolute, and you were able to specify that the opposition only extends are far as the anarcho-capitalist conception of property, and quotes have been placed around "initiation". So this discussion need not continue for wikipedia reasons and would have to continue elsewhere if you have other interest in it. Kev 16:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) If something is unowned, there is no way that appropriating it to oneself can be initation of force against or upon the property of another --a logical impossibility. Once someone comes upon an unowned property and claims it, and protects it, it becomes owned by him. From that point on, anarcho-capitalist principles engage by recommending what means of transferring this property to anyone else should be regarded as a proper or rational means to do so. The means determined and agreed upon by anarcho-capitalists to be the best means that should be allowed, while all other means prohibited, is through voluntary trade or gift. The opposite of voluntary is coerced. What is coerced? that which is not voluntary. What is voluntary? that which is not coerced. But what is exactly is "coerced"? The state of a person being deprived from having willful use of his property including his body by another person. What would could cause such a thing? Coercion. Coercion? What is coercion? It is whatever causes this. Like? Initiation of physical force, threat of such, or fraud upon all that we agree to be the property of a person and choose to protect it as such. What if I don't agree to regard those things as property that should be protected from intrusion? I have no problem with that, since I am against the use of initation of force to get you to agree. And, I'll simply take what you have since you don't agree that it's property and given that, I won't be initiating force against it since you don't own it. Thanks. RJII 21:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) You seem to want to get off on tangents here RJ. Your straw-man arguments concerning those who disagree with this particular set of property rules and regulations are irrelevant. What is relevant is that you continue to insist that the anarcho-capitalist perspective of these issues is THE PERSPECTIVE, i.e. the truth, the undeniable truth, and nothing but the truth. What is rather hilarious is that in the process of justifying this convoluted system of supporting property dominion I notice that you have to import a completely artificial meaning for the word coercion. Notice that it isn't: (from www.m-w.com) 1) to restrain or dominate by force because if that was the meaning you used then it would turn out that "property defense" is possibly a form of coercion by many standards. Nor is it, 2) to compel to an act or choice because again, it would turn out that at times "contract enforcement" could be a form of coercion in some interpretations. Nor is it even, 3) to bring about by force or threat because that just screams "property defense". No, it isn't a broad spectrum of meanings you are considering here, it isn't even one particular dictionary definition selected with the express purpose of supporting your arguments (like you use for anarchism), it is an entirely artificial definition of your own creation that goes something like this, "The state of a person being deprived from having willful use of his property including his body by another person." Now if that isn't an example of stacking the deck in favor of capitalist rhetoric at the very start, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, you have just defined away any possible point you have made. True, you can justify your logic with this kind of tactic. But then again, if you change the meaning of words to suit your political agenda, you can justify anything. Wanna see me prove some fun things using this kind of logic? Whadda ya know, authoritarian fascists advocate only voluntary relations. And it just so happens that when I say "coercion" I mean, "any instance in which someone is forced to do something against their will, unless it happens to be the command of their supreme dictator." Gee, that was fun. Kev 06:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) And, you ask "is it the initiation of force when one makes no contact with the owner at all to occupy a property long since ignored?" If a person's body is just as much that person's property as that person's land (i assume you mean) then compare it to resting your arm on someone's shoulder and he's asked you to stop but you don't. You would be using physical force that prevented him from having the willful use of his shoulder. He would rather not have any of your weight on it. Now think about the same for land . If someone is camping out on your land, and you'd rather look at the pretty grass on it that the tent is covering, and he refuses to leave when you ask, then he's initiating physical force that prevents you from using your land as you wish ..the use being prevented could be something as simple as the utility gained from the pleasure of viewing your grass. Now, it may be the case, by some stretch of the imagination, that merely standing on someone's property and refusing to leave is not initiation of force, but I don't think it matters as far as the definition is concerned. Anarcho-capitalists are against the initiation of force whatever that may be. If standing on their property is not initiation of force, and they are against allowing that too, then you can go on to say that they also oppose ..blah blah. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there are anarcho-capitalists who would say that "squatting" on "unused" land is not initiation of force and not a violation of anarcho-capitalist principles. RJII 03:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree, all the more reason that it is necessary to include a qualifier indicating that they are against what they consider to be initation of force. Kev 05:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't know how you could come to that conclusion given what I said. I think you're being a stickler to the point of absurdity. Are you also willing to contest the statements in the anarchism article that they favor "voluntary" cooperation and say "what they regard as voluntary"? And for "imposed authority" change it to something like "what they regard as "imposed authority"? I think you're going to far. RJII 05:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Unless you are pointing to something new, I already addressed this above. The statements you refered to then are ALREADY QUALIFIED, which makes it all the more important that similar statements in this article be similarly qualified. The only instance in which qualification would not be necessary would be in the case that there is no specific group of people being refered to. For example, when the anarchism article explicitly states that it is a generic term -describing- various philosophies and movements, it is indicating a concept rather than proscribing a viewpoint. Do you fail to see the distinction between the first and second? Kev 06:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) No, the statements are not qualified. Saying it's a "generic term" has no relevance to the matter. You clearly are trying your best to rationalize your double standard and POV. RJII 07:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) So why do you think people put in the wording "generic term," because it looked pretty? And later in THAT VERY SAME SENTENCE were it says "social movements that advocate", why do you suppose it says this rather than "anarchism opposes...". I'm not rationalizing anything here RJ, you are clearly blind to what NPOV means. Kev 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) As for the recent import of this, (defined as a system of trade occuring in a free market) I continue to object to it for the reasons listed above and have yet to see a compelling argument for its retention given its problematic nature. Same goes for the bolded referance to free-market anarchism in the first sentence. As this discussion has not moved forward for several replies despite my continued request, I will now simply remove both pending some better idea. I will await reply on the physical force stuff. Kev 01:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) There are a few definitions of capitalism apparently. Some marxist-oriented people have another definition (such as "private ownership of the means of production") that never refers to a free market. The definition of capitalism that anarcho-capitalists refer to is a system of trade occuring in a free market. You'll almost never hear that definition from a marxist. It's important to make it clear that this definition (as one can find in merriam-webster for example) is the definition they are using. It's essential. When a socialist anarchist and an anarcho-capitalist talk about capitalism they're usually talking about two different concepts, unfortunately. RJII 02:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) If this is your only concern then you need only say "capitalism (in the economic sense)", because the link already given directly to the capitalism article articulates what capitalism means in the economic sense far better than one could in a single sentence in this article and makes clear the distinction you find so important. This would have the added advantage of avoiding the NPOV violation that occurs when using wikipedia's voice to state that the relations anarcho-capitalists advocate are, in fact, voluntary. Kev 05:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I insist that somehow that there is a distinction between the archaic marxist and the modern definition of "capitalism" that refers to a "free market," as it is the source of a huge amount of misunderstanding and lack of understanding. RJII 05:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Um... that is exactly what I was suggesting. The link that is (I'm getting tired of repeating this) -already present- includes a section on the economic meaning of capitalism which would make exactly the distinction you are trying to indicate. Thus, having already provided the link, all that needs to be said is that we are refering to the economic meaning, and we can avoid the NPOV violation that voluntary represents. Is there something you are not understanding here? Kev 06:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't think "economic definition of capitalism" always refers to the free market definition. What is the harm of explicitly saying it refers to the free market definition? Are you trying to keep people in the dark by hoping they don't click on the link? If it makes it easier for the reader and more readily comprehended without having to go around clicking links then it makes good sense to state it ..it just takes up 3 or 4 words of space. Many marxist-types are not even aware that there is a definition of capitalism that is about a "free market." These individuals are not likely to click on the link to see what the definition is. They are just going to remain in the dark. Believe me, it's necessary to be explicit. When they see that some kind of differentiation is being made in the article, THEN they'll be more likely to click on the capitalism article. It's not a "NPOV violation" ..it just doesn't accord with your POV, apparently. RJII 06:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have told you what the "harm" in refering to anarcho-capitalism as a free market based on voluntary relations is. That you continue to ignore my responses does not speak well to your sincerity. RJ, I don't think you understand wikipedia NPOV policy. I don't know how to tell you this because I already have and it hasn't gotten through to you yet. Stating things that are anarcho-capitalist POV as fact in the article is a violation of NPOV. All the language is to be neutral to POV, meaning that you can explicate what capitalists believe all you want as long as it is made -explicit- that this is what they believe, not fact. If you can't figure this out, we won't get anywhere in our discussions. Kev 16:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) "capitalism has never existed in the absence of the state this is questionable)"? Many don't think capitalism has ever existed even with a state present. Most libertarians that favor the existence of government certainly don't think capitalism has existed yet. Capitalism is an ideal, just like a "free market" is an ideal. You have either the ideal which is an absolutely free market, or a real world approximation which is a relatively free market. Same for capitalism. Some people call some present systems capitalism because they think they are relatively close enough approximations to the ideal to reasonably be called capitalism; others think they're not close enough to be called capitalism --they'll tell you they're "mixed economies". The anarcho-capitalist doesn't want to compromise ..he wants the ideal of capitalism ..the ideal of an absolutely free market. RJII 06:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) "what they see as the initiation ". I'll leave that in ..it's so obviously written by someone with a POV that it's laughable. It speaks for itself. RJII 06:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yes, it was written by someone with a POV. Everything you write on wiki is also written by a person with a POV. Everything written by everyone on wiki is written by someone with a POV. The difference is that the language I'm using does not -endorse any particular POV- whereas the language you are using explicitly endorses the POV you are expresssing. Kev 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) No it doesn't. It's just honesty. RJII 16:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) So you are saying that it is undeniable truth that anarcho-capitalists would not, from any perspective, endorse the initiation of force? And those who disagree, what of them, retards? You are quickly entering into the area in which I simply ignore people RJ. Kev 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) The issue is, is Capitalism considered to be intrinsically anti-state. The answer is no. So any claim that anti-statist Capitalistm is "pure" Capitalism is questionable.--Che y Marijuana 14:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) The definition of capitalism makes no mention of a state. It does mention a "free market." If a market is absolutely free, then obviously there can't be taxation intervening in the transactions. And a government, to be a government, necessarily funds itself through taxation. If it funded itself through trade, it would no longer be a government, but a business in this respect. So a capitalism, as a free market in the ideal sense, can't have taxation which necessarily means that a government can't exist. RJII 16:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Kev and (I'm guessing) Che, on the matter of "can capitalism exist without a state", replace socialism with capitalism and you'll start to understand how annoying that battle gets. Capitalism was a word invented to disparage capitalism. It's not our fault. We lack a better word, apart from "free market" and y'all are preventing use of that, too. This is all very frustrating. --Golbez 17:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) Annoying or not, the battle is necessary. On the question of whether or not socialism can exist without a state traditional anarchists answer definitively yes. That doesn't mean it is true, it means that we believe it is true. This is also the case on whether or not capitalism exists in its "pure form" in the absence of a state. MANY economists and capitalist theorists believe that the state is integral to capitalist functioning, that capitalism simply can't exist without the state, it is therefore POV to state definitively that this is not the case, or to use language which requires it not to be the case. Kev 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) Alea iacta est. I'm going to rewrite this article. I tried actually READING it, rather than keeping along with all the edits - and it's virtually unreadable. I didn't get out of the first paragraph before I found runon sentences and such. The lead is also much too long. I'll see what I can do. --Golbez 19:09, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) Good. I will hold off on my edits of RJs recent changes for a bit in hopes you can altogether avoid such problems and hopefully mold a better article. Kev 20:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) I took the information in the lede and split it out into a few sections; please see Anarcho-capitalism/temp for the current draft. It is only a replacement for the lead section. How does this look, though? "Philosophical roots" and the rest can easily go below these head paragraphs. RJII, Kev, you two are the ones I primarily want to hear from on this, but anyone is welcome. My main problem was with the lead of the article; it was MUCH too large, and very difficult to read, IMO. The rest of the article, I haven't tried reading yet. So for now, the rest of the article could simply be grafted on to what I've started here with little problem. What do you think? I probably overloaded philosophy and underloaded economics, but hey, first draft. :) --Golbez 23:05, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) New Intro Wording Much applause for anon 217.116.160.7 for fixing what myself and several other editors seemed unable to. Kev 16:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Does this make my temp article unnecessary? --Golbez 17:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) I think your reasons for overhauling the article are still good, there are still many run-on sentences, incoherent paragraphs produced by too many insertions, and grammar mistakes. I've been wanting to fix it for some time but was hoping an anarcho-capitalist would show up to do it for me to save and editing conflict trouble. The intro paragraph still need some work I think, but that first sentence is now fine. I'm still waiting to see how it turns out. Kev 19:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) "combines...with a form of anarchism"? It *is* a form of anarchism. RJII 01:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Many anarchists disagree, but nonetheless, it is listed on anarchism. This seemed the least offensive way to state it. You never said you were an ancap, implying that you aren't, but I am, and having discussed this topic at great length with Kevehs and other anarchist socialists in other forums, I have no problem with stating it as such. --Golbez 01:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) I never said i wasn't an anarcho-capitalist either. RJII 01:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Then there's no reason to be coy about it, what are you? --Golbez 01:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) It's a personal policy of mine not to tell. RJII 02:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Reorganisation This article is obviously too long and needs to be broken up into separate articles. I think it would be wise (and perhaps less controversial) to move all criticisms to a separate page, perhaps one entitled "Differences among Various Types of Anarchism." "History of Anarcho-Capitalist Thought" is probably necessary as a separate page, as well. In the meantime, I will simply limit my changes to rewriting the article's dense text. Wild Pegasus 21:10, 10 Feb 2005 (GMT) Intro "a philosophy that opposes any action that prevents anyone from having the willful use of their private property, including their body and land, unless such is used in defense against another who has initiated such an action." I think this is good because it avoids the use of the word "force" and "coercion" that people so enjoy disputing. What it says is that they favor a society where everyone interacts on a voluntary basis. "Coercion" and "initiation of force" is just what prevents people from acting or refraining from acting voluntarily, which don't even need to be mentioned. RJII 04:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's a bit unwieldly, and it seems specific; your destroying my car doesn't mean my use of the car has been altered, maybe I never planned to drive it or even look at it. But we still consider it wrong. And us ancaps enjoy the term "initiation of force" much; if you are one, then perhaps we should see if our friend Kevehs has any objection? --Golbez 04:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Not really much point in voicing any objection I have atm. RJ knows quite well that I opposed putting free market in the first sentence, much less refering to it as common, in addition to the whole "opposes initiation of force" bit. There was a perfectly good edit avoiding these problems but still accurately describing the philosophy by some anon that he almost instantly removed for reasons that baffle me and with no explaination, apparently thinking that opposition to his edits don't matter and this is all survival of the spamiest or some such. So atm I'm just going to wait. If his edits get changed quickly I will be happy, if they don't I will either change them all myself, or I will simply tag the whole article with a single header explicitly stating that this is not meant to be an NPOV article (as some articles are tagged), and leave the entire thing alone to be worded however RJ or anyone else likes. The only alternative I can see is an NPOV dispute header, but those are nasty and I'd rather not. Kev 07:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Which edit was it that you liked that he changed, specifically? (much easier to find mine than his :) --Golbez 07:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Kinda hard to be specific with so many changes going on so quickly. But basically the anon had a good first sentence, then it got altered a bit by RJ, then you came in and put in a first sentence I didn't like as much but was still basically acceptable, then through a process of back and forth RJ ends up putting in stuff like "commonly called free-market", "opposes all initiation of physical force" (this started with initiation in quotes but that got removed as well), and the unqualified voluntary as well as the laughable "pure" capitalism. I mean really, its fine to call it "pure" on a forum, but in an encyclopedia? The crazy thing is that all of this had been dealt with by one person or another. The free-market bit got moved to the end of the paragraph and balanced with the anti-state capitalism term, a great edit by you. The "opposes initiation of force" was given the more precise "typically anarcho-capitalists oppose the "initiation" of force" by the anon. And I changed the "pure" hyper-bias to a wikified capitalism term along with a (in the economic sense) distinction that completely covered his supposed problem with the term being conflated with another meaning. But through this latest series of back-and-forth edits the entire thing has been driven slowly backwards to the point it was at when RJ first put in his objectionable edits, which itself was a step back from the relatively stable state it was in before that. Ugh. Kev 08:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Good point. RJII 04:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Also, it implies there are actions that aren't forceful that could put such limits; for example, if I own all the oil in the world and don't give you any, that means you can't drive your car - but that is not taboo under anarcho-capitalism (just mindblowingly unlikely). And what about rules of the road? Let's say I own a road and have limits on what you may do while driving on it. I'm preventing you from having the willful use of your private property, aren't I? --Golbez 04:41, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) You're definitely right. It's not inclusive enough. RJII 04:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) What do you mean "fraud is not universally opposed"? All anarcho-capitalists favor a free-market. Fraud is definitely not consistent with a free market. RJII 05:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure "is a philosophy that espouses laissez-faire economics" is good idea to say. I think Laissez-faire implies that there is a government in existence but that it keeps it's hand out of the economy, whereas an anarcho-capitalists doesn't believe a government should exist at all. RJII 06:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Some consider fraud to simply fall under caveat emptor; since it doesn't involve initiation of force and is essentially a passive event (you can't commit fraud on someone, they have to enter into the transaction), not all ancaps believe it falls into the same crime bracket as theft and injury. And 'lasseiz-faire' seems to be the best term, can you think of a better one to describe the economic system? --Golbez 06:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Right ...it's easy to disagree that fraud is initiation of physical force, which is why it's always stated as an adjunct. Anarcho-capitalists believe in a "free market" and a free market, by definition, is one where all transfers of money, goods, and services are voluntary. Consider this example: Someone offers a box for sale on the streets of Manhattan which is labeled as containing a Sony VCR. You pay him for it. You take it home, open it, and much to your dismay the box contains a brick. (this actually happened to a friend of mine) This is not a voluntary transaction because you volunteered to pay to receive a VCR, not a brick. So, this can't be consistent with a free market. "Caveat emptor" doesn't apply to misinformation (lying) but a lack of information. If he actually sold you a VCR but conveniently didn't mention that it's of shoody workmanship and would probably malfunction a few hours after use, that would be a case of caveat emptor, but not outright lying to usurp the wealth of someone else. That's called fraud, or as it is called in criminal law (theft by deception). Theft in any form is not consistent with a free market. RJII 06:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Actually, you did lack information - you lacked information on what was in the box, you lacked information on the vendor's reputation, you lacked information on what a properly packaged Sony VCR looked like, etc. Again, I'm just saying, not all see fraud as a crime on the same level as the other activities. Most do; some don't. --Golbez 06:27, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Of course he lacked information. But misinformation was given. He was told that it was a VCR when it was a brick. A lack of information isn't the same thing as misinformation...being lied to. A policy of "caveat emptor" is not a license to commit fraud (to lie to take someone's money), but a license to refrain from revealing all information that you're aware of. RJII 06:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree, and will not challenge the change; I could well be wrong on this front. If someone who knows better comes along, they can edit it. However, we will be expected to defend fraud being included, but that should be done later in the article, and probably already is. --Golbez 06:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) I know you're trying to go for "brevity" but that's a relative term. I think the version I support is brief. I think the version you prefer is so brief that the reader doesn't really get a good understanding of what it is. You shouldn't have to read that whole protracted article to get a decent grasp on what it is. RJII 06:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) Maybe it should be less protracted, then. :P I don't think my version SAYS less than yours; it just says it in fewer, shorter words. --Golbez 06:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Austrians I've edited the first few sentences of the section on anarcho-capitalist economic thought. The whole section needs some rewriting to avoid clunkiness and fragmentariness, but I wanted to get one specific bit off the ground before anything else: Many anarcho-capitalists identify most with the Austrian School of economics, developed primarily by Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I know that the Von Mises Institute crowd has been trying to talk up Hoppe's reputation for the past couple years or so, but this is not only wrong, but weird. Hoppe has contributed to contemporary Austrian economics, but he's not a founding figure in it. (He's arguably not even the most important contemporary figure in it--what about Israel Kirzner? Mario Rizzo?) Why even mention Hans-Hermann Hoppe's contributions to Austrian economics while not mentioning those of Murray Rothbard? And why mention either of the two without mentioning Hayek? I've edited this introductory line accordingly: Anarcho-capitalist economic thought often draws heavily from the Austrian School of economics, as developed by Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, F.A. von Hayek, and especially Ludwig von Mises. (Some prominent anarcho-capitalists--such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe--have made substantial contributions to Austrian economics in their own right.) Feel free to change this around as you like, but I think a division of the historical figures more like the one made here is pretty important to conveying an accurate picture. I didn't say he was a founder; I said he helped develop it. I picked a name I knew; you're more than welcome to edit it, as you have, and I thank you. --Golbez 05:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) Philosophy I'm having a hard time with this: "They have no issue with consensual government, the government people place over their own property or the rules followed when entering someone else's establishment." An anarchist is against people being governed, period, but favor voluntary interaction. So how could they have no issue with the existence of an institution that governs (a government)? I don't construe defending how you wish to use your own property as governing anyone or constituting a "government." But, if someone is intiating force or threat of such, then *he* is the one attempting to govern *you*. I'd like to delete that line unless someone can reasonably defend it. RJII 04:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) A highly selective view of government is being used here to claim that anarcho-capitalists reject all government. Judiciary is often considered to be fundamentally governmental, and most anarcho-capitalists support the use of judges backed by PDAs, for all intents and purposes judges backed by police. Furthermore, I've never heard of an anarcho-capitalist reject governing institutions within property, for example corporate rules and regulations again enforced by a PDA. I suppose you could just claim that this is not government because it isn't aggression, but then you'd have to be using a very peculiar definition of both aggression and government. Kev 04:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) And along the same vein as self-ownership, we also have the notion of self-governance. "Government" is neutral; it simply means to exercise authority. If that authority is over your body or property, then no problem. "State" is when it becomes coercive. As I enjoy saying, anyone who seeks to limit your rights - from a mass murderer to a petty thief - is a de-facto state. --Golbez 05:53, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) Ok. RJII 06:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) On second thought, calling throwing someone out of your house that you don't want to be there doesn't constitute a "government" in any normal sense of the word. I think that's a bizarre stretch. RJII 17:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Kev, it seems to me the real issue is that when you don't really reject hierarchy, you don't really reject government. "Anarcho"-Capitalists have much more in common with the Minarchists than they'd like to admit.--Che y Marijuana 12:46, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) I agree, but atm I'm trying to come at it from the anarcho-capitalist POV. It is a fact that many anarcho-capitalists don't reject all governing institutions, and that they view government itself as not necessary the same as "the state". This apparently disturbs RJ, so he is going out of his way to eradicate any language that might indicate as much. Kev 17:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Kev, "government" is an ambiguous term--it can refer to the specific organizations of people that carry on the business of the State, or it can refer to "governance," i.e. the making of decisions for a group or organization--and the sense in which you seem to be using it here (so as to include everything from arbitration to bylaws and binding resolutions for an organization) seems to be the latter one. But the latter sense is a sense of "government" that nobody objects to except perhaps primitivists and the most hardcore anti-organization anarchists. Certainly socialist anarchist syndicates and federations haven't had any trouble in the past adopting binding resolutions and rules, and methods for coming to these decisions (majority vote, consensus, etc.). So in a sense they don't reject "all governing institutions." But clearly they are not buying into government in the sense of connecting any of these with a territorial State (which is a necessary condition of being part of "the government" in the sense we normally use in political contexts). And neither do anarcho-capitalists. Radgeek 07:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) First, many anarchists do accept certain governing institutions and call them such. While this is certainly not universal, it is fairly common to see anarchists espousing something similar to, "we reject rulers, not rules, we reject state, not governance". Second, there is a stark difference between binding rules in a community that everyone has input on and having a third-party judge use a PDA hired by someone else to throw you into a prison. I'm always baffled that many anarcho-capitalists can blithely refer to such institutions and then turn around and claim not to believe in the state. But regardless of whether or not the claim to reject the state is valid when accepting things like prisons and indentured servitude, I don't see any merit in the claim of rejecting government. Regardless, I'm not saying that all anarcho-capitalists feel this way, I'm just indicating that even claiming to reject government is not universal amongst them. Kev 10:15, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Of course we have much in common with minarchists. They want a monopoly state of minimal authority, we want competing legal systems of minimal authority. In reality, the only difference between the two of us is whether or not a legal system has the right to force out competitors: we say yes, they say no. Whoops, that was me. Wild Pegasus 11:46 pm EST, 12 Feb. 05 The neutrality of this article is disputed. Haha. Whatever. And the justification you give in your comment is that "RJII has had his way with this article too long." Real objective aren't you? RJII 18:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) My justifications for the tag are listed on this very discussion page, and your attitude towards the process only furthers supports it. Kev 01:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) That's ok. I think the colorful tag makes the article prettier. RJII 02:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Good =) Because at this rate it'll be there for awhile. Kev 02:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Factual accuracy disputes There are several factual inaccuracies in this article along with the many NPOV violations. However, at this time there seem to be less than 5, so according to policy I have tagged individual passages rather than the article at large. Thus, the [dubious – discuss] tag has been added to a few sections, the reasons for which follow: No evidence has been given for the attribution of the term market anarchism as common, furthermore the term already describes another group that is given no mention here. What sort of evidence would accept? I notice that there are 9,720 hits for "market anarchism" on google. Of the first 20, 18 are referring to anarcho-capitalism. The other two of are actually linking to the same article, which, unless I'm misunderstanding it, seems to be based around some new, idiosyncratic idea of "market anarchism". None of the first 20 appear to be referring to the individualist-anarchists specifically (although the first hit, Roderick Long's page, is big on them, too). I don't how meaningful you consider this sort of evidence to be, though. - Nat Krause 19:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) I would consider a significant movement calling itself market anarchism to be evidence for the use of the term "common". Kev 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) The claim that it is a logical impossibility to initiate force against another if the property at issue is unowned is both factually inaccurate according to the definitions of the relevant words, again given no evidence, and probably a NPOV violation to boot It doesn't say "initiate force against another if the property..." It says "initiate force against the property of another." In other words, you're not initiating force against something that somebody owns if the thing you're initiating force against is not owned by anybody. It's a logical impossibility. RJII 17:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sure, and if that was all that was being claimed the statement would be fine, but it is also saying that this conforms to the anarcho-capitalist opposition to the initiation of force against the property of another, and earlier we have already detailed that initiation of force against property of another is to an anarcho-capitalist tantamount to initiation of force against that person themselves. In other words, the text is reading that having someone claim that a given thing is their property cannot be interpreted as aggression if that thing was previously unowned, and that it would be a logical impossibility for the creation of property from the unowned to be aggression. A very minor change in the wording would fix this, but as long as you continue to ignore objections on your editing spree there isn't much point, thus the tag. Kev 18:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) How can you say I'm ignoring objections? I'm responding to your objection right here. As far as they key tag, as I said, I like how the color looks in the article so I have no problem with it. It also gives the article a sense of radicalism which I think is attractive so I'd like to see it stay. Aside from that, the sentence doesn't mention "aggression." But, go out in the middle of a previously undiscovered jungle and wage a campaign of agression against a banana tree. *If* no one owns it, then you're not using aggression against something that's owned by anyone. Again, the sentence mentions initiation of force, not aggression. Maybe you'd rather it said "physical force" instead of just "force"? Let's try that. RJII 19:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) I can say you are ignoring objections because you roll back the edits on a regular basis. Other than that my previous comments stand as there is nothing new you have added here. Kev 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Whatever, dude. RJII 02:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) The either/or statement in the criticism section concerning coercive and natural monopolies leaves out an important argument that rejects such a dichotomy based on the possibility that the distinction between natural and coercive monopolies is faulty. However, all attempts to insert this as another possible position have been removed from the article, leaving the statement false. Kev 03:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Any difference between Market Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism? Some people object to the article saying that anarcho-capitalism is also commonly called "market anarchism." If they delete that reference, they should be able to point out the difference. What is the difference? RJII 15:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) The differences between Individualist Anarchism and "Anarcho"-Capitalism have already been discussed intensively. Wage labour, rent, property, corporate organization of society, are some of the forms of coercion and hierarchy Market Anarchism opposes, that "Anarcho"-Capitalism fully embraces.--Che y Marijuana 15:23, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) That's not true. Market anarchism believes in private property. And it says that wages, rent, interest rates, etc. should be determined by the market. Also, it does not oppose the existence of business and the opportunity to profit. RJII 15:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) There's a difference between business and corporation. And individualists consider ownership to be coercive.--Che y Marijuana 16:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) From the article: "All anarcho-capitalists criticize government-enforced privileges for corporations in the form of limitations on liability." So how is that different from market anarchism? RJII 17:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Maybe "individualists" by your definition do, but it seems to me that you're trying to take over ownership of the word "individualist" for yourself and others of your ideological persuasion, just like you'd like to own "anarchist", but with even less justification. (And it's pretty darned ironic that people whose stated ideology considers the very concept of "ownership" to be abhorrent would try to do such a thing!) Libertarians of the classical-liberal tradition certainly do regard themselves (ourselves) as individualists. I would expect that the word "individualist", by its very nature, would be a hard one to pin down to a very rigidly specific ideological framework... after all, individualists are individuals, with widely divergent ideologies and agreeing only on their right to hold one another's beliefs without coercing one another. Dtobias 17:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Right. "Individualist anarchism" and "market anarchism" aren't two terms for the same thing. Market anarchists, are a kind of individualist philosophy, just like the socialist anarchisms are individualists. But that doesn't make "market anarchism" mean the same thing as socialist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is also an individualist philosophy. And as far as I can tell, it's exactly the same thing as "market anarchism." RJII 17:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This whole, "ownership of the word" argument is tired and lame. Its been used over and over by anarcho-capitalists, who are actively trying to change the meaning of several words, in order to justify their own position. It is an entirely meaningless argument, impossible to prove wrong but universally applicable to almost any and all positions given that all people restrict words in some way in order to provide them meaning. It could just as easily be applied to your attempts to include anarcho-capitalism in the ideology of anarchism (who are -you- to say that anarchism is not against hierarchy, do you own the word?) Don't you get tired of repeating, "this is ironic" over and over again just to have your BS argument answered yet one more time? Please, for the sake of whatever integrity you have Dtobias, let that one rest. As to Libertarians regarding themselves as individualists, that is entirely irrelevant. Many Libertarian Socialists consider themselves individualists, many statists consider themselves individualists. We are not talking about individualists, we are talking about the anarcho-individualists, individualists anarchism, a distinct and identifiable movement that not only rejected capitalism explicitly (therefore ruling out this weaseling "what is the difference between anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism junk), but deserves better than to have people revise its meaning to suit their political leanings of today. Especially when those leanings run counter to those of the anarcho-individualists. RJ, you are absolutely correct that individualist anarchism is not synonymous with market anarchism, but you are being purposefully obtuse in trying to equate market anarchism with anarcho-capitalism when the individualists themselves supported a market, were in fact anarchists, were sometimes refered to as market anarchists, rejected capitalism, and existed long before this pathetic off-shoot of capitalist apology ever got the bright idea to associate itself with anarchism. You close your eyes and pretend none of that is the case, only looking at and carefully selecting the evidence that supports your bias. Give it up. Kev 18:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) You can't support a free market and at the same time be anti-capitalism if capitalism, by definition, concerns a free market. Maybe you're upset that the common definition of "capitalism" today refers to a "free market"? Too bad for you --that's the definition. "Market anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are two words for the same ideology --the ideology that supports private property and unrestricted markets, the freedom to own businesses, and to profit. RJII 21:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Go take a basic course in logic and learn how useful it is to define away the position of your opposition RJ. I've already answered you on this, you want to ignore that answer you go right on ahead and spout dictionary definitions like it means something. While you are at it, go change the wikipedia pages on "democrat," "republican," and about a dozen other political and economic ideologies. They are not two words for the same ideology, unless you are pushing one POV to the denial of another, which just so happens to be your thing, apparently. Kev 00:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Why can't you tell us what the difference between Anarcho-capitalism and Market Anarchism is? All you seem to be able to say is that Market Anarchists and Anarcho-Capitalist have a different idea of what a "free market" is. Ok, what is that difference? Everything I read about Market Anarchism is exactly what I read about Anarcho-Capitalism ..the terms are interchangeable. RJII 01:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) I already told you the difference, not only in this section but further up on this very page. Please feel free to refer to my previous responses to you. But since I know you won't bother, even while you still repeat this call for evidence, I will repeat myself. Individualist anarchists, the first anarchists to ever embrace the free market, rejected institutions such as interest, property beyond possession, and rent as contrary to free market relations. Some of them went further and rejected wage, others rejected unequal pay. Denying the legitimacy of interest on capital rejects the very essence of capitalism. But again, as I told you before, all of this is entirely beside the point. It doesn't matter whether or not -you- accept or endorse their arguments. It doesn't matter what you think on this issue at all. All that matters is that there was a group which pre-existed anarcho-capitalists who believed in what they considered a free market, who rejected capitalism, and who considered themselves to be market anarchists. All of this is true, and this -requires- that NPOV on wikipedia not allow you to simply overwrite their existence in order to justify your pet ideology. Kev 01:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Can you provide any evidence that there was some group of people who said that they believed in a "free market," and used that term, and said they were against the things you stated above? That is it RJ, I've had enough of you. I've provided that evidence 4 times now, repeated myself over and over. Told you where to find it, the book and author, and even gave you a friggen direct link to a copy available online. You are obviously now just trying to waste time. Any further edits on this subject by yourself will simply be reverted until you actually bring something new to the table. Kev 03:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) That would count for something in a historical context at least, but that is contrary to the common concept of what a "free market" is today. A free market, is commonly understood to be a situation where all things are permissible as long as both sides agree upon them, including wages, interest, etc. Saying that all things are permissable as long as both sides agree upon them is not good enough. What if someone is holding a gun to your head? What if someone is using force to restrict acccess to resources you require in order to labor for your own sustainence? A "free market" is a market absent of coercion, and interest is a capitalist practice built on the assumption that one party has coercive power over the other either in the form of a state, or a PDA entitling that party to property claims above and beyond that which they are capable of possessing. Kev 03:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) A free-market in the commonly understood sense is one where wages, interest, profit, personal property, freedom to become financially successful, are essential parts of it. Maybe you can find some archaic obscure reference of someone saying he favors a free market and is against those things, but it's not really relevant but as a historical footnote. But, please, is there such a group of people that say they favor a "free market" and and at the sime time say they oppose those things? I'd like to see some evidence of that. And, furthermore, that they refer to themselves as "market anarchists?" RJII 01:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) See above, you are clearly being disingenuous. Kev 03:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) That's what I thought. No evidence. A pure fabrication. RJII 03:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's already been provided, you ignore it. This is a historical movement with vast works dedicated to it, and intellectual giants involved in it. It has a rich history. The burden is on YOU to write it away from history. If someone went to the Communism article and tried to say Communism as a political ideology and movement never existed, they would be laughed away. Don't make me laugh at you by trying to do the same to Anarcho-Individualism.--Che y Marijuana 03:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) No evidence has been provided that any group of people called said that they favored a "free market" and siad that they opposed wages, interest, profit, private property, etc, and that called themselves "market anarchists." RJII 04:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is a nice rhetorical trick you keep trying, but that level of evidence is not required to justify my objection to your conflating anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism. All that is required is that, A) the people in question were anarchists, B) the people in question advocated market-based economics, and B) the people in question pre-existed the anarcho-capitalist movement. All of that evidence, and more, has been provided. You could, in theory, argue that this is a long-dead or irrelevant movement and therefore associating them with the term market anarchism is unnecessary, but unfortunately there is no evidence that individualist anarchism is dead, I happen to personally know some individualist anarchists, and in fact the evidence for the existence of anarcho-capitalism is hardly more strong. Kev 19:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Firstly, don't you understand that "market-based economics" means that, for example, interest rates are set by the market, even if that means extroardinarily high interest rates? ...something you've called "usury" that you claim market anarchists would not permit? Secondly, you are still unable to supply any evidence of people that call or called their philosophy "market anarchism" whose philosophy is any different than anarcho-capitalism. It's becoming increasingly clear that you are simply looking at a group or people in the past who opposed unregulated capitalism and then arbitrary labeling them as "market anarchists." It's *you* who is labeling them as market anarchists when they did not label themselves as such. Who do you think you are? RJII 20:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Yep, this is all a figment of my imagination RJ. That is why the author of blackcrayon.com, a self-described anarcho-capitalist, refers to mutualism as a form of free market anarchism. Its why the mutualists at mutualist.org refer to Tucker's free market anarchism, and indeed, refer to themselves and free-market anti-capitalists anarchists. You see, this is all part of a vast conspiracy on my part, I went back in time after we had this conversation and forced the folks at listen liberty to describe Tucker's views as market anarchy. Or is it possible, just possible, that in fact there are a group of anarchists who advocate the free market and denounce capitalism? Indeed, people who obviously fall into the category of "market anarchist", and did so before anarcho-capitalism even existed, and thus rule out the possibility that such a term would directly equate with anarcho-capitalism? No...no, just ignore this RJ, it goes against your previous conclusions. It also goes against your policy of doing anything you can to trump for anarcho-capitalism, even if it means breaking all appearance of NPOV. Very good. Looks like I had to push you a bit. RJII Whatever you need to tell yourself to save face. Don't worry, in another day or so you'll come up with a new way to weasel your use of this term in. Kev 05:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) As to usury in a free-market, nobody in their right-mind is going to pay interest on a loan when banks given the out for free, when people can print their own money, when the monopoly on land-ownership (enforced by a state or PDA) is broken, and when extravagant property entitlements enforced through the blood of the dispossessed is finally put to rest in favor of possession. That is why usury isn't going to exist in an actual free market, because people will have real alternatives to the criminals who enforce their own property entitlements and try to pass off schemes in which the product of labor is stolen. As to those people who subject themselves to such usury anyway once these institutions have been abolished, its just like S+M, when one voluntarily submits to usury it is no more a capitalist market than a political realm becomes fascist when one voluntarily submits to physical abuse. It is the coercive institutions that back capitalism and fascism that make them what they are, not the free actions of individuals in society. Kev 00:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) And people will build houses for other people for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, on vacant land that's free for house-squatting because private property is an invalid concept, so that everybody can have the house they want without resorting to evil things like mortgage interest or rent. And champagne will come out of the water faucets in those houses. Dtobias 00:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) And anarcho-capitalists will construct straw-men to cover their ignorance when dealing with philosophies that pose economic and political challenges to their own. Kev 00:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Kev, let's say I print my own money that's backed by gold, and you print your own unbacked money. Now let's say someone thinks the money is a better value than yours because he thinks mine will have less risk for inflation. (He tried printing his own before but no one would accept it because of inflation fears.) Let's say he offers to pay me if I let him borrow some (interest), because I think I have a better use for it. If someone is actually for a "free-market" he's not going to interfere, because the transaction is voluntary. What is an anarchist going to do to stop us who says he's for a free-market but against "interest"? If someone is actually for a "free-market" he's not going to interfere, because the transaction is voluntary. So what's the deal? Is he going to initiate force to stop it, or he's going just try to convince me with words that I should find it in the goodness of my heart to lend it to him for free? RJII 03:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) In a true free market in the individualist sense, that's not how it would work. You wouldn't be competing with unbacked money, you'd be competing with gift economies. Imagine napster, with no laws to hold it down. Who do you think would have won? Even now, with bittorrent, who do you think will win?--Che y Marijuana 03:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC) "Free market" and "free-market anarchism" have the word "market" in them. A gift economy is not a market economy. A market consists of "trades", rather than gifts and sharing. RJII 04:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Che didn't say that the market would be a gift economy, he said that the interest lender would be competing with a gift economy. In other words, may be talking about a pluralist economic model, one of the solutions to attempts by capitalists or others to railroad individuals into unjust economic arrangements. Your dilemma has been responded to in many places by many anarchists and there are more answers than I could list here. My personal take on the issue is that, of course there is nothing wrong with you -attempting- to lend out your money at interest. Any anarchist worth their salt would simply ignore/boycott you so long as you aren't attempting to restrict vital resources in some kind of monopoly, and engaging in direct action or resistance if you are. But this argument is not unique to traditional anarchists, anarcho-capitalists also expect that the massive businesses they legitimate (but generally do not advocate) will not attempt to try to form monopolies to block out competitors. However, it is always possible (some think very likely) that they will, and your only recourse is to boycott them or resist them directly, that anarcho-capitalists only legitimate the first choice limits your ability to respond to this problem even further. But that doesn't mean you support natural monopolies, and it especially doesn't mean that you would simply look the other way if one of these monopolies became a coercive one. This is the same for an anarchist, we aren't going to be shooting people who offer to lend at interest, but neither are we going to do business with them, and we certainly won't stand aside when they attempt to use force to restrict from us what our economic model says we have legitimate claim to. Anyway, this discussion is entirely inappropriate. If you have some criticism of mutualist, individualist, or other free market anarchist economics feel free to take it to any one of a number of web forums, if you wish I could join you there or you could email me privately. This page exists to discuss this particular article, and discussion of the viability of economic alternatives to anarcho-capitalism isn't appropriate for an article not meant to introduce original research. Kev 05:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've got nothing against gift economies myself -- they're a great thing when they happen, and a lot of examples of things organized at least partially along those lines can be found on the Internet, including collaborative noncommercial projects such as open-source software and wikis. These things are capable of existing and thriving within an overall system that is capitalist, despite tension that sometimes occurs between them and more overtly commercialized elements (e.g., Bill Gates denouncing open-source advocates as "communist"). I just doubt that a gift economy can actually sustain itself beyond fairly narrow segments of the goods and services that are needed and wanted in the world, although some of the types of things that do work as "gifts" are quite important ones given the increasing emphasis on "virtual" things on computer networks (something well-suited for noncommercial collaboration) versus actual physical objects (where traditional economic conditions of scarcity still apply). Maybe future technologies will move more things into the realm of open-source cooperation, but that's the future, not the present. If this ever happens, then the question of capitalism vs. socialism may well become moot. Dtobias 11:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) It is interesting that you believe that a gift economy can exist within a capitalist system, but then move on to mentioning that it would not be able to survive beyond a narrow niche in the economy. You seem to conclude from this that gift economies are faulty in themselves somehow, but I see no evidence for this conclusion, any number of other explainations are possible. For example, I don't see why you would not instead conclude that capitalist economic practices are harmful to gift economies and themselves ensure that other economic will models will always been ghettoed into specialized markets. If you base the economy on capitalist assumptions and practices, how could you expect that a different form of economic practice would be able to out-compete? I don't claim to know one way or the other how well a gift economy will function, there simply isn't enough data. Then again, we also have no large-scale examples of this so-called "pure" capitalism, as to date capitalism has been just as integrated with the state as socialism has. Still, I do think it is revealing to see just what conclusions you have come to in the absence of sufficient data. Kev 17:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) "to date capitalism has been just as integrated with the state as socialism has." If this is so, then it's not capitalism but "mixed economy." Capitalism, by definition, is, among having other characteristics, a system not "integrated" with government. If a state exists, it merely oversees the economy in a detached sort of way. Don't make the mistake, as many do, of calling the modern economies "capitalism." I'm not saying you do this, but I'm pointing that out just in case. RJII 20:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Capitalism is only a system seperate from government in the peculiar interpretations of anarcho-capitalists. According to the very definition you keep citing, it is highly integrated with governments: (www.m-w.com) an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market First, notice that the last line reads, "distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market". In other words, capitalism does not determine the distribution of goods exclusively by way of the market, by definition. Far more important, is the use of the phrase, "corporate ownership of capital goods," because corporations are, again by definition, state entities: (corporation according to www.m-w.com) 2: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession 3 : an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state Again, I know these definitions don't fit the biased version of anarcho-capitalism that you are trying to project, instead they reveal that your interpretation is not only just one of many, but for the most part is not even the most common interpretation. Don't worry though, dictionary definitions are not a valid way to pigeon-hole a political philosophy, if they were then our understanding of what it is to be, say, a democrat and republican in the US would be completely different. You already know this, of course, this is why you don't insist that anarcho-capitalists seek chaos and disorder just because one of the dictionary definition suggests this is a goal of anarchists. What this -does- mean is that your constant attempts to push your point via dictionary definitions are not only invalid, but also a tad ironic. Far more important, though, is that outside of the dictionary definition most economists and business people today, and in the past, speak of capitalism as being intrinsically integrated into the state. Indeed, this forms the very basis of the average capitalist's arguments against anarcho-capitalists, since they believe that it would not be possible to maintain property enforcement in the absence of a state regulatory body. This idea that capitalism is somehow "pure" when it is apart from the state is simply another attempt by the anti-state capitalists and a narrow band of libertarians to redefine the words we use, in the same way that many capitalists, when faced with the undeniable fact that anarcho-individualists were known to decry capitalism and embrace socialism will say, "well they meant something entirely different then we do by the words socialism and capitalism." An argument I will readily accept if anarcho-capitalists are prepared to admit that when they say "liberty" they actually mean "tyranny". Kev 20:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) So what if there are corporations? That doesn't signify that these businesses and government are integrated with each other. That's exactly what capitalism is against. This is no obscure understanding of capitalism only held by libertarians as you claim. Capitalism *is* a libertarian philosophy, the modern generally accepted definition of which came from libertarians. Adam Smith describes capitalism. It's very commonly held to be the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is economic liberalism ..laissez-faire...separation of business and economy. What you are doing is falling for a lot of propaganda if you think that part of capitalism is the integration of business and government. What has happened is crony capitalists have convinced you that the system they support is capitalism. They're liars. And now you've been duped to think that the U.S., for example, is capitalism, when any sensible person knows that it's a "mixed economy." Now, of course none of this is going to make any sense to you if you think that Marx was defining capitalism. If capitalism is just defined as "the private ownership of the means" of production, then anything goes. RJII 21:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) Your perspective on this issue is a bit too one-sided to really be compelling. You already know that there are multiple definitions of capitalism, from that used by communists, to that used by state capitalists, to that used by liberal capitalists, but instead of simply accepting the existence of these as fact and moving on you have decided that one is "lies" and another would mean that "anything goes" while only your particular interpretation is "the one truth(tm)." Its odd that you have this attitude toward capitalism, that only certain uses of the word are legitimate, and yet in your attempts to include capitalism in the philosophy of anarchism you have gone out of your way to ridicule people you believe are pushing what you have percieved as a "one truth" meaning of the word anarchism. The difference here being that unlike anarchism: you have no basis in history to define capitalism as contrary to the state, as it has always since its inception included definitions that refer to state functions, and unlike anarchists who almost entirely reject capitalism most modern self-described "capitalists" do not consider the economic system to be intrinsically seperate from the state. Further, most anarchists are not actually attempting to push a "one truth" meaning in the first place, as you accuse them of, but rather simply attempting to put all claims to the title anarchism into the broader context of a social and historical movement. You, on the other hand, want to isolate the definition of capitalism to suit your own politic, you want to create a vacuum around the word so that it has the meaning that you prefer, and instead of forming a valid critique of other uses based on their etymology, history, or even their common use, you simply accuse those who interpret words differently as flat out "liars". But I appreciate your posts nonetheless, because they have allowed me to understand where you are coming from in accusing anarchists of trying to "own" a word, you are simply projecting your own actions and intentions onto those you critique. You ask, "so what if there are corporations [in capitalism]." I will tell you why this is revelant. Corporations -require- the existence of government, by definition. Now I fully admit, if you are going to claim that you can have law (and thus legislative bodies), a judiciary (along with judges, prisons, and indentured servitude), and military/police (call them PDAs or whatever else you want, they perform the same function of law enforcement), without having government, then as you said earlier, "anything goes." Suddenly your definition of "state" becomes so peculiar and contrary to both common and dictionary definitions that communication with you will become meaningless. Next you will tell me that there are anarcho-fascists who advocate that we all voluntarily follow our one great leader, and how could it be their fault if their leader happens to legitimately own everything on the planet and ejects you from his/her righteously obtained property when you dissent from his rule- er, from his excercising his property rights? So lets stick to some facts. Here is one you don't like: capitalism is considered by many, indeed most economists today, to be integrated into the state. They may be wrong, they may be liars, they may be part of a vast conspiracy to make you look stupid, but they do in fact give meaning to the words they use. The same is true of socialism, despite the fact that many believe that both socialism and capitalism can exist apart from the state, it is undeniable that both are commonly viewed to integrate state controls. This doesn't mean that any one particular interpretation is wrong, it doesn't mean that capitalism or socialism do in fact require state controls. It doesn't mean that you can't hold your own personal interpretation in common with many libertarians and classical liberals. It does mean that your interpretation, and my interpretation for that matter, are not the only ones, nor the "correct" ones. Thus, it means that what your take on what the word implies is not, "the correct universal truth that shall be represented on wikipedia because Adam Smith was correct but Marx and Keynes and Proudhon and everybody else is wrong." That is why I removed your rhetoric of "pure" capitalism when it was unqualified, and that is why I point out that your own citation does in fact indicate that business entities be given rights and powers -by law-. In other words, unquestionably by a government, and most likely by a government in the form of a state. Indeed, a dictionary definition that includes the very words, CORPORATIVE STATE as part of the meaning of corporation. It can't get any more bald faced than that RJ, but feel free to add whatever spin you can to make you more comfortable. Kev 03:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) The U.S. is a "mixed economy," not capitalism.I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that you've been duped. RJII 03:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Hehe, very good counter-argument there RJ. You go ahead and bury your head in the sand, I hope it gets you far in life. Kev 08:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) Odd This is a cute little bit of racism: Also, there is no certainty that this tribe did not steal the property, or, if they did not steal it, whether that property was stolen by others in the more distant past. I don't see any racism in that. It's just said to make a universal point, rather than making any judgement against Native Americans. Who knows the history of transfer of land possession in the world throughought the history of man? There is probably not one square inch on Earth that hasn't been stolen from someone else somewhere along the line. Who was the first thief? The first owner? We don't know. RJII 03:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) And my point was that this applies to all cases, including something that is claimed to have been stolen yesterday. Kev 03:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Why are we specifically calling into question the claims of native american tribes in this case? There is never any -certainty- that a claim to theft is true, regardless of the amount of time or nature of the theft. It must in every case come down to someone making the decision that there is sufficient evidence, and it seems a bit odd for the text to be going out of its way to suggest that there is no certainy in this specific case. Is this a convienent way to justify the general anarcho-capitalist position that the land many buy and trade today not be given back to its rightful heirs? Kev 03:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) If we leave out mention of Native Americans and instead use a hypothetical example the concepts can be explained better. The concepts are better explained in neutral and universal terms. Also, let's assume we know that someone stole land from a "tribe" in the past.. If those people are long dead, who are you going to give the land back to? The children of their children of their children? If you think this should be done is it possible to trace this? If it is possible to trace, you aren't giving the land back to the owners but to children removed by several generations that never owned the land in the first place. How about if some of these children along the line mated with non-indians? Do they receive a portion of the land as well? There are problems. I'm sure there are are various positions from various anarcho-capitalists on this subject. But, what they do want is the establishment of private property "rights" so these seemingly insurmountable complications can be set aside and future peoples can be free from being subject to the same problems. RJII 03:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) You inserted the sentence on inheritance in this article, yet you suddenly dispute the concept of inheritance when applied to victims of theft. Apparently and intelligent thief is legitimate in anarcho-capitalism? Kev 03:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I didn't put in the sentence about inheritance. It was someone else. As far as your question goes, I don't see it as worthy of response. RJII 04:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Cripes, if I used that standard with you this talk page would be blank. Kev 06:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Initiation of force Why are you opposed to letting the reader know that that "initiation of force" is distinct from force used in response to an initiation? Believe me, many people, when they see that someone opposes "initiation of force" their first objection is "Duh. How can you defend yourself if you're against initiation of force?" Then one has to go through the whole explanation that defending oneself is a secondary use of force ...force used when someone else uses initiatory force. This is a neutral distinction that has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism in and of itself. What is the problem? Is it that you don't get the distinction either? RJII 03:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I already explained the problem above. Anarcho-capitalists define intiation of force to include things like trepass of property, or eating an apple shoplifted from a store. Commonly, or at the very least amongst a significant number of people, initation of force is considered to apply only or generally to the physical person, violence or restraint used against a body. So for the article to say that they are against initiation of force when they in fact support using force to repel say, non-aggressive trespassers, or at times even to forcefully claim restitution or enact punishment on a shoplifter, is biased in favor of a conception of initiation of force that is specific to anarcho-capitalists. The only reason I'm letting the claim stand is because it is now clearly labeled as a claim, but your import of (initiation of force as distinct from response) throws that NPOV out the window and tells the reader that yes, in fact the capitalists are always -responding- to force when they enact their little system of property domination. Kev 04:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) You seem oblivious to what I just said. The parenthetical thing is only telling the reader what initiation of force means. It's not saying what particular things constitute initiation of force. RJII 04:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) And as we have previously discussed, if the passage existed in a vacuum that would be fine. But since it exists in the context of detailing anarcho-capitalist claims, and those claims involve non-normative (or at the very least non-universal) conceptions of the initiation of force, it is rather relevant not to have the text indicate that the type of force capitalists are refering to is in fact responsive. Kev 04:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Ok, let me make this even easier to understand. It is explaining what "initiation" means. It's not explaining what force means. RJII 04:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Quit with the snide condescention. If you want to act like a jerkoff, go ahead and have the guts to actually voice yourself rather than hiding behind that smug air of superiority that your ignorance lends you. That passage does -not- merely explain what initation means. It explains what initiation of force means, and that is directly relevant to my comments. Kev 06:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Exploitation Kev seems to think saying that anarcho-capitalists think that "exploitation" is ok is NPOV. The statement is this: "Anarcho-capitalists favor the establishment of private property and believe in the freedom of individuals to become wealthy, even when such wealth is produced through exploitation." He is the author of "even when such wealth is produced through exploitation." This is blatant POV, but he insists that it's not. The anti-anarchocapitalist bias is so obvious that it's my opinion that anyone who has the mentality to think that this constitutes NPOV has no business being an editor on Wikipedia. RJII 04:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I put in about a dozen attempts to compromise with you on so many issues throughout this text before I threw in the towel. You handed me back a series of rollback edits, attitude about how you didn't care if the article was listed as NPOV or if your edits were not consistent with those of others who worked so hard to compromise on this page. So don't even try to play this as your own personal concern for NPOV. You will not unilaterally determine this article. Sorry. You tried to patronizingly persuade me to refrain from editing the article because it had "been through a lot." I told you that I didn't care and that it was going to go through a lot more now that I've arrived. Did I lie? I also told that I would not compromise what I believed to be truth and accuracy of the article for the sake of appeasing fellow writers. I would expect the same approach from others. The article isn't about you or me or who gets his way, but writing a quality article. Consensus for the sake of consensus is absurd. I will never sacrifice quality, accuracy, and honesty for consensus. Neither should you. RJII 16:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I did not try to persuade you from no longer editing the article, I tried to persuade you not to butcher a bunch of passages with no thought as to why they were constructed in the manner that they were. And if you are so big on quality, accuracy, and consensus, then please feel free to stop using language designed specifically to put anarcho-capitalism in the best possible light. Kev 19:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) As for that statement, many anarcho-capitalists agree with it explicitly, refering to exploitation as making full and best use of a resource, and use that word specifically. This is yet another case of you wanting to put anarcho-capitalism in the best possible light, even if that means stating things in the article that are untrue and leaving things out that better explicate the philosophy. The fact that some use exploitation with negative connotations does not mean that everyone does, and especially does not mean that it should be removed just because it would not make your pet politic shine as much as you would like. Kev 06:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) You're so transparent as to be laughable. RJII 16:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Heh, this from the guy who says, "I didn't say I was an anarcho-capitalist, and I didn't say I wasn't." Thank you for the road-map to your bias. Kev 19:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Nya nya to you too. Find someone else to get into a petty bickering match with. RJII 20:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) "Exploit" can, indeed, have positive (or at least non-negative) connotations in some contexts when it concerns one's behavior toward inanimate objects, but the word tends to be highly negative in implications when people are at the receiving end of it. It's best off avoided in a NPOV discussion except when describing specifically what one group is accusing another of perpetrating on another. Dtobias 11:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Fine, then lets be consistent. If you are going to remove exploitation because it -might- have negative connotations, then lets remove all this BS about "voluntary", "liberty", "freedom", etc because all of the ideas can be explained without resort to those words, all of those words have blatantly positive connotations, and all are being used to describe anarcho-capitalist positions that many believe involve the denial of liberty, the absence of freedom, and coercive involuntary institutions. Kev 19:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Context matters. In a NPOV article, it's wrong to assert as a "naked fact" that, either "Capitalism exploits the poor", or that "Capitalism is the only system consistent with freedom". On the other hand, it's all right to say "Critics charge that capitalism leads to the exploitation of the poor", or that "Supporters of capitalism regard it as the only system consistent with freedom". Dtobias 22:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I agree completely. This is why it is so important to qualify statements like "capitalists believe in voluntary exchange," when they are using the word "voluntary" to describe situations which other anarchists and people in general may not consider to be voluntary. Kev 03:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Again with the "traditional" stuff The following descriptions of the relationship between anarcho-capitalists, the individualist anarchists, and contemporary anti-capitalist anarchists are intensely problematic: Many anarcho-capitalists also locate themselves within the tradition of individualist anarchism, though this claim is rejected by those who have traditionally used the "individualist anarchism" label. Those who have traditionally used the "individualist anarchism" label (Tucker and his circle) are dead, and were in their graves well before the word "anarcho-capitalism" was coined. There are those who use it today who argue that anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with the individualist anarchism espoused by the Liberty crowd, but the latter aren't around to be interviewed, and enforcing the views of the former on them is an anachronistic bit of POV. Furthermore, imposing it on everyone who uses the label today won't do either; those who use it have a wide range of different relationships to anarcho-capitalism, among them Wendy McElroy (who has on several occasions straightforwardly identified Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism with individualist anarchism), Daniel Burton (who claims that anarcho-capitalism is a species of individualist anarchism but not identical with it), and B.K. Marcus (who claim that they are distinct but compatible). It would be an understatement to claim that anarcho-capitalism's place within the anarchist tradition is hotly contested (see Anarchism); in fact, it is disowned by the movement, which believes that capitalist economic relations constitute a form of social domination, and thus contradict the fundamental anarchist belief in freedom. This of course simply begs the question against those who identify anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism by writing them out of "the movement". Of course, if the anarchist critics of a-c are correct, then they aren't part of "the movement," but deciding on that is not for a WikiPedia article on a-c to do. I'm revising the section to try to make the point without tendentious references to "traditional" anarchism or the presumption that "the movement" is something exclusive of anarcho-capitalism. —Radgeek 20:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia is here to present fact. It is straightforward fact that the movement does exclude anti-state capitalists.--Che y Marijuana 20:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Your preferred wordings, like "Anarchism as defined by anarchists", seem almost to be circular definitions, tautological and self-serving. You're deciding what group of people to consider to be "anarchists", and then you're letting them define anarchism in a way that excludes people not in that group... big surprise. However, since there are indeed others who use the label, a NPOV article should use some sort of clarifying adjective to indicate just what sort of anarchists are being discussed; if "traditional" isn't a good one (which I can understand; sticking time-based words like "traditional", "contemporary", "neo-", "paleo-", "modern", "postmodern", and so on, whether onto philosophies, political movements, artistic movements, or whatever, can be a moving target as times change) something else should be used. Dtobias 21:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Again: what does "the movement" mean? I take it you are using this elliptically to refer to "the anarchist movement". But whether "the anarchist movement" does or does not include the efforts of anarcho-capitalists depends on whether or not anarcho-capitalism is, in fact, a form of anarchism. I do not think that that is a question that WikiPedia is here to decide. Of course, you can point out that anti-capitalist anarchists don't work together with anarcho-capitalists on anti-state organizing and activism. Actually, that's not universally true, but even if it were, so what? Lots of movements have internal splits and factions that refuse to associate with each other. That doesn't mean that you can summarily describe one faction as "the movement" and write the other out by saying that "the movement" disowns them. The point here isn't to prove that anarcho-capitalism is a faction within the anarchist movement. (I frankly don't care whether it is or not.) The point is that assuming that it is not in order to introduce "the movement's" disowning of the a-c position as evidence against a-c identifications with anarchism (1) begs the question against anarcho-capitalists, and (2) stomps all over NPOV and involves WikiPedia in a dispute that it's not here to decide on. That said, here is my latest stab at the section: === Individualist anarchist tradition === Many anarcho-capitalists also locate themselves within the tradition of individualist anarchism--as exemplified by 19th century individualists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner. Early anarcho-capitalists were influenced by individualist critiques of the State and their arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it (as, for example, in Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority," which was widely reprinted in early anarcho-capitalist journals), and they adopted individualist ethical arguments against the use of collectivist reasoning to defend State power or any other use of coercion to subordinate the individual to some authority claiming to act on behalf of collective interests. Like modern anarcho-capitalists, 19th century individualist anarchists described their economic and political positions as a radicalization of the classical liberal defense of free markets and civil society--Tucker, for example, described anarchism (on his individualist conception) as "consistent Manchesterism" [1] and anarchists as "unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats" [2]. Whatever the parallels, however, the ultimate relationship between anarcho-capitalism and the individualist anarchist tradition is made much more complicated, and controversial, by the fact that 19th century individualist anarchists usually identified themselves as socialists, and condemned the common practices of bosses, landlords, and bankers as exploitative. Some contemporary individualist anarchists hold that, whatever anarcho-capitalists may have appropriated from the individualist anarchist tradition, their explicit support for capitalism places them outside of the individualist anarchist tradition, and excludes anarcho-capitalism from being a genuine form of anarchism at all. Some of the difficulty here here may be understood as terminological: anarcho-capitalists typically use the word "capitalism" to mean the free market, i.e., an economic order based entirely on voluntary association, free of intervention from the State. Anti-capitalist anarchists, on the other hand, typically use "capitalism" to identify a system of specific economic practices prevalent in historical and modern markets. One can be an advocate of capitalism in the first sense without being an advocate of capitalism in the second sense; indeed, some anarcho-capitalists argue that government intervention creates many problems in the "capitalist" marketplace today. On the other hand, there are still substantive differences between many modern anarcho-capitalists and the positions of 19th century individualists such as Spooner and Tucker over issues such as interest, the legitimacy of land titles (and thus demands for rent), and the corporate organization of commerce. Anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard have been willing to accept substantially more of the "capitalistic" practices that characterize today's market as acceptable or even desirable features of a stateless free market than the 19th century individualists were--who rejected them, either because they were inefficient and exploitative arrangements that would cease to exist without government protection (as with interest and corporate commerce) or because they were themselves directly coercive (as with the enforcement of absentee landlord's claims to ownership). In light of these differences, many anti-capitalist anarchists hold that whatever anarcho-capitalists have gained from their reading of the individualists, they have repudiated essential components of both anarchism in general and individualist anarchism in particular (including not only specific conclusions about practices such as interest, but also underlying premises such as the labor theory of value). Not everyone who would today be described as an "anarcho-capitalist" would disagree--Robert LeFevre, for example, described his position as "autarchy," rejected the identification with anarchism, and criticized Tucker's individualism in particular. On the other hand, some self-identified individualist anarchists (such as Wendy McElroy and B.K. Marcus) also argue that anarcho-capitalism as a species of individualist anarchism (although not the only one on offer). Most anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, emphasize the underlying premises they draw from the 19th century individualists—such as the critique of collectivist justifications for force, the identification of organized coercion as a primary cause of social ills, and the rejection of violence for any purpose other than defense against invasion—and argue that their differences with the 19th century individualists are corrections within a tradition rather than a break from the individualist tradition. Comments, questions, and corrections are, as always, welcome. —Radgeek 21:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) --- It is, indeed, a fact that the place of anarcho-capitalism in the anarchist tradition is hotly contested. This is a very relevant fact to the page, and needs to be addressed in it. As to the original individualists being dead, that is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that one or two people calling themselves individualists today can completely redefine a movement that predates ac. It is particularly strange that you would cite examples from folks like McElroy and B.K. Marcus, given that the later explicitly refers to himself as an anarcho-capitalist (and it isn't anything new for an anarcho-capitalist to claim relation to anarcho-individualism) and the former calls herself an anarcho-individualist while stating flatly that if the individualists of the past were alive today they would be capitalists. In other words, if we are to take McElroy's own arguments and accept them, she is an anarcho-capitalist. The fact that she, as an anarcho-capitalist, believes it appropriate to redefine individualism as compatible with anarcho-capitalism is not surprising, but certainly not evidence that anarcho-capitalism is actually part of the anarchist tradition. We already know that anarcho-capitalists think individualism is compatible with their philosophy, and the article already makes that clear, but this does not mean that wikipedia should be endorsing this POV when the individualists of the past -explicitly- decried capitalism as such. Kev 21:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) I certainly agree; but that is not what I objected to above (and it's not reflected in any of the edits I've made). The point is not to present the claim without qualifying it in terms of the controversy; it's a matter of how the controversy is to be presented. If you go around saying "anarcho-capitalists identify with the individualist anarchist movement but traditional individualist anarchists think they're full of it" then applying the "traditional" qualifier to "individualist anarchists" is either false (because it reads back contemporary anti-capitalists' positions to people who never were around to weigh in on a-c as formulated in the mid-20th century) or question-begging (since it uses the claim that a-c's are not part of the individualist anarchist tradition in order to provide evidence for that same claim). The claim may very well be true--I'd have stronger feelings about it if I were more convinced that the word "capitalism" means anything coherent at all--but whether it's true or not is precisely the controversy that this article is supposed to explain (in conformity with NPOV), not something for the article to decide on one way or the other. As for Marcus: in what I have read from Marcus he does not identify as an "anarcho-capitalist"; he explicitly distinguishes it from individualist anarchism as such, typically uses it in scare-quotes, and argues that Rothbardians are right on important points but get some important things wrong because they embrace a chimaerical notion of "capitalist" that bundles together something legitimate and important (a free market and entrepreneurship) and "the main evil in the political realm". You might still think that his position is incompatible with individualist anarchism for other reasons; fine, but that controversy between self-identified individualist anarchists is no more a matter for this article to decide than the controversy over whether or not anarcho-capitalists are in fact individualist anarchists. (If I'm mistaken, and you have a recent citation in which Marcus describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist, I'll be glad to hear it and to qualify the discussion accordingly.) As for McElroy: again, she directly identifies herself as an individualist anarchist in the tradition of Tucker. She accepts many Rothbardian points that differ from Tucker's; but whether that makes her not an individualist anarchist or not is, again, part of the controversy and while it is essential to present that controversy this is not the place to try and settle it. —Radgeek 22:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Isn't Lysander Spooner known for starting businesses (like the one that attempted to compete with the U.S. Post Office)? That sounds pretty capitalist to me. Dtobias 21:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) It's "capitalist" if "capitalism" means the same thing as "free market" or "entrepreneurial". But the 19th century individualist anarchists, Spooner among them, didn't see it that way. They identified themselves, explicitly, as socialists. Their understanding of socialism included individual and co-operative initiatives between workers to make needed goods and services available; they held that the capitalistic marketplace we see today is the creature of (1) direct coercion (in the form of various protected monopolies, among them the U.S. Post Office) and (2) non-invasive but exploitative practices that survive only because of the practice of direct coercion (such as usurious interest). Maybe they were wrong about that; but whether they were wrong or right, that was their position, and our job is to try to accurately report it. —Radgeek 22:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Of course it does Dtobias, that is because you have gone out of your way to ignore individualist anarchism and the economic practices associated with it. Kev 22:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) The following attempt to restore part of what was edited out in the most recent round is still objectionable: It would be an understatement to claim that anarcho-capitalism's place within the anarchist tradition is hotly contested (see Anarchism); in fact, it is disowned by the tradition, which believes that capitalist economic relations constitute a form of social domination, and thus contradict the fundamental anarchist belief in freedom. It's objectionable (1) because it's redundant (the fact that it is hotly contested is what everything other than the first paragraph of the section is already about), (2) because (as I explained above) setting anti-capitalist anarchists on one side as "the movement" or "the tradition" and the a-c's on the other side to say that "the movement" or "the tradition" disowns them simply begs the question against the a-c position, and (3) because the substitution of "the tradition" for "the movement" makes it simply ungrammatical (traditions don't disown; people do). So it seems to me, anyway. What, precisely, do you think the previous revision of the i-a section lacked that re-adding this paragraph has restored? —Radgeek 22:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) (1) I disagree that it is redundant. The text above goes on about how the relationship between ac and ai is "complicated" and "controversial", and states that many anti-capitalist anarchists believe that ac is not a part of anarchism. But it does not give a perspective on the kind of proportions we are dealing with. To say that the vast majority of non-acs believe anarcho-capitalism to be a contradiction in terms is almost an understatement. And far more than being a controversial movement, anarcho-capitalism intentionally set itself apart from and denied/ignored entire sections of anarchist thought. It was universally rejected amongst anyone not calling themselves an anarcho-capitalist when it first arose, but the text makes it look like this is simply a deep seeded controversy -within- the movement. I know that this is what anarcho-capitalists believe, but it is not a message that anarchists would be satisfied with having wikipedia project. (2) Its been very difficult to come up with a term that is acceptable in this instance. "Other anarchists" does not work because it presumes that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists, "anti-capitalist anarchists" does the same. Traditional is one of the better terms because it is true that both the original anarchists and those who the anarcho-capitalists claim to be following in the tradition of rejected anarcho-capitalism. So when anarcho-capitalists claim to be following in the tradition of individualist anarchism they themselves are refering to this tradition which predates them, and the simple fact that the individualists repudiated capitalism should be enough to demonstrate that this tradition did not include anarcho-capitalism. (3) I dunno how to improve it, open to suggestions, I'm tempted to replace it with something along the lines of "those who self-describe as anarchists but are not delusional reject anarcho-capitalism", but somehow I don't think that would be better accepted. Kev 03:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) The fact of the matter is, the Anarchist movement defines itself. ACs have no major organizations, no major historical accomplishments, no major support. They are an isolated purely intellectual stream, and to redefine Anarchism for them (which is exactly what calling other anarchists "traditional" would be) is not NPOV as people here claim. Stick to the definition of Anarchism as expounded by actual Anarchists, and use terms like "anarcho-capitalism" without inferring relationship with Anarchists by specifically calling them anarchist. Say they believe anarchism to be incompatible with Socialism, but make clear that anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist movement. This is the way forwards. Just as the National Socialism article does not identify them as Socialists, neither should this article lend credence to the idea of ancaps being Anarchist.--Che y Marijuana 05:35, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) Initial conditions "freedom of individuals to choose their path of life, either to become wealthy, stay poor or found a cooperative." does not address initial conditions. "stay wealthy"? or "path of life with regard to choices such as work and associations." Also, consider this. Violence is OK in defense of property, so the US Government can claim sovereignty over all US land and use violence if you are on that land and don't follow the rules. Free association is OK so we the citizens of the US are allowed to form the government FOR THIS PURPOSE. You don't want to follow our rules? GET OFF OUR LAND. Isn't that the world you say you want to live in? You ALREADY have it. Oh, you want to have sovereignty YOURSELF? Well, you can aquire it the same way EVERY nation on Earth has - declare yourself sovereign and defend that statement with SUCCESSFUL force. You want someone to GIVE you sovereignty? Yah, and I want someone to give me a million dollars. Not gonna happen. 4.250.168.94 20:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) Why not neutral? Can someone make a short list of why they think this article is biased? It would make fixing it a lot easier because I'd rather not work my way through talk page archives. Thanks, Dave 04:20, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) I believe there are still sections that imply that it is a form of anarchism. That's my issue with it, but I didn't put the NPOV warning, and I haven't edited this article in a while, so I'm sure there are other issues. --Che y Marijuana 12:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) Holy crap, you know what, the article needs MAJOR reworking...--Che y Marijuana 12:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) Well... I probably shouldn't drop it half way through, but I will have to continue this later. The article is far too long, it needs to be cut down and the ideas organized into a more intuitive format. Half the time I was reading it, I had to reread the header, because the section had nothing to do with its title. This is making editing it especially difficult. So understand that a few of my edits only make sense with a complete re working of the page and the headings and subheadings, which is yet to come. Meanwhile, it's almost 9:20 in the morning and I haven't slept. So I'm going to sleep, good night.--Che y Marijuana 14:19, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) Talk to Kev. He's the one that put the tag in. RJII 01:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) It was a series of RJ's more egregious edits that spurred me to add the tag. Most of it was undone eventually and I think the tag would have been ready to be removed up till a couple days ago, but then 62.236.76.8 bascially rolled it back. Other than those, and of course RJs attempt to only use dictionary definitions that meet his personal bias (even changing his dictionary when it turns out not to proffer the definition he wanted), I think its set. Well, maybe a little of the word choice here and there could use a little NPOVing. Kev 05:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Please make a greater effort to be civil. Calling edits "egregious" and accusing someone of selective use of evidence to support "personal bias" does nothelp the project. For the record, the vast majority of RJII's edits have been constructive and appreciated by everyone but you. If you assume good faith, I suspect you will find disagreements easier to resolve. Dave 05:39, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Dear god. When I saw your post here, I assumed there had to be some major difference between the two definitions. There isn't. The dictionary definitions differ by about five words. I hardly think that omitting the word "competition" and referencing government control qualifies as outrageous. For the record, as the article is currently written, the online version is better (state control is mentioned the sentence before the definition anyway), so I support your decision to edit the article. But grow up. Dave 05:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Sorry about the triple post. Kev, you obviously know a lot about the subject and have a knack for fixing articles (see my comments on your talk page about libertarianism). But good editing isn't the only part of making a good article. Please try harder to keep an open mind about other people's ideas. Dave 07:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) I always assume good faith, with you for example. RJ gave me lots of evidence to crush that assumption some time ago. And I must add, I am certainly not the only one who has seen RJs edits in and around the anarchist pages as something other than constructive. You could check out the discussion on the anarchism page for referance to this. My post here, concerning the neutrality of the article, has nothing to do with RJs recent definition change, but rather with some of his previous edits and the recent ones by 62.236.76.8. I certainly would not slap on or support a NPOV warning simply for the dictionary bit. I will of course try my best to keep an open mind. I suggest that you do one of two things to help me in this regard. Either, 1) refrain from telling me to "grow up" or 2) refrain from lecturing me about making a greater effort to be civil, as these two comments seem to expose a double standard. Kev 07:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Re: "double standard:" Good point. I wasn't thinking. I'm sorry. I feel dumb now. Dave 07:58, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Here I thought I was just being more NPOV and objective by putting the unabridged version of the definition in from the same Merriam-Webster source. Actually, if I had an anarcho-capitalist POV I would have left the other one in as it doesn't say "a mainly free market." The previous one had no such qualification; it said "mainly by competition in a free market." And the comment in the newer definition about lack of state control is saying the same thing --that's what "private" means (it's just being more explicit for those who don't know what is meant by private). But the point does need to be made that anarcho-capitalists are using a definition of capitalism that refers to a free market. Not all definitions of capitalism do. So, someone can say he's for capitalism, and the other person will have no clue that he's talking about a free market. Why the definition thing upsets Kev is bizarre. Does he think his definition of capitalism is the only one and Merriam-Webster is wrong? It wasn't saying that that was the only correct definition of capitalism, but that that was one among others. RJII 13:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) lol, RJ, the definition which I reverted back to, which you call "mine", is the one -you- posted originally. You know exactly what this is about because we have been through it a dozen times already, right now you are just trying to put on a show. The point that anarcho-capitalists are refering to a free market has already been made, over and over, in the article and in the footnote itself. The reason I reverted back to the old one is already listed in the edit history, i.e. its more accessible and it says basically the same thing. Kev 17:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) NPOV sign removed, cleanup sign added That seemed to me to be the consensus of the above section. We have several options now: Stripping down this page so that it contains as little redundancy as possible with libertarianism and making it just about the anarcho-capitalism aspect. (my preferred choice) Just fixing it up (sort of a pain and leaving lots of redundancy) Eliminating it and redirecting to libertarianism (probably a bad idea, but I thought I should mention the possibility) Something else Thoughts? Dave 08:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) Of those options I would most support the first. The second would be okay but I've yet to see anyone spend the kind of time necessary to fix the entire article, and the one person who was about to a month or so ago got driven off, and there is no need for the redundancy. The third one is a definate no, as anarcho-capitalism is a distinct concept from libertarianism and significant enough to merit its own page. Kev 10:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) definition of capitalism footnote Dave, right now the article says "free market or capitalism." I just foresee problems where people are going to come along and protest that "capitalism isn't a free market!" and protest that that statement improperly equates the two. Many socialists, for example, are not even aware that there is such a definition of capitalism that indicates a free market and adhere to the old definition of capitalism where it's simply the private ownership of capital --a definition of capitalism that's still not in uncommon use. The footnote was a way I came up with to avoid that problem. I really think this needs to be clarified, if not the way I did it, then somehow. RJII 04:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) The article reads "Anarcho-capitalism is a kind of libertarianism whose proponents favor unregulated markets (which they call' a free market or capitalism)." My understanding is that, while you're right about socialists, anarcho-capitalists would agree with my definition. The article only makes a claim about the anarcho-capitalist definition of capitalism, not about what other groups would call unregulated markets, free markets, or capitalism. The article also refers to "their version of capitalism" to differentiate it from other usages. Dave 04:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) Very perceptive foresight you have there RJ, except that this protest already happened, didn't it? Who is being transparent now? The complaint about capitalist markets not being free markets is a valid one, it stems from a real tradition and is directly relevant to anarcho-capitalism given that the tradition which launches that complain is the same one that puts the "anarcho" in the name anarcho-capitalist. I appreciate you finally being frank about your intentions though, now that you have made your bias as clear as possible I'm going to do everything I can to -ensure- that the language of this article does not rule it out the individualist anarchist viewpoint that anarcho-capitalist markets are not free. Kev 08:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Individualist anarchists are not mentioned and the article explicitly denies that it's making claims about the way anyone but anarcho-capitalists view capitalism. If you want to put in other views, put them in in some kind of context like in a criticism section or in the section that discusses anarcho-capitalism versus anarchism, rather than just a disembodied definition in a footnote.Dave 16:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) In need of rewrite This section is incomprehensible, I can't even tell what it is trying to claim well enough to fix it: "But precisely because they see natural monopolies as inefficient, they also endorse economic arguments that natural monopolies can exist only transiently, usually due to some recent technical or organizational innovation that hasn't been copied by competitors yet. ; In Austrain School view the market is an open process and in real markets will be no end which could called "natural monopoly" or "market failure". These theories are only possible by theorists of neoclassical economy. This doesn't mean, that these theories should be wrong; just the conclusion is wrong that intervention by government is announced with it as proper procedure. Every authority can only evalutate a monopoly-situation on political needs. But government sets ends in an open process. This is a reason that coercive monopoly regulation consists although the assumptions of monopoly had gone long time ago. Thus, all evaluations of free markets are the motto of anarcho-capitalists. Maybe force is an tool of free markets, too - with all responsibility to the offenders. But why shouldn't be this and moral purchasing a better method than regulation with techniques from socialism?" Kev 09:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) you're right. It is incomprehensible. I'll see what I can do. Dave 16:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) Lost passage I've removed this passage as it did not actually respond to the critique that came before it, but the content may not exist elsewhere in the article and I don't know where to put it so for the moment it goes here: "Anarcho-capitalists typically argue that a broad classical liberal conception of private property is justified independently of the state, either by utilitarian considerations or by natural law. Thus, they argue that individuals can use force to defend a wide range of private property, and they can cooperate with others or hire a defense agency to defend whatever they can rightfully defend on their own." Kev 10:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Dan Sullivan The criticism section mentions Dan Sullivan. Google comes up with one link to what appears to be his homepage. Is this person really notable in the anarcho-capitalist scene, or is this grandstanding? If someone knows of him s couple sources of referance would be nice. Kev 10:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) I've never heard of Dan Sullivan, but then I've never heard of Crypto-anarchism, either. I'm in favor or removing him unless he says something unique and exciting. Dave 16:27, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 05 and June 05. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive11. Thank you. Saswann 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Contents 1 NPOV 2 Controversial 3 Attempts to Make this More "Encyclopedic" 4 non-aggresion axiom 5 Unlimited right to contract 6 Clipped paragraph 7 Serious NPOV violations NPOV This seems justified until some stable agreement is reached about how to illustrate the tension over the fact that anarcho-capitalists self-identify as anarchists. 66.94.94.154 18:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] For people that eschew private property, y'all sure do get uppity about "ownership" of a word. --Golbez 19:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC) I just hope that people calm down enough to be interested in coming to a consensus. 66.94.94.154 19:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] For people that claim to respect private property, ancaps sure are shameless about stealing one. The difference is, unlike an anarcho-capitalist, I wouldn't sue in a "privately owned" patent court or send a "private army" after them for using the term anarchist. I will just point out how ahistorical and inaccurate it is, and make every effort to clarify that they are misusing a political/philosophical term with a long, rich, and bitterly anti-capitalist history. The basic, irrefutable fact is that anarchism as such emerged from the same anti-capitalist struggles that produced Marxism, and remains anti-capitalist to this day. Anarchism has never been simple anti-governmentalism, it has always been anti-capitalist. Anyone passingly familiar with anarchist history is aware of this - anyone who even bothers to read the wikipedia articles in the anarchism series! A handful of capitalists have decided in recent years to dub themselves "anarchists" exclusively because they oppose "public government," not even the state as such but public rather than private ownership of the state. Fine. But this does not mean they can openly define their ideology as "anarchist" and escape the fury of thosands of anarchists who are part of that tradition who have sacrificed countless thousands of their lives for freedom, whether fighting the Bolsheviks or the Fascists in defense of liberty. To call them "left-anarchists" or "socialist anarchists" is to spit on their graves and everything they died fighting for. All this requires is an up-front statement of some sort making clear what anarcho-capitalism is and is not. It is a new ideology, emerging from libertarianism and capitalism. It is not emerging from anarchism. It is using the word as a label of convenience. Whether out of respect for the dead or whether out of interest in academic rigor, it must be made clear that "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists by any but their own, extremely marginal, unique, and particular definition. Take a hypothetical parallel: Christianity is historically well established. Say there was a group started in recent decades which decided to call themselves "Christian Satanists," say due to the fact that since everyone knows Satan is in the Christian bible he must be a Christian deity or similar convoluted "common" (aka uninformed, meaningless) definition. This is parallel to the ancap's ahistorical hijacking of the term "anarchism." Then, say members of this "Christian Satanist" cult decide to start a page on wikipedia, describing their religion as they see fit. Fine. Many Christians will no doubt contribute to "criticism" of the policies, actions, rituals, and philosophies of such a group. These would all appropriately go in the criticism section. But clarification should be made, in the intro, and if necessary with elaboration in an opening section on terminology, that Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, etc, etc - all factions which normally have plenty of theological problems with each other, as well as unaffiliated Christians belonging to no organized church - all would universally denounce such a religion as NOT CHRISTIAN. This situation is the same. It must be handled as though anarchists deserve the same respect due to Christians. You can obscure it and censor it and fight it all you want, but this is a matter of basic decency and respect, as well as academic, historical, political, and philosophical accuracy. I'll calm down when capitalists stop strip-mining, clear-cutting, running sweatshops full of abuse victims, and directing their governments to fight wars for markets and resources, based on disputes over property ownership. Maybe. --23x Maybe you should calm down when you actually find out what kind of capitalism these folks support. --Golbez 20:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC) 23x, How do you explain individualist anarchism then? Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy. Individualist anarchists are part of a "tradition" and they oppose Marxism and collectivism. The real divide is between European and American anarchism. Collectivists versus individualists. You act as if the only tradition of anarchism is the collectivist one. RJII 20:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] 23x, I respect your passion on the subject, but I think you are way, way too close to the issue to edit anything on this subject in a dispassionate (ie. non-POV) manner. I am not saying your point about Anarcho-capitalism being rightly considered part of the Libertarian tradition more than the Anarchist tradition is not correct. But NPOV is not just a matter of fact, it is a matter of style. There is a very significant difference between saying "These people self-identify as anarchists, but a majority of anarchists disagree with them." and saying "These people are wrong to self-identify as anarchists." the first is an unarguable statement of fact, and the second is a very POV value judgment-- even if the meanings amount to the same thing. The article was originally very clear that this was a more part of libertarian thought than anarchist thought. To extend your parallel to cover the current debate: There are strains of Protestant fundamentalism that seriously consider Roman Catholicism a form of Idolatry, and consider the Mormons a form of cult, both (from their POV) "not Christian." (And, as an aside, many non-Christans-- particularly pagans-- see Satanisim as a "Christian" cult.) Just because people dissent from a particular ideology doesn't restrict them, in the real world, from identifying with whatever group they so choose. The place for an encyclopedia is to illustrate the facts: where this philosophy diverges from the orthodoxy. Not to enforce the orthodoxy by condemning those who diverge from it. 66.94.94.154 20:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Looks like it may be awhile before anyone gets a response from 23x. This was on his User page: "This account has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet created to get round 3RR. More details at User talk:67.123.246.214. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)" Then, can we remove the tag now, it was an act of fustration on my part 66.94.94.154 13:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] w/o objection then I'm removing it 66.94.94.154 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Controversial I placed the controversial tag here. It seems appropriate 66.94.94.154 19:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Attempts to Make this More "Encyclopedic" YMMV- However, I've attempted to boldly edit this article in some sort of shape. I think the structure is workable now, with Philosophy/History/Criticism sections that should encompass most of the data that can be trown at this. History is still a little messy-- there seems to be two approaches possible; a straight chronology, which the current version almost approaches a thematic braid showing converging trends more things this needs: There should be a section on Austrian School economics in history co-equal with Liberalisim and Individualist Anarchy The Philosophy section could do with much more actual citation. The Philosophy section has a lot of redundancy. Individualist anarchism gets a lot of text, at the expense (I think) of modern sources, which are more germaine to the topic. A complete refrence section and appropriate inline citations (which I started, but long way to go.) Anyway, my 2 cents 66.94.94.154 20:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] non-aggresion axiom The non-agression axiom leaves out fraud. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose fraud in transactions. RJII 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] no, fraud is a lie for the purpouse of profit, which is theft, which is agression vs. propery. Just like burgulary or taxation which are patent violations of the axiom 66.94.94.154 21:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [BTW-I meant no, the axiom doesn't leave out fraud. 66.94.94.154 12:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)][reply] It's much more straightforward to just say that they oppose the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, and fraud that prevents individuals from using their person or property how they wish. RJII 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Ok, but it seems clear to me the way the section is currently worded. (I made a point of including fraud.) In my mind, legnth and redundancy seem (still) to be the major fault of this article, so there's alwaysthe possibility I might over-prune. . . 66.94.94.154 12:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] FYI: Herbert Spencer used the terms "direct force" and "indirect force" to mean (as we would say) aggression or threat of aggression. By the way, which is more correct? Non-Aggression Axiom or Non-Aggression Principle? Rothbard used the former, but nowadays I always see it called the NAP. See numerous articles on anti-state.com --Hogeye 02:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) FWIW: Axiom is the term I've seen most often with Libertarian writers. And, since this is an article about a phlosophy that owes a lot (probably even its name) to Rothbard, it seems to be appropriate to use the Axiom variant here. . . Saswann 16:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Unlimited right to contract Is this accurate? The thing to remember about such arguments is that an individual has an unlimited right to contract, and can be held to terms of death, torture, incarceration, exile, slavery, or stripping of property if they willingly sign a contract to that effect. I would have thought that most A-C's do not accept the right to contract yourself into slavery. That sounds kind of logically inconsistent. Anyway, this certainly doesn't need to be highlighted. - Nat Krause 05:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how it isn't self consistent. If every person is a self-owner, and everone has the right to transfer property, it logically follows that someone can give another person "ownership" over themselves. This doesn't just apply to "slavery" but to legal devices such as guardianship and power of attorney. Of course a citation is probably merited re: unlimited right to contract. 66.94.94.154 12:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] The above is consistent only if we modify it to read ... "if every person is a self-owner at birth". If on the other hand, one believes that all people are self-owners at all times, slavery is impossible. If someone were to sell himself, then it wouldn't be true that all people are self-owners. Actually, to be completely accurate, I've never thought it was true that people own themselves—to me, that's just a shorthand way of saying that we sure as hell aren't owned by anybody else. - Nat Krause 14:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Does someone have a ref. for this? What I've seen of the philosophy seems to consider self-ownership as a lot more than shorthand. . . But if self-ownership is absolute but not transferrable within some strain of anarcho-capitalisim, the distinction should be pointed out. Saswann 14:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] I remember Gene Callahan, an influential ancap author, saying that he didn't literally believe in self-ownership, but I'm not sure if that was in a published work or just some random place on the internet. - Nat Krause 15:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] I asked this question once, and one answer I got was - What is slavery? It is the total removal of your personal liberty and, therefore, rights and responsibilities. You become an object. And an object cannot be liable for its actions, only its owner can. Therefore, if you sign yourself over to slavery, you can kill your owner without repurcussion. --Golbez 16:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC) The question is a matter of debate among libertarians broadly and a-c's in particular. Some (e.g. Murray Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty or Roderick Long here and here) think that slavery contracts can be voided at will because the right to contract depends on a prior set of inalienable freedoms; others (e.g. Walter Block, Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, or Anthony de Jasay in Justice and its Surroundings) think that slavery contracts can be valid and enforceable and banning them entails an invasive restriction on the right to contract. Since the dispute is present amongst anarcho-capitalists, the article shouldn't be written in such a way as to presuppose either POV. HTH. --Radgeek 03:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) This would be a good point to raise in the "Contractual Society" contrasting the two views. Saswann 15:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) I took up this point myself Saswann 16:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Highly relevant link showing a range of Ancap opinions on the subject: Voluntary Slavery--Matt Apple 21:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) Clipped paragraph Nothing wrong with this, but it no longer fits in the section now headed "The use of force" Some anarcho-capitalists are not happy with either violence or soap-boxing as ways to end statism, and instead are trying to found private communities (and thus lead by example) and essentially ignore government until it goes away. Some are attempting to outcompete government by issuing private money (such as anonymous digital cash) in hopes of eventually eroding its ability to tax. Perhaps there should be a section on how anarcho-capitalists see the transition to an anarcho-capitalist society (Incrementalisim/Succession/Revolution) but I am leery about adding one because the article is borderline too-long as it is. Saswann 00:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Serious NPOV violations Some serious NPOV violations have been introduced to this article at the hands of partisans. These need to be removed altogether or reworked in order to remove the NPOV dispute header: To speakers of English familiar with the dictionary definition of the word "anarchism" as refering to the absence of a state, it may be odd to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. This seems obviously wrong to those who know the etymological roots of the word "anarchism," since it comes from Greek words meaning "without a ruler." This section is plainly the anarcho-capitalist POV, all forms of traditional anarchism would dispute this, and there is no etymological reason to think that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. In addition, the graphic that is placed next to it clearly pushes the anarcho-capitalist POV. That in itself is fine, but it should be labeled as the anarcho-capitalist POV, rather than the voice of wikipedia. I tried to adress this by reverting (in part) to an earlier version that had a less loaded vocabulary and driectly quoted a "traditional" Anarchist website. However, I fail to see how the graphic is pushing a POV, it seems solely discriptive to me. Saswann 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) The graphic is descriptive of the anarcho-capitalist POV. The vast majority of anarchists would not agree that, for example, Proudhon's position is best described as somewhere vaguely inbetween the spectrum of socialism and capitalism, nor that Tucker's is. As I have already said, there is nothing wrong with giving this description (i.e. with posting this graphic here) in itself, but it has to be labeled clearly as the POV that it is. Kev 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) That's easy enough to fix Saswann 19:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) This divide has been termed by anarcho-socialists as left anarchism versus right anarchism. (Heider 1994) This is highly misleading. It may be termed by some traditional anarchists as such,but certainly not most. It is almost exclusively an anarcho-capitalist terminology, not a traditional anarchist one. The left/right comes from all sorts, capitalist, socialist, and people completly outside the "movement," Illustrated by the fact that if you use the terms, almost everyone in the debate knows what you mean. I removed the "anarcho-socialist" which seems a very strange point to try and make. Saswann 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) The left/right does come from all sorts, but almost exclusively those "all sorts" fall into the category of agreeing with the anarcho-capitalist conception of things, or if disagreeing with the traditional anarchist conception. In order words, this is pushing a particular POV, once again. Kev 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I agree this is POV, but I think you're wrong about whose. It is representitive of the general American preoccupation with left/right dualism that seriosly breaks down when talking about anarchisim of any stripe-- case in point: I see both anarcho-capitalists and anrcho-socialists object to it. Saswann 18:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) These individualists opposed collectivist conceptions of property, in favor of individual private property. This, again is totally misleading. Individualist anarchists supported a form of property stemming from Proudhon's possession. It was not the collectivist property of the anarcho-communists, for certain, but neither was it the property entitlement of anarcho-capitalists. This comparison makes it sound like the individualists agreed with the anarcho-capitalists on private property, when they did not. Actually the article made the seriously redundant point that this was precisely where the two diverge. (Four places in three paragraphs at my count.) I tried to make it less opaque when I pruned it Saswann 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Benjamin Tucker, though calling himself a "socialist" rejects the modern socialist idea of common ownership of land. Rather than having to do with collective ownership of resources, as it is commonly defined today, he says the foundational claim of socialim is "that labor should be put in possession of its own" (see definitions of socialism). This section falsely implies that Tucker's definition of socialism was somehow different than that of traditional anarchists. It was not, most anarchists agree that the principle of socialism is, in part, that the laborer should be in control of the product of their labor. Further, the entire section on individualists is cherry picked to only include those quotes which make it appear as though the individualists agree with anarcho-capitalists, leaving out entire paragraphs, essays, and chapters of books that show them to be staunchly against the kind of market dynamics supported by anarcho-capitalism. Actually Tucker regarded "socialism" as a contested term applied to "two extremes of the vast army now under consideration, though united, as has been hinted above, by the common claim that labor shall be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than either is to their common enemy, the existing society." SSA ¶ 3. He considered communist anarchists such as Kropotkin and Johann Most to be on the wrong extreme of the fight (cf. Labor and Its Pay, for example), and at times directly contrasted "Communism" (including as advocated by e.g. Most) with "Anarchism" or "consistent Anarchism". This doesn't mean that he was an "anarcho-capitalist," of course; anarcho-capitalism didn't exist when Tucker was alive. But it does mean that it's misleading at best to suggest that his conception of socialism is precisely the same as that of (say) Kropotkin or Most. —Radgeek 06:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) The text implies that traditional anarchists did not view the right of the laborer to control the product of his labor as essential to socialism, which in fact they did. That there was disagreement in other areas of socialism does not change the fact that Kropotkin would have agreed that a laborer has the right to control the product of his labor, and that is certainly not what the text implies atm. Further, I have been trying to make the point that Tucker's conception of private property is different than that of anarcho-capitalists, something this article does its very best to glaze over when comparing the two, in an obvious attempt to minimize the differences between the two. Kev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) This point about a peaceful coexistence of mutualism and anarcho-capitalism is often made by modern individualist anarchist Wendy McElroy. McElroy is being identified as an individualist anarchist here, again to create the impression that individualist anarchists are in agreement with anarcho-capitalists. But McElroy says herself that if the individualists of the past were alive today they would be anarcho-capitalists, so her credentials as an individualists are in dispute. The most that can objectively be written here is that she -claims- to be an individualist anarchist. I pruned a lot of this away. All that belongs here was a) Individualist anarchists influenced anarcho-capitalists, and b) the two differ on property rights. An argument, either way, about the congruence of the two philosophies is POV bait and not particularly relevant, as this is not an article on individualist anarchism Saswann 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Finally, the criticism on anarcho-capitalism was gutted down to two short paragraphs. Contrary to what the text now indicates, many of the criticisms were not moved to the other articles it refers to, but rather removed altogether. I refuse to play edit war with anarcho-capitalist partisans any longer over this, I will not put these valid criticisms back in only to have them removed time and again. As such, I will leave it to the anarcho-capitalists themselves to show a little intellectual integrity and allow the criticism section to actually give some criticism. Absent that, the NPOV dispute header remains. Why, exactly, is a bloated criticism section so important? The point of the article is a description of a political philosophy, and while conflicting opinions may provide some measure of context, they aren't a measure of POV-- That measure is made by how objectively the content describes the subject in question. Overburdening an article with conflicting opinions tends to make POV issues worse. Better to address partisan language and improper sourcing in the text, then try to add more text in a misguided attempt a balance. That seems to be what messed this article up in the first place. Two POVs do not make an NPOV. (Also, in an article this long, being concise is a virtue.) Saswann 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't recall arguing for a "bloated" criticism section. But somehow I don't think two paragraphs of about 3 lines each cuts it, especiallly when several of the criticisms that had already been in the article were relevant and often made of AC. Kev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is a partial list of the major NPOV problems I can dig up for the moment. Kev 05:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I have yet to see a decent explanation (or evidence) of how the source of the word "anarchism" is NOT limited to "without a ruler". Every single dictionary _I_ have looked in so far has described anarchism as the opposition to "government" - I have not seen one yet that describes it specifically as opposition to "hierarchy", at least not as a primary definition. Some secondary and tertiary definitions do describe the rejection of "authority", but that's certainly still not as specific as anarchists like to get when defining themselves. Not only that, but in my personal experience it is only anarchists that are even aware that there is such a difference between the philosophy of "anarchism" and simply "the belief in anarchy" (ie, without _government_). Not that that my personal experiences matter as much, but I'd like to see you produce evidence to the contrary - the relevant literature (the dictionary) seems to back the anarcho-capitalists up. --Academician 09:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Social anarchists believe that your boss necessarily qualifies as a ruler, hence anything that's against rulers must also be against bosses. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Given that a boss has the ability to withold part of the laborer's product, and to refuse offering employment based solely on the laborers refusal to agree to have the product of their labor stolen from them. Yes, they are rulers. Kev 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) So if I hire you to fix my toilet, then, given that it is physically possible that I refuse to pay, or that I refuse to offer the job to anyone who doesn't agree to my terms, I'm a boss? A ruler? 63.98.86.134 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) I made no claim concerning the etymology of anarchism being "without a ruler", and that in itself has nothing to do with my claims. My claim is that anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with the absence of rulers, and that claims to the contrary are controversial. Of course, this itself is also beside the point, as what makes those sentences a violation of NPOV are the phrases like "might be odd to assert" and "seems obviously wrong" used to present the capitalist POV as correct. That you don't see that only makes me wonder if you understand what NPOV is. Kev 10:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I see your point about language, however, I think you need to step back a moment and look at your own POV. When you say, "My claim is that anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with the absence of ruler" and imply that the article doen't adress this, you have stepped away from describing the philosophy of "anarcho-capitalisim" and entered into a critical deconstrution of it-- an inherently POV enterprise. Consider a statist coming along and demanding that every anarchisim article point out that the concept is inhently flawed becuse human nature requires hierarchical relationships to maintain social order, and the ability of humans to fuction without a government is a contriversial assertion held only by a minority. Saswann 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) You are taking my position out of context. This article does not merely refrain from pointing out that anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with the ideal of a society absent of rulers, it actively states that anarcho-capitalist -is- compatible with such an ideal. That is obviously the anarcho-capitalist POV, and all such statements need to be clearly labeled as such and not repeated so often as to make it obvious that they are merely grand-standing. Are you seriously trying to suggest that saying things like it "might be odd to assert" that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, or that doing so seems "obviously wrong" is even remotely close to NPOV? Kev 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Incidentally (although I agree that some of the language added by Hogeye veered far off from NPOV), I wonder if it occurs to Kev that it is equally disputable whether socialist anarchism, insofar as it prescribes any more social organization than primitivism or chaos in the streets, is compatible with the idea of a society without rulers? - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) No, Nat, that does not occur to me. Perhaps it is because I am more familiar with actual anarchist methods of organization than you are. The ability of anarchists to organize without rulers goes far beyond primitivism or chaos, and includes such methods are consensus voting (in which no one could possibly be ruled because they all agree), non-enforced super-majority (in which no one is ruled because nothing will be implemented so long as there is active dissent), free association (in which no one can ever be forced to take part in a collective that they disagree with, and individuals are free to only associate with those whom they agree with from the begining), and more. Now, if you are trying to point out that certain forms of organization, like say a very beauracratic type of syndicalism or a form of mutualism that focuses too much on private property, can eventually lead down the road to rulership, then I heartily agree. As I told you before Nat, the difference between you and I is that I actually reject rulership when it arises in any form, whereas you actively endorse it when it takes place in capitalism. Again, that is why anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists, plain and simple. Kev 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) And so, the take home moral here, folks, is that Kev seriously does not understand how someone could dispute his ideas. This is exactly the sort of POV bias that should be edited out of Wikipedia thoroughly. - Nat Krause 13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Actually, I deleted the "obviously wrong" comment. And the construct you so strongly object to: "To speakers of English familiar with only the colloquial definition of the word "anarchism" as referring to the absence of a state, it may seem odd to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism." Is making a valid observation: i.e. the vast majority of people in the general population will find these distinctions so nuanced as to be incomprehensible. In general usage, anarchism is anti-statism and I think the whole passage does a sufficient job of pointing out the distinction to a general audience. Saswann 19:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Where is your evidence that "general usage" of anarchism is anti-statism? Most dictionaries I find describe it as opposing all governmental authority. Did you know that the state is only one form of governance, and that it actually means something when they say "governmental authority" rather than simply, "government?" Kev 04:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) This whole argument is frankly ridiculous. I sincerely doubt that there is any colloquial use of the word "anarchism" at all. "The vast majority of people in the general population" do not use the term. "Anarchy" has a colloquial use but the colloquial use is "chaos" or "riot" and has nothing in particular to do with anti-statism, socialist anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism. —Radgeek 06:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Right. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, if part of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is that it considers itself compatible with the ideal of a society absent of rulers, why is it NPOV in stating that anarcho-capitalists believe so? It doesn't seem very NPOV to, essentially, say that a supposedly objective article has to say, "X believe in Y, but Z says they're wrong." The fact that "Z says they're wrong" does not affect the fact that "X believe in Y" and spending much space qualifying the latter with the former changes an objective article to something that reads like a partisan attack piece, or at the very least something condescending and dismissive. As a thought experiment you might consider thinking of, say, sides in the abortion debate, creation science, the US Democratic Party, or France. Saswann 21:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) I think your question was meant to be "why is it POV in stating that anarcho-capitalists believe so", and the answer is, it isn't. What I object to is not describing the anarcho-capitalist philosophy and their beliefs, indeed that is a large part of the purpose of this page. My objects only lie in stating those beliefs without indicated that they are, specifically, the beliefs of anarcho-capitalists. Further, it is absolutely essential that some degree of qualification be present in this article given the controversial nature of anarcho-capitalist claims to the anarchist title. They did in fact make these claims long after a pre-existing movement that opposed them had been identified with anarchism, and that movement is from all appearances still much larger by far. Putting anarcho-capitalist claims into context is not only entirely NPOV, but is necessary for an accurate article. Not every claim by the ACs needs to be qualified, and I have not asked for such, but some do, particularly the first time a claim is made in the article and when the claims are particularly controversial or run counter to the history and meaning of anarchist philosophy. Kev 04:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) I guess my question is now, in its current form, what statements in the article you believe are part of the anarcho-capitalist belief system that are not obviously stated as such. IMO it is much simpler and more concise to rewrite such passages to be clearly stated examples of anarcho-capitalist philosophy. . . Saswann 19:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Oh, and BTW, "describing the anarcho-capitalist philosophy and their beliefs is a large part of the purpose of this page"? What other purpouse could it have? Saswann 19:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Well, for one, it has the purpose of putting those beliefs in historical and modern context. This would be the difference, for example, between an article written by anarcho-capitalists to stump for their cause, and an article written by wikipedians to describe their philosophy. Still existing problems with the article include: the line in favor of individual private property. in explaining agreement between individualists and capitalists. This is a deceptive bit of rhetoric that pretends that the individualist conception of private property was the same as that of the anarcho-capitalist, which is not true. Individualism took the mutualist property model built by Proudhon and expanded on it, and Proudhon dedicated entire chapters of his books to explaining how different person possession is from normal private property. Indeed, the entire section on individualism goes on and on about the similarities between the two philosophies without ever pointing this fact out, giving the impression that everytime Tucker said that private property was essential to anarchism, he was basically agreeing with anarcho-capitalists, when in fact he would have been disagreeing with them. the lines To speakers of English familiar with only the colloquial definition of the word "anarchism" as refering to the absence of a state, it may seem odd to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. to present anarchism, which give an intro heavily skewed to the anarcho-capitalist contention that the most common or basic meaning of the term "anarchism" is anti-statism. I don't see any evidence at all that this is true, and even if it is true in some limited circles or locations in the world, it is a very slanted way to begin presenting the issue. Kev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Ok, you convinced me the phrase is POV enough to modify. It's inflicting an interpretation on a hypothetical individual, an interpretation that isn't required to make the point. I rewrote it Saswann 12:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 05 and July 05. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 13. Thank you. Saswann 13:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] Contents 1 Corporations & Limited Liability 2 Gustav de Molinari 3 Debate over Lead Paragraph 3.1 Def is POV 3.2 Libertarian? 3.3 New Lead 3.3.1 Attempt #2 3.3.2 3rd time the charm? 3.4 free market and unlimited private property rights 4 Non-aggression principle 5 I am impressed with the quality of the aritcle 6 Peer Review 7 Original appropriation 8 Full lead section 8.1 Alfrem RFC 9 Use of Force 9.1 Questions 10 Individualist anarchism Corporations & Limited Liability In the Individual Anarchist section, I going to delete the following bullet point: Both oppose the existence of corporations, as they shield individuals from liability. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I have nothing against corporations (unless they receive some kind of special privilege or subsidy from a State), nor against limited liability. To me, a corporation is just another voluntary organization, like a commune or a partnership, that happens to be owned via "joint-stock" arrangements. As for limited liability, this is a reasonable and voluntary arrangement whereby passive (non-decision-making) owners reduce risk. Why should a shareholder lose his house (rather than only the value of his shares) when a CEO does something criminal? Of course, limited liability shouldn't apply to the criminal. A standard home loan is usually a limited liability contract. If the homeowner defaults he loses at most the home, even if the amount owed is more than the value of the home. At any rate, in a free society I'd expect some/most private courts to support limited liability, and even now anyone can set up a limited liability entity ("virtual corporation) in cyberspace simply by staying anonymous. --Hogeye 04:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) You can't do original research on wikipedia Hogeye. I'm sure you can find some prominent anarcho-capitalists who agree with your notion, it sounds familiar to me, so please do so and referance them and then the deletion would be fine. Your arguments, interesting as they may be, only count if they happen to be arguments used by a significant portion of other anarcho-capitalists. Kev 05:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) How about the horse's mouth? Murray Rothbard in "Power and Market" here in the chapter on triangular intervention. "It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations." Am I the only one who reads Rothbard? Here's a mutualist blog (Kevin Carson?) agreeing: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/05/corporations-state-capitalism-and.html "In fairness to corporations (words I never expected to write), I have to agree with Murray Rothbard that limited third-party liability against torts, while clearly an illegitimate grant of privilege, is of relatively minor significance compared to limited second-party liability against creditors; and the latter can be accomplished entirely by voluntary contract." One point I should make here is that a corporation (under US law) is a different animal than Rothbard's formula (this might be another sidebar definition) in that the US legal formulation limits all liability, including the corp's actions with parties not part of a "contract" ie. you are limited in your ability to retaliate against corporate "aggression" (i.e. a company tears down your house by mistake, sells a fraudulent drug that results in death, absconds with your pension.) Saswann 12:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Here's an excellent article by Gary North about limited liability - a simple and elegant exposition of the issue (where I got the home mortgage example from). Billy Bob sez check it out! Limited Liability and the Right of Contract Stephan Kinsella (User:Nskinsella) writes in a blog: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/004382.html "My view is that corporations are essentially compatible with libertarianism. As for voluntary debts being limited to the corporation's assets; this is no problem since the creditor knows these limitations when he loans money. What about limited liability for torts or crimes? As mentioned, the person direclty responsible for a tort or crime is always liable; sometimes the employer (which is often a corporation) is also liable for the employee's actions, via respondeat superior. Who else should be responsible? In my view, those who cause the damage are responsible. Shareholders don't cause it any more than a bank who loans money to a company causes its employees to commit torts." Good. Now you can delete the statement, though I would recommend against it for two reasons. 1) removing content is generally frowned upon, the more accepted route would be to alter the statement to show that there is disagreement in this area, and tag on of your above quotes to show that some support corporations. Also, add part of the analysis you provided above for why and to what degree some capitalists support corporations while others do not. Unless of course your contention is that none of them do, in which case it could be deleted. 2) When a statement that many people believe is true is flat out delete, even if it turns out that it is false, it inevitably happens that later on a wiki reader will visit the page and put it back in, unaware of previous events. On the other hand, if a statement is given concerning the falseness of the general impression, or the divide surrouding it, that reader won't assume that the information isn't there. Kev 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I revised the The Contractual Society to reflect Rothbard's definition of corporation vs. the current legal definition. Saswann 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Gustav de Molinari For others doing research, here is a dynamite bio (3 parts in pdf) of Gustav de Molinari, with the scoop on how his "friends of liberty" buddies (Bastiat et al) reacted to his "Production of Security" essay when he presented it to the econ club. Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition Here are some links where you can find "The Production of Security" and "Soirées on the Rue Saint-Lazare." The latter is a conversation between a socialist, a conservative, and an economist. (The economist being the anarchist.) Good stuff! http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Author.php?recordID=0338 http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm#molinari Debate over Lead Paragraph Def is POV The description is POV: Anarcho-Capitalism is a branch of libertarian political philosophy which calls for a free market, private property, and a society without a state. Anarcho-capitalists favor a completely private system of law and order based on common law and explicit contract. Anarcho-Capitalism is not neccessarly a libertarian philosophy. (like Friedman) It's not necessarily political. The term private property is also indeterminate for ancaps, example: land State is no problem for me as ancap. The problem is that I must take part. Why should I favor a system of common law? This is nonsense. I prefer The term Anarcho-Capitalism is used by people who describe a philosophy of society with a free market and at least without coercion to partake in a state system. All Anarcho-capitalists refuse the force monopoly and favor a completely private system of law and order. Many (but not all) use also terms like private property and libertarianism to describe their idea. If you dont like it, then search an other. But the current one is POV and I delete it. --Alfrem 19:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) All this is as difficult to decipher as the definition you proposed. The definition that was there was clear. RJII 19:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) clear POV. --Alfrem 19:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hi there, Alfrem. I understand your points, but don't agree with some of them. But first may I suggest better wording for your definition? The term Anarcho-Capitalism is used to describe a philosophy of society that has a free market and allows people to opt out of state systems. All anarcho-capitalists oppose the state's monopoly of force, and prefer completely private systems of law and order. Many (but not all) use terms like private property and libertarianism to describe their idea. I'm sorry, I don't think that Alfrem's version is an improvement. I'll discuss some specific points below. I may choose to revert to an earlier version some time in the future. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Anarcho-Capitalism is not necessarily a libertarian philosophy. Why is this? Are you from a part of the world where "libertarian" means "socialist"? No. I am ancap. But I agree with Friedman that stateless order must not lead to libertarian results. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) That's irrelevant. Anarcho-capitalists desire and call for libertarian results, even if they are realistic in admitting that nothing can 100% assure that they will be achieved. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) No. Libertarianism is a meta-ideology of an ideal. In this ideal (without social dilemmas, irrationality and market failures) Libertarianism is wonderful. And it is a desire to aim at idealism. But this doesn't mean that a ancap must submit to a meta-ideology. --Alfrem 21:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by meta-ideology. - Nat Krause 10:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) It's not necessarily political. I disagree. Anarchism is by definition political, since it deals with the ethical aspect of power. Anarchism is the philosophy/belief that the State is unnecessary and oppressive, and should be abolished. This depends on your meaning what is "political". When I ignore the state and do my own things, this is not political in my view. Therefore, you cant decide what is political by defintion, so it is useless to say by definition. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) When you ignore the state, you are not calling for its removal. Once you begin to have ideas vis a vis political organization, such as anarcho-capitalism, those ideas are political ideas. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Politics is for me the active intervention in the process and method of making decisions for people. But A. is not a collective method of making decisions. It is a process in the market. --Alfrem 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) The market is a means of making collective decisions. However, it is not political. The intended results of anarcho-capitalism are not political, but the theory itself is a theory about politics, therefore, it is a political philosophy. - Nat Krause 10:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) The term private property is also indeterminate for ancaps, example: land Yes, there is disagreement between ancaps and Geolibertarians (and individualist anarchists) on whether land is valid property. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists do support private property. The details of the property system can be described elsewhere in the article. No. The term private property is disputed in details. You can't make a generalization. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) I don't follow you. Yes, private property is disputed in details. Anarcho-capitalists are in favor of it, but there are some details which are disputed. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) State is no problem for me as ancap. The problem is that I must take part. Perhaps a better name for your philosophy is "panarcho-capitalism." If you are not fundamentally against the State, you are not an anarchist. You may enjoy the essay Panarchy, written by a Frenchman named P. E. de Puydt The topic is Ancap, but not Anarchism or Panarchy. When Rothbard would have had the possibilty to abdicate the state, he wouldn't had claimed any ancap theory. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yes, the topic is Ancap—however, your arguments are applicable to something else. You should return to the subject. Anarcho-capitalists call for a society without a state. I didn't understand your second sentence. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Why should I favor common law? This is nonsense. Yes, you are right, Alfrem. Good catch. Common law is merely one historical example of non-statist law. Thanks for your ideas. Hogeye 19:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yes, it is merely one historical example of non-statist law. An other is customary law in Somalia. Nobody can know what I or you prefer. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) I would have thought that common law (in the sense that we use it) is the same thing as customary law. Either term is acceptable because they have the same meaning. Anyway, the current version is incorrect: anarcho-capitalists do not rely only on explicit contract. Most of them, anyway, don't believe that you need an explicit contract situation to prohibit or punish, say, murder. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Libertarian? The lead line is ok as it stands, but am I the only one who feels the loss of the relationship to libertarianism is a signifigant loss? To a certian extent the origins of anarcho-capitalism and libertarian philosophy (in the US) are one and the same. Saswann 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'd say put it back in. The only objection so far is that the libertarian David Friedman thought that statelessness might not automatically lead to libertarian results (but was likely to.) Ancaps are definitely libertarian. Hogeye 16:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I say put the old definition back in. I don't know what that guy was thinking. RJII 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) It is not necessary to discuss this point while people like Jeremy Sapienza, or Friedman, or I are seen as Ancaps but not as Libertarians. --Alfrem 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you just said. Are you objecting to or agreeing with my point? Are you identifying Jeremy Sapienza & Friedman as Libertarians? If they are, how is that germaine to anarcho-capitalisim and its origins? Saswann 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) BTW- I think the first line reads like crap now, but I'm not going to start a revert war over it. Saswann 15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Libertarian" simply means "anti-authoritarian." I don't think we should cater to Alfrem's bizarre non-standard notion of libertarianism. Jeremy Sapienza & Friedman do identify themselves as libertarians (small L). Now, if Alfrem had said that where he's from "libertarian" means "anti-statist socialist," I would have had some sympathy for his position. I still don't know exactly what he thinks "libertarian" means. Alfrem, have you looked at the "Ideology Map" in the article? What do you think about the "libertarian" label there? Hogeye 16:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) This article might by relevant: [1] RJII 17:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sapienza is not libertarian. Some other guys on anti-state.com aren't it also. Friedman likes the libertarian position, but he doesn't identfy himself as Libertarian. Libertarianism is for me also not important to explain my ancap position. --Alfrem 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) What are you talking about? Where does Sapienza say he's not a libertarian? David Friedman is definitely one—it's right on his website, http://www.daviddfriedman.com Ask him! --Alfrem 17:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Friedman: "This page has links to things I have written likely to be of interest to libertarians". That's all. Laughable! --Alfrem 17:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) A libertarian is someone who believes that individuals should have complete freedom of action as long as they don't infringe on that same freedom of others. That idea is foundational to anarcho-capitalism and they state it explicitly. Have you been living under a rock? Of course anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism. RJII 20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) That is the idea, but it is not libertarian. Everybody has also the freedom to use force as so long as he can enforce it. And the libertarian definition is also very imperfect. What is a violation when we dont have any consent? --Alfrem 09:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Frankly, the more I read what Alfrem writes, the less I understand what he means. There comes a point where one has to start ignoring it. - Nat Krause 10:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) You know, you are libertarian, aren't you? ;-) --Alfrem 11:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I really have no clue how Alfrem defines "libertarian" and why he objects to its being connected in any way to anarcho-capitalism, or even termed a political philosophy. *Dan* 12:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) The term Anarcho-Capitalism is claimed from many different people. They are not all using the NAP to explain ancap-ideas, and they argue not all in political ways by defintion. Something else is nonsense. --Alfrem 12:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Well, I agree with the last sentance Saswann 13:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (When it read "This is nonsense") Saswann 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Alfrem, will you please define what you mean by "libertarian"? I still have absolutely no idea why you disagree with, All anarcho-capitalists are libertarian. Give an example of a belief or position that is anarcho-capitalist but not libertarian. I'm really trying to understand what you mean. To me, any philosophy, belief, or position that favors less power for the State is libertarian. Since you don't want the State to bother you, you are libertarian. Hogeye 19:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I tell you my position to refuse the state. I think it is useless to call for a treatment I will never get (i.e. no force against me) and no initiation of aggression is also no aim of evolution. I don't stem me against evolution because then I would stem me then myself. Force is a possibility to resolve social dilemmas. But it is only one option among many options. I cant know which is the best. But state cant be any standard and any aim of evolution. --Alfrem 19:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) New Lead Anarcho-Capitalism is an economic philosophy developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state. It was developed as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism. I think it would require a severe intellectual contortion to argue that this is somehow unfactual or POV. Saswann 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Some people think Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist. RJII 14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) It is not true! Rothbard did the most in this time to claim the term, but he was not alone, and the Austrains were not alone. LOL. --Alfrem 14:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yes, I appreciate your effort, Saswann, but Alfrem's right: some of the statements in the new lead are debatable. It's an improvement, but I think it would be best to go back to the version of a few days ago. - Nat Krause 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I reverted the lead to what it was before this argument started. I think everyone would appreciate a reasonable sourced and coherent argument before it is changed again. 66.94.94.154 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) How old are you? --Alfrem 18:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Attempt #2 Anarcho-Capitalism is the term for an economic philosophy that combines anti-statist principles with a capitalist economic system. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state. The modern incarnation developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century was an attempt at a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism. Ok, no grand claims that this will satisfy any revert warriors-- but I think this addresses all the complaints voiced over the first version. Saswann 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) 3rd time the charm? Anarcho-capitalism refers to an anti-statist philosophy that embraces capitalist principles. The first modern version of anarcho-capitalism that identified itself with this term was developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism. Attempt at pithy, comprehensible and accurate Saswann 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) And where is the free market? --Alfrem 14:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) By anarcho-capitalist's own definition, it's contained within the definition of capitalism. And the whole free-market debate is so nuanced (got to stop using that word, someone have a better one?) that it cannot be integrated in the lead in any way that doesn't make some sort of assumption. Leave the fine gradations for the body of the article. Saswann 14:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) free market and unlimited private property rights Alfrem, traditional individualist anarchists and some classical liberals advocate a "free market" but don't believe individuals should be granted title to unused land. A landlord charging someone rent for land that he didn't have a choice of being born on is tantamount to being a government. He didn't agree to choose to have a landlord or not. Rent was imposed on him. That's basically the reasoning. So, it's arguable whether "unlimited private property rights" are consistent with a "free market." You could be right in your point, but in order to differentiate between other philosophies that say that advocate a free market, i think it makes sense to state explictly that there is there is no ethical limitation of private property in anarcho-capitalism. Besides, capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production with decisions being made in a free market. Just saying "free market" is not quite enough. RJII 20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) But, "unlimited" is vague and misleading. I.e. Some anarcho-capitalists believe that IP (intellectual property) is valid, other's that it is simply a monopoly enforced by State. So something like "neo-Lockean" may be better. There is still an ambiguity (sticky property permissable vs. sticky property only), but no need to open that can of worms in the intro. "Propertarian free-market" may be best. Hogeye 21:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is all too complex in the intro. The intro should hold only the important things, no insider-wording or misleading terms. --Alfrem 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hogeye, I think you're trying to embed too much nuance into the lead. Because the lead is only a few sentences, it is going to be a generalization. The body of the article is where we should get into markets and property issues specific to the issue at hand. In fact, looking at my own current rewrite, I wonder if the phrase "calls for a free market and unlimited private property rights" &c. is needed at all anymore. Saswann 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Non-aggression principle I just wanted to tell Alfrem that my revert was not personal. I'm actually glad that there's a Non-aggression principle article now. However, I'd ask for a little more care next time, a lot of that section was Ancap-specific, and does not belong in a general article on this segment of libertarian thought. (Unless it becomes a much broader article surveying all the philosophies that adhere to it.) Also, just dropping the section was removing content that was central to the article— unlike, say, the tangent about Crypto-anarchism— the principle is essential to understanding the whole. Saswann 17:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I see only one ancap-setence: "The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom." The rest is also important for libertarians and should not hold in this article due to redundancy. --Alfrem 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) The general points are now in the general article. The Rothbard quote belongs in the Ancap article as a citation showing an Ancap philosopher upholding the principle, and the remaining sentence is needed so that the non-aggression axiom is actually defined in this article. Leaving only the phrase "non-aggression axiom" with no accompanying explanation or citations is really opaque style. Saswann 19:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) I am impressed with the quality of the aritcle It is well written, has nothing to raise the wrath of my anarchist (broadly socialist) principles ('cept the fact that it is claimed that anar..., but you address that). Thus I would like to congratulate the editors. --harrismw 04:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hey, thanks for the kind words. A lot of editors have done a lot of work to bring this article up to snuff, and I think a lot of the disputes over content have been comparatively well mannered-- if extraordinarily wordy :) Saswann 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Peer Review I'm putting this up for peer review since (aside from the recent debate over the lead) the form and content seems to have stabilized Saswann 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Original appropriation "This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchisim." I don't agree with this. Many collectivists believe in possession property, which was also presumably appropratiated originally. A bigger difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism is in the abandonment criteria. Broadly speaking, ancaps keep their property until and unless they consent to trade or gift it, while ansocs keep it only as long as they are using it. I'm going to think about this and probably revamp this section, renamed "Property Theory" or some such. Maybe I'll include that property system comparison table: Anarchist Schools Collectivist Individualist (traditional) Anarcho-Capitalist Is land legitimate private property? No Yes (qualified) as long as owner uses it it can't be used as collateral. Yes Are man-made capital goods legitimate private property? No, in most cases. Yes Yes Is it immoral to collect profit from capital and interest? Yes. It's a crime, and should be expropriated in most circumstances. Yes. It's a vice, but should not be expropriated. No. It's permissable, and generally a virtue. Hogeye 22:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Full lead section One of the Peer review coments is the sparse lead section. This has been a side-effect of POV battles, but I'm hoping that things have calmed down on that score. With that in mind, I added a second paragraph that I hope starts to build a feature-quality lead for the whole article Saswann 29 June 2005 18:00 (UTC) I had a hard work to eliminate the word "libertarian" from the intro. And now you come again with the libertarian doctrine. I must delete it. I am sorry. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:15 (UTC) ? I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. Rothbard was a libertarian. . . Saswann 29 June 2005 18:44 (UTC) Read the discussion above. I can't be bothered with this dispute again. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC) Alfrem, you started the dispute again, so the onus is on you to explain why. While I'm not arguing with your motives, that is at least in part because I really don't understand them. You need to clearly explain why Rothbard, one of the founders of the Libertarian party in the US, should not be called a libertarian. Saswann 29 June 2005 19:08 (UTC) No, you are starting the dispute again. You must only read what is alreday written. There is not only one exegesis of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard was not alone. There are also ancaps, which are not described as libertarians (Friedman, Sapienza and other). --Alfrem 29 June 2005 22:45 (UTC) Alfrem, please stop hassling the editors of this page. Have you ever produced any evidence contrary to the obvious conclusion that Sapienza and Friedman are libertarians? Judging from this talk page, the answer is no. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 04:47 (UTC) You are hassling! David Friedman is a subjectivist in ethics and he rejects Rothbards moral arguments altogether and instead proposes an economic argument where private defence/protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individual's utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 08:42 (UTC) This seems to be another case where you have your definition of "libertarian" beforehand, and then you exclude anybody who doesn't fit with that definition. Nevertheless, what you say about David Friedman is true and he is a libertarian. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 08:49 (UTC) Friedman don't qualifes himself as libertarian. Why should he? Why do you must? What does qualify him as Libertarian? Nothing unless your own political view. And you can ask him yourself. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC) Alfrem, unless you have a print source where he denies that he is a libertarian, your plea "Ask Him" amounts to original research and does not belong on wikipedia. Saswann 30 June 2005 12:04 (UTC) Have you a print source of the counterpart? And there are more which are not libertarian. This is known. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 13:55 (UTC) Too much generalization in this: "Anarcho-capitalist philosophy is based on self-ownership, an absolute right to private property, and a prohibition against the initiation of force against other persons or property. From this is derived a rejection of the state (an entity claiming a territorial monopoly on the use of force) and the principles of capitalism (allowing any voluntary transaction between any two parties.) Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and movements that see the rejection of capitalism as being just as fundamental to Anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Despite this tension, anarcho-capitalists see Individualist Anarchist thinkers such as Benjamin Tucker as extremely important in their own philosophy." It is not completely wrong but a genaralization. Compare it with economic views. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC) Alfrem, I'm going to say this as non-confrontationally as possible: you need to calm down and stop trying to impose a non-standard interpretation on this article. If you have legitimate sources that you can cite for your view, fine. However, you have not. As I said, the onus is on you to provide legitimate sources aside from your own personal feeling if you're doing something as drastic as deleting a whole paragraph that is "not completely wrong." Saswann 30 June 2005 12:04 (UTC) Your generalization is completely wrong. You can fix it with Friedmans economic view. This must be clear enough for you. I can not change 3 words and all would be nice. You must deliver NPOV. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 12:21 (UTC) Alfrem, No. You can "fix" it with Friedmans economic view, with proper references and citations. You cannot randomly slash content and then do some hand-waving and say that you did it because you once read something that you thought disagreed with it. I have been very patient with you, but it seems that you are unwilling, or unable, to back up your assertions. I might point out that in Chapter 43 of Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman says: "One could describe most of this book as a utilitarian approach to libertarianism" You, my friend, should explain how someone who is allegedly not a libertarian would write a whole book on the economic principles of libertarianism. Heh, you wrote POV! Friedman is of the ancap/market anarchist camp. And you must take it into consideration without generalization. An utilitarian approach to libertarianism is an approach (harmonization, aproximation), but not more. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC) So your response to an opposing citation is a flat denial and a reassertion of your own personal view without any supporting facts. Alfrem, any possible point you might have had is completely lost under your refusal to follow any reasonable approximation of academic honesty. All you do is cite your personal feelings as fact and claim that anyone who disagrees with your own personal idiosyncrasies is the one pushing a POV. POV is not a magic word that makes everyone who doesn't think like you go away, nor is it a justification to slash content with no factual basis other than your own personal assertions. I've tried to be accommodating, since you seem to have some familiarity with the subject, and English does not seem to be your first language. However, it is apparent that trying to reason with you, or even trying to get some comprehensible explanation of your position, is a hopeless endeavour. All I can say is, I tried, and showed a lot more patience than was justified in your case. Saswann 30 June 2005 14:05 (UTC) Do you not see your genaralization? --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:13 (UTC) David Friedman is a subjectivist in ethics and he rejects Rothbards moral arguments altogether and instead proposes an economic argument where private defence/protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individual's utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:37 (UTC) Which would be an interesting expansion of the whole Natural Law/consequentialist issue in the criticism section-- feel free to flesh this out. It in no way justifies what youre doing to the lead section Saswann 30 June 2005 15:00 (UTC) Critic of what? It is also a theory of market anarchism. There is not only one school. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC) I'm sorry Alfrem, I think you're reading a completly different article and I have no idea how to put it in terms you can understand. Saswann 30 June 2005 16:43 (UTC) The article is not ready and I have no idea why you believe that. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 17:16 (UTC) Apparently we have determined that our use of the English language is mutually incomprehensible. Saswann 30 June 2005 20:19 (UTC) Alfrem RFC For those as frustrated as I, please go here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem. I hope that if enough editors point out to Alfrem that his current behavior is not helpful, he might try a little harder to cite his position. Saswann 30 June 2005 14:11 (UTC) Use of Force This section could use some refrences/citations. It is the most weakly sourced section of the article. Saswann 29 June 2005 18:09 (UTC) Questions Under the Original appropriation title, the article states: "Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him." Do anarcho-capitalists place humans above everything else? In other words, if it benefits a human but negatively impacts something non-human, does the human still have the right to it? I'm curious to hear/read views on the anarcho-capitalists evaluation and placement of the human species in regards to everything else. 03 July 2005 14:43 (UTC) 199> "Do anarcho-capitalists place humans above everything else? In other words, if it benefits a human but negatively impacts something non-human, does the human still have the right to it?" Yes. If there is no infringement of the rights of other humans, if an action doesn't "negatively impact" the person or property of other humans, then it should not be prevented by other humans. IOW there is a right to do that action. This of course does not mean that the action is moral in the general sense; only that one has a right to do it. Hogeye 3 July 2005 19:49 (UTC) 200?>So, anarcho-capitalists place human rights above non-human rights? Do any non-humans have rights to property or private ownership, or do only humans have the ability to exercise those rights? Also, where do anarcho-capitalists get this right from--themselves? I'm not trying to ask if it is a moral action, just where they get the right to that action. 04 July 2005 16:50 UTC 200> "So, anarcho-capitalists place human rights above non-human rights? Do any non-humans have rights to property or private ownership, or do only humans have the ability to exercise those rights?" Well, to be exact, you need to replace "human" with "moral agent." We base individual rights on intelligence, not species. If an alien from Alpha Centari or a porpoise started talking to us and asserted individual rights, then they too would be a moral agent. But if you're talking about lower animals or plants or rocks, no these don't have any rights whatsoever. We derive rights from sentience, intelligence, and evidence of a moral faculty. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:18 (UTC) Individualist anarchism While I agree with what you said in your edit summary, that there is no controversy over whether or not anarcho-capitalists referance individualists, I do not think that is what the text implied. There are two reasons I disagree with your edit of individualism. First, there is some controversy over the -degree- to which anarcho-capitalists are influenced by individualists. Some anarcho-capitalists claim that this is a very large degree, other anarcho-capitalists claim that it is minimal, and some non-anarchists claim the the extent of influence doesn't go beyond surface arguments for the core of an ideology that they had already taken from anti-state liberals and libertarians. Second, I think that begining the individualism section with the claim that there is significant influence, when this is really a subjective call, is already caching the later debate in the terms of the anarcho-capitalists. They can claim some influence, of course, that much is a matter of fact. But I think it goes a bit far to begin the individualism section with a claim as to the amount of that influence, whereas introducing it as controversial at the outset puts the reader in the mindset that what is written in this section needs to be weighed against the views of many different groups. Kev 8 July 2005 18:36 (UTC) Point taken, but I revised your edit somewhat. Saswann 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC) Works for me. Kev 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 05 and Nov 05. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 15. Thank you. --Saswann 15:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] Contents 1 Renaming this article 2 Anarcho-socialism vs. Capitalism chart 3 FYI - Notes in the article 4 Images 5 "not technically anarchism" 6 von Hayek 7 Questioning a Premise 8 Violence 9 Doh 10 objectivism 11 Anarchism / Murray Rothbard 12 Expand on related articles, spec. Frank Chodorov 13 try" Stateless Fascism" 14 Removed critiques 15 I can't believe this is a real topic 16 New Age Mumbo Jumbo 17 individualist anarchism as a term for anarcho-capitalism 18 Anarcho-capitalist Gangland? (and more possible ancap areas) 19 Walter Block 20 Somalia POV 21 Somalia 22 Revkat deleting source 23 PLEASE BE CAREFUL FORMATTING CITATIONS! 24 Self-ownership not all that central 25 Non-Aggression Axiom--Proposed Clarification Renaming this article What a lot of B.S., this article. Typical wikipedia platitudes. It would be more accurate to call this article No State Capitalism. Thats exactly what it is. Why use the disputed "anarcho-capitalism"? Cews 21:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Because that's what virtually all pro-capitalism anarchists call it, since Murray Rothbard coined the term in the 1960's. Get a clue: There are more google hits for anarcho-capitalism than anarcho-syndicalism. Why the ad hominem, telling me to get a clue? What i said had nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism.Cews 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Anarcho-capitalism, by many meanings, of either of its derivitives, is an oxy-moron. Not to say all of its meanings.Cews 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This is discussed in the article under "Terminological criticisms...". The fact is, anarcho-capitalists define capitalism differently - generally as a free market combined with private property, neither of which *necessarily* contradict anarchism generally (except under certain very narrow definitions of "anarchism" which many anarchists hold). The fact that this keeps getting belabored repeatedly is frankly rather tiring. The term anarcho-capitalism is used because that is the primary title used to describe this particular system of political beliefs over the last forty-some years, whether you agree with the word or not - it was not just made up out of thin air by someone on wikipedia. I find Military Intelligence to be oxymoronic under certain definitions as well, but I wouldn't propose a rename - that would just be a waste of everyone's time. --Academician 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-socialism vs. Capitalism chart Wouldn't it make more sense if "anarcho-socialism" was changed to "anarcho-communism"? Then you could put traditional American individualist anarchists in between, since they were opposed to communism and capitalism. For instance, Benjamin Tucker called himself a socialist, but he believed in private property and opposed anarcho-communism of Kropotkin, etc.RJII 19:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] I put it back since it was rather odd to have the article refering to a chart that didn't exist. Saswann 12:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] added a few data points Saswann 14:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate that, but Tucker refers to his philosophy as "anarchistic socialism." So, for the chart to be accurate, that label should be changed to "anarchist-communism" ..the most pure form of socialism. RJII 18:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Tucker did not believe in private property in the way that most proponents of full liberal ownership do. Furthermore, the chart is very flawed. "Totalitarian Fascism" should read "Totalitarian Capitalism," as long as we're talking about socialism vs. capitalism. I also would not place the U.S. in the libertarian sphere. It may be economically liberal, but it certainly is not socially liberal. Just a few thoughts.--AaronS 18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Tucker did believe in full private property in the produce of labor --something communist anarchists such Kroptopkin oppose, and something Tucker ridiculed them for. That makes him distinctly non-communist, just as he's distinctly non-capitalist for opposing profit and ownership of raw land. "Anarcho-socialism" is too broad. Again, it should be changed to "anarcho-communism" since the American individualist anarchists don't fit in with the communists. RJII 18:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Did some tweaks reflecting the above comments. Now as to the placement of U.S. vs Europe on the chart, I was trying to get the Ancap view into the chart, which I think would place the US as more "libertarian" than Europe, but I'm open to a counter-argument Saswann 19:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Cool, but you forgot to change the title on the side to communism instead of socialism. Communism is the most extreme form of socialism so it, naturally, should be at the extreme of the chart. RJII 17:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps, but not all extreme forms of socalism are communist. Saswann 12:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Of course they're not. That's because socialism is a pretty big spectrum. Anyway, it just occured to me that the chart should actually have anarcho-communism on one side and anarcho-capitalism on the other. The more pure the socialism, the close it gets to anarcho-communism, and the more pure the capitalism, the closer it gets to anarcho-capitalism. What do you think? RJII 14:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] I think it wrongly implies that all systems toward the left would be communist, which I don't think is the case. I don't think we should imply that, say, Nazi Germany was more "communist" than Fascist Italy. Then you have the weird case of a "communist" China that is drifing away from the lower left, toward the lower right. Saswann 15:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] I don't see the problem. Why would it imply that Nazi Germany is closer to communism than Fascist Italy? And, about China ..China should probably be in the center (or maybe a little left of center), since it's a mixed economy. RJII 17:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] I was just pointing out that "communism" as the opposite point of the capitalism axis doesn't seem correct since a centralized "socalist" economy can exist without Marx or communist ideals (and vice-versa). Yes, but the most extreme form of socialism is communism. As you move toward the left on the chart, you're getting more socialist, and the logical limit of socialism is communism. RJII 18:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] Also, that axis should say "More socialist - More capitalist" instead of "Less capitalist - More capitalist" RJII 17:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply] can't believe anyone actually follows this cobblers. Any politically / historically aware person must realise it's absolute guff! Check recent developments in New Orleans for the proof. Why the hell is Europe shown as more authoritarian than America on this chart? I think that could be up to seriou dispute. Secondly, I dispute the usefulness of the chart, they are far too simplistic. Many for instance would put fascism as fully authoritarian, but squarely in between capitalism and communism (because it represents, usually, rather neo-Keynesian economics). I would scrap the chart altogether and just explain that Anarcho-capitalism should be strongly contrasted with authoritarian systems. --CJWilly 19:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I think the problem you have is you're looking at an illustration of an AnCap POV. It's not intended to be objective. Saswann 21:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I fully agree with User:CJWilly about the relative positioning of Europe and America on the chart. My POV is that the two arrows stay on the same sides but with the US pointing down towards Fascism and Europe pointing up towards being more libertarian. However, I would strongly disagree that Fascism is a hybrid of capitalism and communism; it is placed in exactly the right position as the most extreme form of totalitarian capitalism. I'm no economics expert but I would be surprised if Htler was a neo-Keynesian! The arrows aren't the direction the philosophy is "going", it's just a poor choice of line used to connect the dot to the label. And like RJII said, it's the ancap view, which would recognize Europe as being closer to totalitarian. Though I really don't think the picture is accurate that ancaps deem fascism "pure capitalism", because they don't. MrVoluntarist 01:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] FYI - Notes in the article RJ mentioned he didn't know how notes were being used in the article, here's the rundown [1] It's pretty simple. There's a refrence template {{ref|<name>}} and a note template {{note|<name>}} that link to each other. The trick is: placing the notes in a numbered list that's in the same order as the citations in the body of the article naming all external links ( a link like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnote3] will throw off the numbering, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnote3 Footnotes] is ok. Saswann 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] Thanks. I hadn't been able to figure out how that worked. RJII 17:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] Images How would people feel if I deleted the postage stamp, moved the Libertatis Æquilibritas out of the lead, and moved the Collingwood painting to the lead? The postage stamp was simply the best PD/free image of the Althing that I could find, and the Collingwood painting is obviously much more vivid and interesting to look at. Personally, I feel that the Libertatis Æquilibritas has zero charisma as an image for the lead, and contributes needlessly to the impression that anarcho-capitalism is purely theoretical. I realize that the article is due to be frontpaged on Sep. 9, and it looks like Raul has already chosen the Libertatis Æquilibritas as the frontpage image; I see that as an unrelated issue, and I don't think the Collingwood painting would iconify as well.--Bcrowell 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] My only objection would be the fact that the painting is a bit oddly shaped for the lead, and needs to be fairly large to see the detail. It might overwhelm the lead section. Where it is, it's balanced by the massive weight of the surrounding article :) BTW, I like the stamp on my browser it fills a void opposite the TOC that would otherwise be a vast white space-- perhaps move the Collingwood picture there? Saswann 12:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply] Can someone add a picture of a reputed Anarcho-Capitalist author please? --Rakista 01:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Did you mean one currently living? Because Murray Rothbard is already on the page [2]. MrVoluntarist 01:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Comment upon the image of a critique of potential violence inherent in anarcho-capitalism. The image contains a scene in which one of the opposing sides are uniformed agents of government. This scene does not accuratley represent an inherent flaw in anarcho-capitalism, as there would be a lack of uniformed agents of government. --Dennis Tessier Sept 9, 2005 Can you expand on that a bit? If you're referring to the Althing picture, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Looking at it, I don't see anything that clearly shows "opposing sides"; also, although a lot of people in the picture are wearing blue, there's no obvious reason to think they're wearing uniforms. - Nat Krause 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I think he means [3] in the Crit section. And, while I agree that it is flawed in the way described, but it is very difficult to find PD photos illustrating abstract concepts. This was the best example of "economic violence" I could find in the commons. I don't think the flaw is that severe in that it's illustrating the critique of economic power relationships, and not a critique about statelessness. Saswann 12:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] "not technically anarchism" I removed this phrase from the intro sentence because the article itself explains that the definition of anarchism is disputed. In fact, there's an entire article on the subject. I must also express a general complaint about the use of the word "technically". There really must be some technical definition underlying that sort of claim. Perhaps a law or official policy of some organization - as opposed to a "most people don't think that counts" kind of definition. -- Beland 02:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] von Hayek Please note that von Hayek and the Austrian school is neoliberal/ordoliberal and while anarcho-capitalists read their writings their ideology has very little common with the classical ordoliberalism. Today neoliberal is a bashing word for the ideology of anarcho-campitalism or neoconservatism. It is simply wrong to call v Hayek and the austrian school an anarcho-capitalist. - anon Fortunately, the article does not say that Hayek was an ancap. A lot of the current Austrian School is ancap though. - Nat Krause 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Questioning a Premise Without challenging the article's presentation of its subject, which is terrific, please accept one general comment on this school of thought, which has always seemed to me to suffer from a fundamental logical flaw. That is, so-called anarcho-capitalism assumes that property rights exist outside of a legal frame of reference. While it may be true, as Demsetz argued, that property rights exist to solve exernalities problems, it does not follow that such rights can, in practice, exist outside of a means of enforcing them. While two parties may be able to resolve property allocation issues between them through contracts or other bilateral arrangements, property rights are distinguishable from bilateral arrangements in that a party claiming "property" claims rights against the world and not simply rights with respect to the obligations of another party. While two parties may be able efficiently to transact acceptable arrangements between themselves, one party generally cannot efficiently transact vis-a-vis all other potential parties. One view is that this transaction-cost problem is resolved by the system of rules-plus-enforcement which we call law and government. It thus does not seem possible to accomplish the "anarcho-capitalist" vision outside of a framework of law and government, because the vision is fundamentally premised on the concept of property rights. Paradoxically, the anarcho-capitalist vision eschews the concept of law and government as unnecessary and even undesirable. To amplify, even if two parties can reach agreeable terms to allocate resources between them, and even if they can enforce the agreed-on allocation between each other, how do they ensure that other parties will respect the arrangement and not plunder? And if one party's obligation is more dependent on the cooperation of non-parties, then how does the other party accommodate the risk that the first party will not be able to perform? Even if solutions to these problems can be formed on a contract-by-contract basis, what basis is there for believing that the net result of a patchwork of ad hoc solutions would be more, rather than less, efficient than law and government as we know it? -- Bob (Bob99 14:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)bob99)[reply] Well said, Bob. One reason, among several, why the phrase "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. But since this entry seems to be maintained by a majority of proponents of "anarcho-capitalism", I don't see much hope in it being corrected. -- Etusalikii 18:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] The idea is that intitutions that have to answer to market forces (businesses) tend to be more efficient than government. So, if consumer demand for protection of private property and individual liberty (including contracts) eventually increases to a sufficient level, then businesses (as entities that don't tax) would eventually outcompete government and serve as better and cheaper protectors of individuals liberty, and would protect more liberty than any government can or is willing to protect. Private enterprise would protect individual liberty and private property from government and taxation. RJII 18:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I think the key to your misunderstanding is that you confuse anarcho-capitalism with anomie. You say: "the anarcho-capitalist vision eschews the concept of law and government as unnecessary and even undesirable", but this is not true - anarcho-capitalism rejects the State, but not law. It suggests that general law can arise in a market without a coercive government creating it. Some like Don Boudreaux and Russell Roberts suggest that law is "emergent", and is not necessarily best if created by an on-high authority. This is not to say that law will be chaotic simply because it is created in a distributed manner - standards arise in society all the time, without command from on-high. Market transactions are almost always more efficient that government solutions, and anarcho-capitalists infer this to suggest that law will likewise become more efficient due to the interaction and input from a multitude of subjective market actors. Admittedly, it is difficult to swallow when one is primarily used to understanding law as something derived from legislatures - but that doesn't mean it is an invalid perspective. Writers like David Friedman in particular make some very compelling arguments. --Academician 22:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Academician, laws are sets of rules and therefore by definition universal and exclusive within their space. Laws can't "compete" like products and services can. You can't have a situation where several, perhaps contractitory, sets of laws apply to the same system at the same time (whether that system is social, economic, physical or mathematical). Example: I rape your daughter. You pay a private court, court X to prosecute me and send me to prison for 5 years. I say "sorry, but I don't subscribe to court X. Rape of women by men is legal under court Y's laws (my private court)". To back up my point, I hire a personal army to protect myself from court X's private policemen coming to arrest me. -- Etusalikii 19:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Your law allowing you to rape women would not be legitimate law according to anarcho-capitalists, since rape would violate the non-agression axiom and/or the self-ownership principle. RJII 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Ok, another example then to make my point clearer: I offer your 16-year old daugther cocaine. Whose court decides whether this is defined as a violation of the above or not? Mine or yours? It's all academic anyway, since in absence of a universal court to enforce them, the non-agression axiom and self-ownership principle aren't worth the paper they're written on (see previous example). -- Etusalikii 19:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Look, the talk page is not the proper place for this discussion in any case. If you wish to discuss anarcho-capitalism the philosophy, rather than anarcho-capitalism the article, then feel free to post your arguments on the anti-state.com forums[4] and discuss them with the people who actually refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. If you do so, I will gladly join in the discussion there. This is not the proper place for this conversation, however. --Academician 22:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I'm trying to illustrate that anarcho-capitalism isn't fully-fledged philosophy, like the article suggests. There are still incosisencies to be addressed, so I suggest a changing the name. The wikipedia isn't a place for half-baked ideas. -- Etusalikii 15:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC) -- Etusalikii 15:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] ? 'anarcho-capitalism isn't fully-fledged philosophy' ? ? 'The wikipedia isn't a place for half-baked ideas' ? Please visit Scientology and call me in the morning. And as far as inconsistencies go, someone should reconcile Labor theory of value and Intellectual property and explain to Metallica that Wham engaged in an equal share of labor and they should both be compensated in equal measure. 66.94.94.154 16:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Whether you agree with it or not, anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate philosophy with numerous followers who use that term. Should the LDS Church article not refer to Mormons as Christians, merely because some Christians do not consider them to be so? The anarcho-capitalism article lists numerous criticisms which you are more than welcome to add further outside sources to. But Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia has plenty of articles with descriptions of terms based on how they are used, regardless of certain parties' beliefs about the legitimacy of that usage. Anarcho-capitalism is as complete a philosophy as is necessary to term it a "philosophy", with plenty of published books and articles by many noted authors who are cited in the footnotes and external links. If you have a problem with the philosophy, or you personally believe there are issues that it does not completely addressed, that is fine - but your opinion in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of the anarcho-capitalism article. --Academician 21:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Returning to my original comment, I will forcefully assert that proponents of so-called anarcho-capitalism have proven my point by continuing to discuss a putative "market" without providing a theory of property that permits a "market" to exist independently of a system of law and government. Proponents of anarcho-capitalism are assuming that "property" is an indivisible concept and that "property rights" can exist outside of a system of law and government. No basis is given, however, for why these assumptions should be accepted. There is no market without property rights, because a market is an aggregation of transactions, and a transactions is an exchange that is necessarily defined in terms of property rights. The argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism thus assumes the existence of property rights without providing a theory of property that does not depend on a system of law and law enforcement. To say that law can exist without government is nonsense, unless one means "government" in an extremely formal sense, since whatever mechanism exists to enforce law is government. While one can imagine various "work-arounds" for individual acts of government, there is no reason to believe that an agglomeration of such work-arounds would be more efficient than government as it is presently understood. In fact, there is every reason to believe that Western government exists in its present form as much because the market has demanded it as for any other reason. -- Bob (Bob99 14:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Bob99)[reply] Well, anarcho-capitalists certainly do argue that property and the market exist independently of the state. Whether or not this is a plausible argument is a matter of opinion. In any event, this talk page is not a venue for political argumentation. You may wish to take this up on a politically-oriented message board somewhere. - Nat Krause 07:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] All exchange requires is property, not necessarily property rights. Or are you suggesting that people can not own and exchange things without government? I am sure that black marketeers like drug traffickers would find that highly amusing. Anarcho-capitalism, as is illustrated in the article, suggests a replacement system of private law to enforce property rights and create a structure for the market to operate in. If you want a more thorough treatment of the subject, I suggest you read one of the numerous books cited in the article - starting probably with The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman - then get back to us. Your comments with regard to the article's topic do not seem useful to me; if you really wish to add criticisms, find a source and cite it. Edit boldly, if you see a problem with the article. But be aware that other editors will check your own assumptions. I cannot help but comment on the unintentional humor implicit in the insistence that a discussion of "anarcho-capitalism" should be limited to arguing from authority. -- Bob (Bob99 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Bob99)[reply] I'm not clear on whether or not you understand what Wikipedia is here for. It is not a blog on which you can cite your own opinions, nor is it a discussion forum for you to debate politics. What we do here is report facts and notable opinions. - Nat Krause 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] And as Nat says, the talk page is not the place to discuss this subject if you are quibbling with the philosophy - people writing the article should not necessarily have to be anarcho-capitalists, after all, and they would not necessarily defend what the article writes about. I assume, for example, that most of the authors of the Nazi article are not Nazis, so the talk page of that article would not be the place to discuss the flaws of Nazism and expect a defense. I suggest you take your quibbles elsewhere. --Academician 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] The point is not a political one but a logical one. A theory of property is essential to any system based on exchanges of "property." If property can be demonstrated to be an indivisible, unitary or elemental concept, then so be it. But that has not been done. Exchange, as discussed above, requires possession rather than property. And while possession may be 9/10 of the law, it is the other 1/10 that distinguishes property from possession. If anarcho-capitalist theory permits a cost-benefit assessment weighing the cost of obtaining possession through a transaction against the cost of taking possession unilaterally (such as by force or by stealthy theft), then the potential for post-contractual opportunism significantly impedes the realization of value through contractual exchange. In addition, in a system where possession is 10/10 of the law, buy-in by those who are themselves capable of taking possession by force or stealthy theft would be essential to effective contracting. What is the theoretical explanation for why such buy-in is more efficient than (or different from) government? If that question cannot be answered, then it is necessary to present a THEORY OF PROPERTY in order to support the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I do not see why that is a political comment. -- Bob (Bob99Bob99) Please either contribute something useful to this article or else take your arguments someplace else. - Nat Krause 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] I still want to know what the anarcho-capitalist theory of property is. If there isn't one, that information is essential to the description of the theory in the article. -- Bob (Bob99 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Bob99)[reply] Most anarcho-capitalists have a natural law theory of property which is the same as the classical liberals. That is, property originally comes into being by the exertion of labor (this is talked about a bit in the article, concerning Rothbard and original appropriation). If you build something, it's yours --since you "mixed" your labor with previously unowned raw materials. On the other hand, there are anarcho-capitalists who don't believe in natural law, but rather think it's in the best self-interest of individuals to contract to regard that product of labor as property (so this amounts to a subtle difference between the natural law advocates --the end result is the same: property comes about through labor). RJII 15:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the explanation. The problem I have with the substance of it is that it does not explain how one keeps property, absent a system by which ownership is respected. As a threshold matter, the legal definition of ownership is typically along the lines of "the right to exclude others." (There are also levels of granularity about "the right to exclude others from doing what?" which may differ from one legal system to another.) My original comment referred to Demsetz's thesis that property comes into existence to solve externalities problems. Demzetz used as an illustration the example (now believed to be apocryphal) of a group of Native Americans who developed concepts of land ownership in response to experience with overtrapping of pelt-bearing animals as European demand for fur increase trapping beyond what was necessary to meet local requirements. The additional demand gave every individual an incentive to trap as much as possible, regardless of the long-term consequences of driving the fur-bearing animals to extinction, because "if I don't, somebody else will." That is, any action to preserve resources over the long-term by refraining from overtrapping would involve a negative externality because the benefit would be conferred on those who, being less altruistic, simply took advantage of the situation to do more overtrapping themselves. That happens when the preserver does not have the right to exclude others. With the innovation of ownership, or the right to exclude others, the "owner" can profitably preserve the long-term value of the resource. This is probably the best analysis of property as a solution to a problem, but it does not necessarily support an anarchist point of view, though Demsetz certainly preferred minimalist government. Also, somewhat on point, is Williamson's very interesting study, "The Economic Institutions of Capitalism," where he analyzes forms of industrial organization as solutions to various problems involving minimizing the risk of post-contractual opportunism. For example, it might be suggested that an assembly line could be organized as a group of independent contractors buying components, adding value by combining the components, and selling the subassembly to the next person on the line. Williamson asked the question why this does not happen in real life and decided that there are situations in which common ownership is necessary to reduce investment-limiting risk. For example, a supplier may be asked to make a significant sunk investment in a particular customer (i.e., an investment that cannot easily be recovered by, for example, selling the relevant capital on a used equipment market). Because the investment will be sunk, the supplier will be locked into the customer until the cost of the investment is recouped. If the investment is significantly large, this recoupment period may be years long. In such cases, the supplier may hesitate because of the risk that the customer will seek to renegotiate the terms of the deal after the supplier is locked in. In some cases, contractual terms are sufficient to overcome this, but in other cases they are not. When contractual terms are not available to manage the risk, the supplier may decide not to invest. In such cases, the customer is likely to choose vertical integration instead of dealing with a contractor, and Williamson's thesis is that this kind of risk-management consideration goes a long way towards explaining the organization of modern industries. I think these same considerations are relevant to considerations of why property rights take the forms that they do, as well as of the difficulties that may be anticipated in attempts to replace government with contract. -- Bob (Bob99 22:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Bob99)[reply] However, anarcho-capitalism is a system by which ownership is respected. It is a fallacy to say that libertarian society is based on contract to the exclusion of property. - Nat Krause 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure, but it seems you think that anarcho-capitalists don't recommend protection of property? That's not the case. It's just that instead of government protecting property (government being that which funds itself through taxation), private institutions would protect property --for example, you pay a monthly bill to maintain the private police, private courts, private armed forces, etc. There would be competing protectors of property who charged for services, rather than taxed. If you don't want to pay, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to protect you unless it's out of charity. The article quotes the individualist anarchist, Victor Yarros: ""Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." RJII 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] By the way, Nat, you seem to be trying to maintain possession of this page through bullying. I do not appreciate it. With the notable exception of well-deserved ad hominem comment againgst yourself, my remarks have been extremely civil. If you don't have the ability to back up what you have to say with logical argument, don't embarrass yourself by talking. If you don't like my comment, please feel empowered not to read them. --Bob (Bob99 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Bob99)[reply] What I'm trying to do is make sure that this talk page gets used for its intended purpose, which is discussing ways to improve the encyclopedia article, rather than as a general forum for comment about libertarian theory. The article should have nothing to do with my personal opinions, so, therefore, my ability to defend them with logic or not is irrelevant. Anyway, since other editors here seem to be willing to comment in it, I will give this thread the benefit of the doubt that it is leading towards something that will eventually improve the article. As for, "If you don't like my comment, please feel empowered not to read them"; this, coming from the guy who thinks I'm bullying him from across the internet! - Nat Krause 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] I quite agree with Nat and others in this thread. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to DESCRIBE the topic. In a topic describing anarcho-captitalism, which is a commonly used name for a general category of related political viewpoints, it is appropriate to describe (a) the principles held in common by those who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists," (b) the principal divergent viewpoints still within that ball park, and (c) the most common criticisms lodged against same by other anarcho-capitalists. The article is to provide descriptive information, the validity of which depends only on the correctness of the description, not on the correctness of that which is being described. LEKulp 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Violence What is to prevent an Anarcho-capitalist society from devolving into uncontrolled violence, as individuals unconstrained by a common enforcement power struggle for wealth and influence?--M@rēino 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Nothing --mitrebox 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] The state of affairs where the forces trying to defend against aggression are stronger than the forces trying to aggress. If consumer demand is greater for defense of liberty than initiation of coercion, then defense would have the upper hand. RJII 17:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Oh I see. So "consumer demand" will "stop the forces". Righty. So let's say I purchase a discount missile from the recently privatised nuclear stockpiles and fire it at your city. What are you going to do? Bundle your citizens' collective "consumer demand for defense" into a force field? Get real. Talking about misplaced context ... -- Etusalikii 19:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I would think that an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't contract with others to allow each other to own nukes, out of self-interest. I think the reverse would happen --people would contract to refrain from obtaining nukes, out of their own self-interest. If you didn't contract as such, you would not receive the services of being protected from aggression. In that case you would be fair game for any force that wanted to stop you from obtaining nukes. I think this would hold for anarcho-capitalists that base their philosophy in egoism and contract. If an anarcho-capitalist thinks that people have a right to own nukes under "natural law" that says no one has a right to initiate coercion against anyone for any reason then I can see that being problematic. So, you do bring to light something that's lacking in the article. It's not mentioned that not all anarcho-capitalists believe a prohibition against initiatory agression exists as natural law. Some believe that such a prohibition can only exist out of contract. RJII 04:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Doh Moving ergo no ID (&yes I know I should register) This whole article had better be displaced by "Anarchocapitalism is complete bollocks", but unfortunately that is a somewhat argumentative POV objectivism Someone with an understanding of objectivism and anarcho-capitalism, and how they relate, should take a look at the objectivism section of this article. It reads to me like someone's propagandizing for Rand but I don't know enough about either to tell for sure. I've added links and did some minor editing. forgot my sig: --Andymussell 20:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Anarchism / Murray Rothbard The article on anarchism which has Murray Rothbard as a person notible in anarcho-capitalism is not mentioned once in this article nor, of course, is his picture included. If someone knows about the topic perhaps you can copy some of the material over to this section? Expand on related articles, spec. Frank Chodorov Article very interesting, started reading it and noticed there were are few hotlinked articles that haven't been written. I started a basic one for Frank Chodorov, so if someone with a better understanding could fill his article out , plus add any extra unwritten articles. rakkar 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] try" Stateless Fascism" Use this name, and you have a correctly identified social theory. I know that anarchism can be mutually exclusive of socialism, but usually the two are combined in practical anarchist theory. The anarchist movement does not need this article right now; it's name has already been defamed by countless post-Katrina headlines. I feel that wikipedia has been irresponsible in featuring this article. Why poromote sterotypical ideas of what a social theory is when the main funtion of this technology is to share information? (Especially when this website is itself operating in an anarchist manner by allowing all people to add their perspective and knowledge to the community.) Well, Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, so that's not an aim of the site. If the function of the site is to share information, why do you want a particular piece of information (that is, combining statelessness with capitalist free enterprise rather than socialist collectivism) to be suppressed? *Dan* 00:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC) You know, a lot of people can't conceive of socialism or communism without a government and find them much more exploitative than capitalism could ever be. If you don't like what the featured articles are, you can always look at articles as they're being nominated from the featured article page and vote on whether to give them featured article status. You can even look into the future to see featured articles before they get placed on the front page. So if you had objections, then was the time to voice them. Btw, are you the one who's been vandalizing the page? If so, please stop. That's really immature. MrVoluntarist 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] What Dan and MrVoluntaryist said. Also, calling anarcho-capitalism "stateless fascism" is really quite bizarre. Not only is that an oxymoronic phrase (fascism is all about glorification of the state - Mussolini, in the article you linked: "For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative"), but capitalism is not fascistic. To an extent, I can understand socialists refferring to capitalism as "kleptocratic"; even saying it leads to de facto feudalism is understandable. But "fascist"? Don't you realize how absolutely ridiculous that is? Even for someone with an admitted bias, that is beyond the pale. And Wikipedia is not about promoting the ideals of anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists for that matter) - it is simply about the distribution of information. I find your advocacy of the suppression of information to be rather authoritarian, personally. --Academician 02:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Fine then,I'll use the term "neo-fascism"... despite the glorification of the state involved in fascism, fascism necessitates rule of people by corporations and other private, capitalist edndeavors. Thus stateless fascism would be a less organized version of this. Capitalism and anarchism can never merge. Anarchism is NOT synonymous with chaos nor does it focus exclusively on autonomy. The author of this article clearly seems to define it as such. Anarchism is a social theory. It necessitates collectivism. Capitalism is an alienating force out of which Anarchism arose as an antithesis. I do not see "anarcho-capitalism"as a valid synthesis of anarchism and capitalism, because it does not address the conflicting ideologies of each movement. I am personally offended that you have accused me of vandalizing the article. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to opinions and conceptions, and I think that it is immature to make personal shots in a discourse forum. Please stick to ideas, not ego. "anarcho-capitalism" may be an unfortunate coinage in the view of "traditional" anarchists (a point that the article goes on for a whole section for, which has also spawned another whole article) however, it is one used in academic discourse by about half of the 40 some citations. It is also the most common self-identification used by its proponents. I think a moment of reflection by any serious editor would consider the renaming this article to conform to the spur-of-the-moment coinage by a single anon user, a coinage that has no usage other than a wikipedia talk page, would be an ill-conceived move. You are entitled to your opinion, however this article is not about your opinion, or about collectivism. It is about an economic philosophy that rejects the premises you operate from and is therefore incapable of adhering to your worldview. Sorry, but there are significant economists that don't buy your argument Saswann 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Removed critiques I have removed from the article some recently-added critiques. There are two reasons. First, a Wikipedia article is not designed to be a back-and-forth series of claims, counterclaims, and rebuttals; controversial articles like this one tend to spiral in that direction. Second, these passages are not written in very good NPOV style, but state some critical opinions as facts. Removed content is as follows: History does, however, show that in societies of unevenly distributed wealth, those with money do not really act in a charitable manner to those without. It might take several very civil wars before the wealthy people in an anarcho-capitalist society realize that looking after the poor is in their own interest. Still, even in our modern society, many states exist where the wealthy ruthlessly dominate the poor and show no sign of changing their attitides, despite frequent uprisings. Comments: to say that "history" does or does not show that is necessarily a huge generalization. "Civil war" is a nonsequitur in a stateless society. Anyway, mostly nobody expects anarcho-capitalism to result in a society which is based on rich people subsidizing poor people out of the goodness of their hearts. The last sentence about rich people employing state power in their interests is irrelevant to the subject of this article. [The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" (gun control), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all.] The problem with this argument is that there exist several "economic" ways for a wealthy upper class to keep large numbers of poor people in check, even if weapons are sold freely. The possibilites include hiring other poor people to fight as badly-paid mercenaries, using expensive high-tech weapons such as tanks and helicopters that the poor cannot fight with their shoestring budget or establishing a mafia-like system of fear and control. Historically, people without the money to buy arms and the time to train with them were always at a disadvantage, even if weapons were available for sale or could be easily made. The French revolution worked only because many poor men had military training and because guns could be taken from government arsenals in large numbers. If this is not the case, an armed insurrection by the poor would be unsuccessful. Moreover, the price of military gear in our world is influenced by the fact that governments buy huge amounts to equip their armies. In an anarcho-capitalist world without huge citizen armies, the price for guns could be much higher. Moreover, wealthy owners of private armies could easily influence the sale of firearms by boycotting any gun manufacturer who sold freely to the poor. This would limit the poor to cheap low-quality arms (perhaps homemade zip guns or weapons like the Sten submachine gun). Comments: It's not clear what "economic" means in the above. The anarcho-capitalist argument is that is quite likely that any situation involving "Group X keeping Group Y in check by illegitimate violence" would not be economical at all; i.e., it would not be profitable. Moreover, this passage, like the above, appears to operate on the assumption that a society will naturally tend to experience "war" (something resembling what we know as war), with the sides breaking down by social class, which is hardly a proven fact; certainly, this is something that we see a lot in the politics of states, but it's not at all clear how an elite class would coordinate their efforts in the absence of a state; they could just as easily wind up fighting each other. "Historically ..." begins another quite dramatic historical generalization, followed by yet another, viz. a hypersimplistic account of why the French revolution worked (note that this, insofar as it was a popular rebellion, consisted of a group of non-state actors fighting against a state). As for the price of guns, because a gun is not a public good, we can predict with some confidence that the price will always match the demand pretty closely. - Nat Krause 12:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I can't believe this is a real topic How stupid can an true anarchist be to believe in such a thing? I'm into two things. Anarchy and Anarcho-Communism. Capitalism is governed by a rule because of the production of money most be controlled. Otherwise, there is no point in having money. Therefore there is a leader in control with the production and distribution of money. Man this is such a sad topic.. --Cyberman 00:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC) Of course, since anarcho-capitalism doesn't hold that production of money must be controlled, your point is moot. Most anarcho-capitalist theorists treat money as anything else, i.e., something that can be privatized. Pulpculture 06:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Well at places like here you can see it best. Wikipedia has become a fantasyland for reactionary opinionating. The problem is that there's a thoroughly corrupt structure of sysops who promote this agenda. No better proof than having a nonsense article liek this one become featured Viande hachée Thanks for your input on how to improve the article. --Golbez 00:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC) How about if people take their misinformed griping to a forum that discusses anarcho-capitalism instead of just cluttering up the wiki? A better suggestion: read up on the No true Scotsman article. --I am not good at running 02:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Turning an idea into a featured article may indirectly promote that idea. --Zackofalltrades The definition of and arguments for this idea are all that is in the article, and that makes it incomplete, yet its a featured article. Reading above I find the following: an exclusive POV definition of "true" anarchism that excludes non-communist ideology an assertion that capitalistic exchange is impossible without state-backed money a conspiracy theroy that Wikipedia is in the grip of facist reactionary sysops a critique that somehow Wikipedia shouldn't "promote" ideas like this by making them featured articles and an unsigned critique that if an article on a topic only discusses the topic it is about it is somehow incomplete Conclusions to be drawn are left as an exercise for the reader Saswann 12:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] New Age Mumbo Jumbo I find it disappointing that any dreamt up science-fiction ideology can creep its way into the Wikipedia and manage to attract enough attention to become a featured article. This example doesn't do the Wikipedia's credibility many favours. Well, a google search shows that the idea of "anarcho-capitalism" is sure enough popular within the blogger/geek community. But I honestly doubt that terms like "anarcho-capitialism", "anarcho-communism" (and other wikipedian anarcho-nonsense) form part of the vocabulary of many serious scholars. I've done a master's in economics and I can assure you that before stumbling upon this article I had never even heard this phrase. I have also asked a few colleages with a background in social and political sciences and none of them seemed familiar with it either. Finally, a search on science direct returned zero hits. It seems the term "anarcho-capitalism" hasn't been mentioned in a reputable journal, ever (correct me if I'm wrong!). However, this article is of good quality and makes some very good points about capitalism. So I suggest a vote to change the problematic name to something more orthodox. -- Etusalikii 23:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Change to "radical capitalism" "It seems the term "anarcho-capitalism" hasn't been mentioned in a reputable journal, ever (correct me if I'm wrong!)." You're wrong. And, I don't find it surprising that you never heard of it in college. Colleges typically ignore anything radical unless its leftist. If you want to learn pro-capitalist laissez-faire theory, you're on your own. Apparently it's a little too subversive. RJII 23:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Well, "anarcho-communism" wasn't taught either. Or is that too subversive as well? Your so called "pro-capitalist laissez-faire" theory falls under the Austrian school in my opinion, which was covered extensively. Etusalikii 00:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Murray Rothbard, a prominent member of the Austrian school, is considered the person who coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" and he uses the term extensively in published works. However, it would be a mistake to limit anarcho-capitalism simply to the Austrian School since, as is noted in the article, there are non-Austrians (like David Friedman, largely a neo-classical economist) who also consider themselves anarcho-capistalists and use the term (in published works, like Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom"). Just because you were not able to find the term in a quick search of certain journals does not mean that the term is not the most appropriate. The article documents plenty of sources that utilize the word and describe the philosophy. I wonder, frankly, what purpose your criticism serves. Are you pushing for Wikipedia to become an elitist organization that takes cues only from published academia, or should it remain an actual encyclopedia of knowledge - unbound by the constraints of a particular sect of elite society? I think most Wikipedians would consider it the latter. I doubt the band Oingo Boingo is in many scientific journals, but I think it entirely appropriate that they exist on Wikipedia. --Academician 09:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] My criticism serves a simple purpose: To call things by their real name. As I've said before, I don't have a problem with the content of this article. If the band Oingo Boingo was called "The Band" by its fans that wouldn't justify a wikipedia entry on "The Band", instead, this fact would be included as a footnote under the entry "Oingo Boingo". The Microsoft Corporation is referred to by the alternative name of "Micro$oft" by millions of computer users. Yet the wikipedia entry quite rightly uses the "elitist" naming convention "Microsoft", not "Micro$oft". The term "anarcho-capitalism" is a slogan, not a political philosophy. A handful of individuals and advocacy groups dropping this phrase in their publications to make "radical capitalism" sound more sexy doesn't change this fact. Apart from not being NPOV, the term is also misleading because of the questionable association of the content with anarchism. There is by definition only one anarchism. Whether an anarchist society organizes itself into de facto free market, feudalist or collectivist models (or, more likely, a combanation thereof) is academic. It's still anarchist, not "anarcho-capitalist", "anarcho-communist", etc. If you think that the phrase "anarchism" has been hijacked by left anarchists, fight against it on the anarchism page, but don't respond by hijacking it yourself. -- Etusalikii 12:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Things don't have "real names" that exist independently of what people call them. "Anarcho-capitalism" is by far the most commonly used unambiguous description for what we're talking about here, so that's what we call it. Also, you really think "anarcho-capitalism" sounds sexy, moreso than "radical capitalism"? Neither term sounds appealing at all. You really kind of impeach your good judgment a little by making such a claim. - Nat Krause 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism has been discussed in the economics literature. I'll give you three cites right now, all available on JSTOR -- Sutter, Daniel. (1995). "Asymmetric Power Relations and Cooperation in Anarchy." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 61, No. 3 January): pp. 602–13. Hirshleifer, Jack. (1995). "Anarchy and Its Breakdown." The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 103, No. 1 (February): pp. 26–52. Mueller, Dennis C. (1988). "Anarchy, the Market, and the State." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 54, No. 4 (April): pp. 821–30. They don't call it anarcho-capitalism, but it's clear what they're referring to. That's why the specific term "anarcho-capitalism" isn't more common -- because most times, the context is clear enough to refer to it simply as "anarchism". We can't do that on Wikipedia, however, since a lot of ideologies very hostile to anarcho-capitalism share that term. Also, I don't know why you're looking for anarhco-capitalism on a science database. Moreover, I've heard that in Italy, most political philosophers feel obligated to address Rothbard's ideas (Rothbard was the primary exponent of anarcho-capitalism). The name shouldn't be changed, because anarhco-capitalism is the most-used term for it, other than "anarchism" in the context of statelessness and "market anarchism" or "free market anarchism" all of which are shared by other ideologies. MrVoluntarist 23:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] >>because anarcho-capitalism is the most-used term for it<<. Amongst anarcho-capitilists I guess, but obviously not in mainstream political and scientific life. I can't help feeling the suspicion that making this a featured article was an attempt at popularizing the term. Like I said, if you bothered to read the full sentence, it's also referred to simply as "anarchism" like in the articles I cited for you. Other than "anarchism", "free market anarchism", and "market anarchism", anarcho-capitalism is the most common term. If you don't like what's being selected for featured article status, you have and had every change to vote against it. It wasn't anarcho-capitalists that selected it to be on the front page. MrVoluntarist 01:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] >>Also, I don't know why you're looking for anarhco-capitalism on a science database<< Science direct covers social sciences and economics too. But from what I've gathered so far, anarcho-capitalism seems to be more of a religion than a science. Etusalikii 00:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] A philosophy is a philosophy, not a science. Some science may justify it, but that would not itself be the philosophy. Apples and oranges. MrVoluntarist 01:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] New Age? What does this have to do with psychic crystals, unicorns from outer space, or overweight and frightenly-jolly office secretary ladies who collect crystals, unicorn porcelain figurines, and own 70 cats? --I am not good at running 06:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] The content of this article doesn't, but the naming is reminiscent of nonsensical New Age phrases such as "quantum transcendence". Etusalikii 12:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] And all this coming a day or two after the featured article Space opera in Scientology doctrine was on the front page. Saswann 15:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] individualist anarchism as a term for anarcho-capitalism Saswann, you deleted the claim that "individualist anarchism" was a term for anarcho-capitalism. Individualist anarchism includes individualists that espouse the labor theory of value as well as those that hold the subjective theory of value. There are anarcho-capitalists who simply refer to themselves as "individualist anarchists." One notable anarcho-capitalist that comes to mind is Wendy McElroy. Here is an interview where she says "I am an individualist anarchist." http://gibe.com/forum/messages.asp?forumid=27&topicid=6370&pagenum=2 RJII 14:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I'm not disputing that it might be used by some ancaps, but placing it there ignores the fact that it is a highly contentious assertion. It is not strictly an alternate term, but als refers to a seprate philosophy. It makes as much sense as putting "anarchism" in that box. Technically true, but also highly misleading and soaked in POV. The box should be limited to terms that, if existed as articles, would be sutible redirects to this article. Saswann 14:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] By that reasoning you would have to also remove "market anarchism," "stateless liberalism," "private property anarchism," and "voluntarism," As the 19th century individualists are also called those things, especially "market anarchists" which is a very popular term for them. RJII 16:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] I guess so. . . though there may be a better way to deal with it. I'm going to try a slightly different format. Saswann 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I think I have a workable solution. BTW, it would be nice if you turned that McElroy refrence into a note in the text. Saswann 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalist Gangland? (and more possible ancap areas) Under the proposed form of government, "coercion" (see article's definition of 'state') would be a tool available to everyone. This is often the case in frontier areas, "failed states" (like PNG), areas claimed by multiple states (like the Congo) and some US inner-urban areas. These are generally not great places to live *because* of the multiple entities using coercion. Historically, such areas have not been this way for long. One group obtains a monopoly, forming (or more often expanding) a state. For instance, the "Wild West" of the US only lasted about a decade before the US state controlled the area. This monopolistic group might be a small subset of all residents. This would make it similar to un-state-sancioned monopolist corporations like Microsoft. The group might encompass most or all residents. This would make it like a democratic state. As soon as norms exist and there's a special group with exclusive rights to enforce them, there's a state. Every working-age male Swiss citizen has a gun. It's law. Many people in the US have a gun. That's legal. Yet it's only in the US that many people with this lethal power feel they have a right to use coercion. Guns don't kill people - people who feel they have a right to use coercion kill people. Which is preferable, a monolithic state that will kill you if they feel like it, or millions of individuals that will kill you if they feel like it? That is difference between anarcho-capitalism and statism. The state is easier to understand and control. The article should include something on why this is all rubbish... matturn 05:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] Wow, you certainly do make the choice between the state and no state sound like an unpalatable one. No reasonable person would want either, the way you describe them. Anyway, you seem to be citing some cases of blatant failure and destruction by states ("failed states", the Congo, American inner cities) as critiques of anti-statism. The exception, though, is the old "Wild West", which was apparently a pretty nice place to live (people kept moving there, after all). As I mentioned to Bob99 above, this talk page isn't really the right place for polemics, so you might want to bring up the same points on a political forum somewhere. Good point about this not being the place for polemics. I should have thought a bit more and put the case more susinctly. I'll try that now: plurality of coersive power in an area (ie anarcho-capitalism) has occured many times in history. It's the case in quite a few places now. However, these periods have almost always been short, filled with violence, and quickly resulted in the formation of a state (or the extension of one into the area). I don't believe the article sufficiently addresses this historical record. BTW, people kept heading west because of the free land. They didn't like the anarchy, that's why it didn't last long. Order has a terrible habit of being more productive than anarchy... (by the way, it would be nice if everyone in Switzerland had a gun and could use it, but apparently they have very strict ammunition control there). - Nat Krause 07:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] Anarchy isn't the lack of "order," but the lack of coerced order. Many see capitalism as "economic anarchy" --the lack of a central authority determing prices, etc. Many would argue that anarchy is what's most conducive to order, and that coercion introduces disorder. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, for one: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order." RJII 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] In any event, the people being discussed in this article certainly believe that anarchy and order do not constitute an eiter/or choice. Please feel free to add anything you think is missing from the article. Of course, the more sources you can cite, especially for opinions and controversial facts, the better. - Nat Krause 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] Walter Block I've got nothing against Walter Block, but I'm given to wonder periodically why he is single out (in addition to Rothbard) in the intro as the co-founder of modern ancap thought. What makes Block's role different from that of Rothbard's other founders and cohorts, or from that of David Friedman, the Tannehills, Robert Le Fevre, etc.? - Nat Krause 04:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] Cause Block kicks ass! --Christofurio 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Somalia POV I deleted this section: However, Somalia is far from being a paragon of anarcho-capitalism, as it is lacking in sophisticated systems of private protection of individual liberty and private property from criminal elements. Such systems have not yet developed, hence, crime is rampant in some areas according to some news reports. However, those wishing for protection from bandits may pay security guards or even warlords for protection. There is, however, a rudimentary legal system which has been called "a free market for the supply, adjudication and enforcement of law."[5] It remains to be seen if private solutions develop to the point of providing high quality security. Is wrong because it is not true. There is a full private right enforcement in Somalia as reported in Van Notten's new book. Furthermore, it makes no prove to show some "warlords" news as evidience of lawlessness. --Irgendwer 19:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Somalia I agree that the Somalia section needs to be cleaned up. For example, the claim that "Nevertheless, though Somalia continues to be a poor country that has been ravaged by civil war, the number of individuals living in abject poverty (individuals living on less than $1 per day) has diminished" is not sourced. If it is meant to be sourced from the world bank report that follows, then it is not supported, as that report only gives the info for a single year, so there is no way to see if it has grown or diminished, only that it is slightly less than neighboring countries. It would probably also be more balanced to not that while the abject poverty statistic is 7% less, per capita income is about half and access to safe water is 1/3 (which the report blames in part on the absence of government). The section also refers to education being private, but doesn't mention that enrollment is 65% lower in Somalia than neighboring countries. There is also a general tone to the Somalia section that seems to skirt POV issues. For example, while the text reads, "One business sector that is said to be doing especially well is telecommunications." and goes on to note that there are even internet cafes, the article it sources reads that the telecommunications industry is one of, "Somalia's few success stories in the anarchy of recent years." There is little way of knowing how much the statistics offered are influenced by Somaliland or Puntland, in which clan rule (i.e. a state) extends over several regions. Several studies have indicated that data from Somalia is hard to get and generally inaccurate, as shown by the lack of economic data in the world bank database [6] (from which these figures were taken), and the contradiction that can be seen in figures like the literacy rate estimated by the CIA factbook (38% 2001) versus the world bank index (81% 2003). As the CIA factbook says, "Statistics on Somalia's GDP, growth, per capita income, and inflation should be viewed skeptically." There have also been considerable donations to regions of Somalia by outside states such as the EU, Italy, and the US, to shore up their infrastructure, while its debts have continued to grow, so it is difficult to know how much of there development is from lack of a state or from the presence of foreign state investment. Finally, many of the world bank's report have not been glowing concerning the state of the economy, "Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, a situation aggravated by the civil war and the absence of a functioning national government for more than a decade. The impact of state failure on human development in Somalia has been profound, resulting in the collapse of political institutions, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure, and massive internal and external migrations." [7] In other words, some of the claims made in the article aren't supported by the data being cited. I'll clean it up myself if no one else bothers, just wanted to give a heads up for the reasons first. Revkat 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Yes, please, clean up the nonsense. --Irgendwer 13:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Revkat deleting source Revkat continues to delete the source in the article from Richard Garner, that was in Ifeminist Newsletter issue of May 14 2002. On Peter Sabatini's "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" His explanation is "It was a post to an online forum, I know because I was there at the time and watched a friend participate in the discussion. Please don't resort to an online forum for a source." First of all, can you prove that? Secondly, it was published in Ifeminist Newsletter, and even if it was originally from an online forum I'm sure it was published with permission from Garner). Your justification for deleting this source from that contemporary individualist anarchist (who recently converted to anarcho-capitalism from labor theory individualism) is invalid. RJII 18:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] You want a source? Ask Gardner, he hangs about on wikipedia sometimes and tends to be honest about that sort of thing. Or you could ask me, I'm a eye witness to the event, having watched discussions between Gardner and a friend on that forum at that time. Its impossible to show the forum itself, as McElroy doesn't keep archives from back then. As for it being "published" in the ifeminist newsletter, that is an "e-newsletter" sent primarily to subscribers of the ifeminist forums. In other words, someone cut-and-paste it from the forum into an email with a bunch of CCs and sent it out. You want to start including mailing list posts as sources? Please say the word, because I've got a whole lot of junk written by various anarchists over the years on forums and in email lists. Heck, the @-list alone could add thousands of sources to this article. I just thought we had, you know, standards. And as for Gardner's political viewpoints, yep, he is a confused guy. Is that evidence for something? Revkat 18:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] So you indeed have no evidence to back up your claim. And, I sure don't believe you. The source is staying in. RJII 18:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Nope, it isn't. Forum posts sent to an email list do not a real source make. Revkat 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] All we have is your word that that's the case. And, that's not worth much at all. The article is from Ifeminist Newsletter. RJII 19:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Really RJ, if this is the road you want to go down, good luck. Revkat 20:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Revkat (formerly Kevehs) is putting in a source with the explanation: Further evidence according to RJ's "email lists are okay" standard for sources. I'd just like to state for the record that this is a lie. I never said any such thing. Read this section for more information. RJII 20:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] RJ insists on inserting evidence from an online forum. The website of the forum keeps no archives, so there is no way to prove its origin. So he claims that is was "published" in a newsletter from ifeminists.com. This "e-newsletter" is nothing more than an email mailing list, so even if he doubts the fact that it was cut-and-pasted from a forum (as the format demonstrates pretty well) and refuses to contact Gardner over the issue, it still resolves to nothing more than a mailing list. Given his refusal to stick to respectable sources, and his habit to interpret things from sources he cites that are not supported by the text, I feel it should be completely legitimate, from his perspective, for me to post sources from a mailing list as well. Revkat 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Rehash. Already rebutted. RJII 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] PLEASE BE CAREFUL FORMATTING CITATIONS! Not to shout, but recent edits severely screwed up the footnote numbering. Please note the following when placing references in the document: Do not EVER put an unnamed off-site link in the article. They throw off the footnote numbering within the article. I commented out half a dozen. I am making no calls on the value of the references in themselves, but please name them if you feel they should be included. When adding a footnote, be sure that the note at the end of the article is placed in the correct position! The notes in the table need to be in the exact same order as the references in the article. This might seem a little anal, but this is a featured article, and messing up formatting like this makes the whole thing look amateurish, which shouldn't be anyone's goal here--Saswann 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Self-ownership not all that central This article describes the idea of self-ownership as central to anarcho-cap. It seems to me that the presentations of anarcho-cap by David Friedman don't depend upon this idea, but are much more pragmatic in style. I doubt that the Asutrians (prior to Rothbard, who seems to have revised them considerably in the course of eulogizing them) would have had any use for the term or idea. One's relationship with one's self isn't that of ownership, but that of identity. Furthermore, saying so is perfectly consistent with reaching anarcho-cap conclusions on the basis of what succeeds and what fails in creating or destroying value. --Christofurio 21:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] There does seem to be a problem. There is a difference between basing it on the assumption that individuals own themselves and basing it on contractualism. In the latter case self-ownership comes about only by contract, and so contract is more fundamental than self-ownership. And you can get even more fundamental than that, if you say there is no natural right of contract but for pragmatic reasons it makes sense to act as if there is, etc. RJII 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] The idea of self-ownership is indeed central to ancap, even if one does not accept self-ownership as a natural right. Ownership means de facto use of and control over a "thing" (and the person is a "thing"). Hence, the non-aggression axiom (thou shalt not agressively interfere with another's person or property) defines and establishes, at least in part, a property right. That is, one should be free from aggressive interference with his use of and control over his person and property. Therefore, self-ownership is a central idea to ancap, whether it is natural law, positive law, or otherwise. Of course, the concept of property, particularly "rightly held" property, needs further development. In a nutshell, however, property is an extension of the psyche--the body and other instrumentalities through which the psyche acts on the world. (That is from whence the word "property" comes in this context, meaning "attribute.") And "rightly held" property is that property which does not require violation of the non-aggression axiom for its acquisition and its continued use and control. It depends on the anarcho-capitalists. Some think property comes about through labor; others think it can only come about through contract. RJII 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Non-Aggression Axiom--Proposed Clarification May I suggest the following clarification to the non-aggression axiom. The text following the Rothbard quotation, as presently written, is cluttered and confusing. First, the prescription against the "initiation of force, or the threat of force" is ambiguous, because it can be taken, incorrectly, to mean that the "initiation of the threat of force" is forbidden. In a more precise formulation, this prohibition should clearly not apply to a threat to DEFEND one's person or property by force, regardless of whether the threat is made before or after someone else acts aggressively. In other words, when distinguishing between initial and defensive force, the correct equivalent of "initial force" is the "threat of initial force." Second, "fraud" should be made more clearly equivalent to "force." Indeed, the purpose and result of both force and fraud are the same: they are used to change another person's conduct. Fraud differs from force by merely this: the perpetrator of fraud changes his victim's conduct by intentionally creating a false reality in the victim's mind, i.e., if the victim had not been defrauded, then he would not have changed his conduct unless he had been compelled to do so by actual force. Therefore, fraud, like the threat of force, is the psychic equivalent of force. Therefore, I would rewrite the non-aggression axiom thus: "One should neither initiate force or fraud, nor threaten to initiate force (threats and fraud being the psychic equivalents of actual force), against another person or his property." Any objections or other comment? LEKulp 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] You have a good point. It's a threat of initiating force that's forbidden --initiating a threat to use force isn't itself forbidden if the threat is to use force to defend oneself. But also, it needs to be clear that it's physical force. "initiate physical force..." RJII 02:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. The most fundamental of the principles must be stated with absolute clarity. So, as per your suggestion, the axiom should be restated as follows: "One should neither initiate physical force or fraud, nor threaten to initiate physical force (threats and fraud being the psychic equivalents of physical force), against another person or his property." Incidently, I have trouble calling this an "axiom," because it is not self-evident. Anyway, the article is meant to be descriptive, and ancaps do use the word "axiom" in referring to this principle. I suppose that it resembles an axiom insofar as it is a political "first principle." The logically antecedent premises probably come under the category of ethics. LEKulp 03:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] I have a problem calling it an "axiom" as well, because like you said it implies that it's self-evident. Also, it intimates natural rights, which not all libertarians believe in. It's alternatively called the "non-agression principle," so we could use that. RJII 03:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply] It is axiomatic that all great minds think alike. But I must admit that, having been reared as a Catholic, I just can't get away from natural rights. Lost the faith, but still hung up on medieval Scholastic stuff. LEKulp 04:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From the Dictionary of Marxist Thought (1992): "Although anarchism rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE. This archive page covers approximately the dates between Jul 06 and Aug 06. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 17. Thank you. --Rosicrucian 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] Contents 1 Concerns about the lead 2 Introductory paragraph 3 Anarchism or Libertarianism? 4 POV and OR 4.1 Other-language Wikipedias 5 Medieval Iceland 6 Topheavy 7 Improper Citations 8 The sockpuppet straw-man 9 citecheck 10 medieval iceland 11 Archived 12 Lead sentence 13 Lead paragraph 14 My revert 15 Modern Somalia 16 Sidebars 17 Templates 18 Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit 18.1 split1 18.2 split2 18.3 split3 18.4 Can we stop joking around? 19 First paragraph of intro 20 Mediation 21 Taking a break 22 Stylistics Concerns about the lead Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. Laissez-faire capitalism is arguably the most important aspect of anarcho-capitalism (hence the existence of the term capitalism in the name), so why is there no mention of laissez-faire capitalism in this defining sentence? Why do I have to wait until the middle of the paragraph to see a mention of capitalism? Moreover, I would like someone to tell me the specific source(s) from which this definition is dervied (in particular, the clause about "initiatory coercion and fraud"); otherwise, there is no way for me to verify it and I will have no other choice but to consider it original research. -- WGee 02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary exchange...a free market. Some people define capitalism in other ways. I agree it needs a more definitional type intro sentence. Here is one from a source: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and national defense. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a system of private property based on individual rights is the only moral system - a system that implies a free market, or total voluntarism, in all transactions. (Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99. (Article is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an anarcho-capitalist.)) TheIndividualist 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Introductory paragraph I read the introductory paragraph three times, and I am still rather confused at the exact definition of anarcho-capitalism. There needs to be a solid definition, not the bs™ that's there now - "Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud." - well it's interesting it's based on that, but what is it? "Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals." - That doesn't help define anarcho-capitalism either, and some individuals may encounter difficulty even comprehending that sentence at all. In fact, this entire article should be cut down and simplified a bit, and could someone insert a solid definition into the first 2 sentences? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I put a first sentence definition in there. "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism that proposes that all goods and services, including defense of liberty and property, should be supplied in a free market rather than by the state." TheIndividualist 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] That's a highly contentious claim. I removed it. --AaronS 15:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, looking like if you call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, you get folks coming out of the woodwork. Wild stuff, and this seems to be one of those topics that engenders a lot of strong opinions.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The sentence that is there now sounds about right - Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the coordinatation of all functions of society, including justice and national defence, by the free market.. It's a definition, at the least. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarchism or Libertarianism? While I can certainly see a case made for either, isn't two sidebars a bit much? Unless we can move one of them down so they both occupy the same space on the right, it really clutters up the article layout. Personally I'd say Anarcho-capitalism has more in common with the articles in the Anarchism series (particularly Anarcho-syndicalism) than with articles in the Libertarianism series.--Rosicrucian 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] ...and I just visited Template talk:Anarchism and figured out what a can of worms I just opened. Wow. Guess this will have to wait until the template debate is over (if ever).--Rosicrucian 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I agree that two sidebars is too much, but I haven't removed either for the very reason you listed. They could at least be put one after the other rather than side-by-side. I will try that, hopefully it won't ignite passions. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Layout looks much improved as a result. I suppose we could have some contention over which one to put first, but I do hope we can all agree that the new layout makes the overall article more readable.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] It certainly does, and I dearly hope we don't start arguing about which comes first. That would be quite silly. =) --AaronS 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Of course, the research is proving bewildering. Every time I delve further and come closer to saying "okay, this is closer to anarchism" or "okay, this is closer to libertarianism" I find another passage that swings me the other way. Certainly Rothbard believed this to be an anarchist philosophy, but so many of the ideals involved are libertarian in nature, and it certainly doesn't clear things up to find that the man also practically codified what we now identify as libertarianism in the modern sense. Until I can wrap my head around this better any edits and suggestions I make will be procedural and layout oriented rather than content-oriented.--Rosicrucian 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] That makes sense. One of the difficulties with these articles is that it does require a lot of background knowledge. I admit that my own understanding of all of the different anarchist philosophies is elementary at best. --AaronS 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] POV and OR I added the tags, due to TheIndividualist's most recent edit. That anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is a highly contentious claim that does not belong in the article lead. It's also an example of WP:OR, becuase it's introducing a new synthesis of ideas into Wikipedia. Further, the MS Encarta source is misattributed. Finally, that "some people view it that way" is not enough justification for it to be in the article lead; those are weasel words. Please stop reverting. Thanks. --AaronS 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Saying "some regard as a form of individualist anarchism" is not "weasel words" if they are sourced, which they are. It is a true and indisputable statement that anarcho-capitalism is "considered by some to be a form of individualist anarchism." Your complaint is off the chain. TheIndividualist 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Off the chain? I'm not quite sure what that means. Read the guidelines on weasel words. Sources can be found to justify just about anything (especially primary sources). A while back, on Talk:Anarchism, I showed how one could make Karl Marx look like an anarchist simply by selectively citing the Communist Manifesto. Whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is already discussed in anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's where the discussion belongs. It certainly does not belong in the lead of the article. --AaronS 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Aaron is saying that those statements don't belong in the intro, i agree. they certianly should be included elsewhere, however. Blockader 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] And certainly they are included elsewhere in the article, complete with citation. Given that it is under dispute, it certainly shouldn't be in the first sentence as that will only give casual readers the wrong impression. The link between anarcho-capitalism and individualism is not core to the definition of the term, and thus should be left for later in the article where the nuances of it can be properly explained.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Exactly. The core to the definition of the term is that it is an anti-statist free market philosophy. Why not use that as the lead, instead? Anarcho-capitalism might trumpet individualism, but that doesn't make it individualist anarchism, because individualist anarchism is its own philosophy with its own history and its own sphere of influence, and so on. "Individualist anarchism" isn't just an adjective-noun grouping -- it's a complete term, denoting a philosophy. --AaronS 21:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are wrong. Individualist anarchism is a broad school of anarchism. All individualist forms of anarchism are individualist anarchism. Common sense. Individualist anarchism is not a defined philosophy other than being an individualist form of anarchism. Every individualist anarchist has his own idiosyncratic philosophy. And there is not just one source but many sources. TheIndividualist 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Rothbard, who coined the term "anarcho-capitalism," said that he wasn't an individualist anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism may be individualistic, and it might possibly be anarchism, but it is not individualist anarchism. --AaronS 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] You're missing the point. What the others are saying is that it doesn't belong in the lead sentence, firstly because it is a highly contentious statement that makes use of weasel words to create the illusion of neutrality, and secondly because it is not the defining tenet of anarcho-capitalism. Keep the defining sentence simple and concise, then explain these complex nuances later, and in much more detail. To say that it is an "individualist philosophy" is sufficient enough for the lead sentence. However, are there any non-partisan, reputable sources to attest to the assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a "philosophy"? If multiple sources are not provided, we should change "philosophy" to "ideology". Moreover, your edits did make use of weasel words, which Wikipedia editors should avoid. You cannot say the article "exemplifies our very best work" while it violates Wikipedia guidelines in the first sentence. -- WGee 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Yep. --AaronS 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I changed the lead to this: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist economic and political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, so that all goods and services, including defense of liberty and property, may be supplied in a free market. It can probably be improved, so tweak it as much as you want. I also removed the {{POV}} and {{OR}} tags. --AaronS 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Other-language Wikipedias Non-English Wikipedias seem to place anarcho-capitalism within the rubric of liberalism or libertarianism, not anarchism. See the [Spanish article], for instance. The French Wikipedia places it in its series on libertarianism. Its lead is: L'anarcho-capitalisme est une théorie de la liberté. Combinaison du libéralisme et de l'individualisme, c'est une philosophie du droit basée sur le principe de non-agression. Rough translation: Anarcho-capitalism is a theory of liberty. A combination of libertarianism and individualism, it is a right-wing philosophy based upon the non-aggression principle. There seems to be quite a disparity, here. --AaronS 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Indeed there is a disparity. If people wish to assert as fact that anarcho-capitalism is a strand of anarchism, they must support that assertion with several reputable, authoritative sources. Saying that anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchism is to say that libertarian socialism is a genre of libertarianism, an assertion that virtually all political scientists rebuff. The two ideologies may share their desire for utter liberty, but they fundamentally disagree about what "liberty" should entail, or how to achieve this ideal. Ignore the semantics of the term for a moment and ask yourself: Does anarcho-capitalism share more in common with the pro-capitalist, state-weary ideologies of libertarianism or with the anti-capitalist ideologies of anarchism? The answer, I think, is clear. The fervently capitalist ideals of anarcho-capitalism simply aren't compatible with the vehemently anti-capitalist ideologies that comprise anarchism. -- WGee 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm still mulling it over myself. The originator calls it anarchism, and it calls for the abolition of the state which is a common thread throughout anarchistic philosophies. Its notions on government as a coercive control shew very closely to other anarchy movements. However economically it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and the originator is one of the core theorists behind what modern political scientists recognize as libertarianism. He also does very little to distinguish it from his theories and musing on libertarianism, and many of the American Libertarian Party claim to be anarcho-capitalists. It's a damnably fuzzy line to me.--Rosicrucian 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, the ideology of "anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new one. Although it derives ideas from ideologies that have existed for centuries, it is fundamentally new in its organization of these ideas. Usually it is the independent political science community who, some time later, classifies an ideology; but here it is the anarcho-capitalists who are classifying their own ideology right now. The question in my mind is: how can and why would the creators of anarcho-capitalism justifiably place it in a category comprised of ardently anti-capitalist ideologies? Anarcho-capitalism is despised by the anarchists and anti-capitalist anarchism by anarcho-capitalists, so it does not make sense to try to unite the two under the same category. The only connection between them is their support for the abolition of the state. But does anarcho-capitalism's contempt for the state make it an anarchist ideology? I don't think so. Anarchism, in its general semantical meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. However, in its historical and political meaning (which is what we should be discussing), anarchism not only supports the abolition of the state, but full social, economic, and political equality, as well. The first self-declared anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, abhorred capitalism as a source of hierarchy and oppression, and that tradition continued in the dominate anarchist writers who superceded him, including Kropotkin and Bakunin. That political tradition does not change merely because of some 20th-century anarcho-capitalists who wish to become members of the anarchist clan. -- WGee 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] You're wrong that all anarchism is about equality. Individualist anarchists do not aim for equality other than equal rights. Equal wealth is out of the question. Only anarcho-communists want equal wealth distribution. TheIndividualist You seem to be ignoring my main points, though— one of which is that, throughout history, the dominate contributors to anarchism and the overwhelming majority of anarchists were anti-capitalist, even the individualist ones (though not necessarily anti-market or communistic). In fact, no capitalist strand of "anarchism" has ever existed, except since the 20th century in the form of questionably-named anarcho-capitalism. It does not make sense to dump anarcho-capitalism into a sea of vehemently anti-capitalist ideologies; the historical precedent doesn't allow it. -- WGee 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The historical precedent has already been made. Anarcho-capitalism has been around for quite a long time now...since the 1960's I think. The anti-capitalist individualist anarchists (meaning anti-profit) were around first then the communism anarchism showed up. The anti-individualist anarchists denied that it was a form of anarchism because the communists wanted to abolish private property, money, and markets. Then in the 1960's another new form of anarchism showed up...anarcho-capitalism and of course there's going to be anarchists denying it is "true anarchism." The anarcho-capitalists are also individualist anarchists but they don't think profit is exploitative. There's simply smarter individualist anarchists than the anti-capitalist individualist anarchists because of advances in economics. No serious economist today considers the labor theory of value as valid. Because one painting takes more labor to create than another, you're exploiting one of the painters unless you pay them equal price for their paintings. Come on. Just because you don't oppose profit it doesn't mean you're not an anarchist. TheIndividualist 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] A historical precedent from the 1960's can't really be compared to the historical precendent set by Proudhon in 1840. But lets not incite political debate and begin to denounce or exhalt ideologies; that's just counterproductive and detracts from the improvement of the article. Central to this whole thread is that the assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is disputed (evidenced by the foreign language Wikipedias), and that any sources asserting such a fact should be presented with this circumstance in mind. Another central principle, true of any article, is that hefty assertions require hefty sources; I don't believe your sources are "hefty" or reputable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Let's use them elsewhere, where the controversy can be discussed in detail. Do you agree? -- WGee 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't matter what the foreign language Wikipedias say if they're not sourced. As you know anyone can write anything they want in Wikipedia unless someone is making sure everything is sourced. And no I do not agree that my sources are not reputable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Need a peer-reviewed journal? Here you go: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism...contemporary anarcho-capitalists are descendants of nineteenth-century individualist anarchists such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker" -Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99. (Article is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an anarcho-capitalist.) You cannot get any more reputable than a peer-reviewed journal. Not only that but the author is a critic of anarcho-capitalism. TheIndividualist 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Nonetheless, that is a hotly disputed assertion evidently, and therefore should only be mentioned in appropriate context, not as a mere one-clause weasel phrase. If we were to state anything in the lead, it should be something to the effect of: "Anti-capitalist anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and political scientists frequently disagree as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a subset of the broader anarchist movement." The controversy has to be adequately documented. -- WGee 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] History, through the writings of virtually all self-declared and important anarchists to date, shows us that anarchism is an ideology dedicated to aboloshing all forms of hierarchy and coercion, including capitalism. It shows us that anti-capitalist anarchism is the only form of anarchism to have really existed, or at least the overwhelmingly dominate one. Any ideology that espouses capitalism is therefore incompatible with this historical precedent and should not be classified alongside the egalitarian ideologies of anarchism. -- WGee 03:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] It's patently false that anarchism is opposed to all forms of coercion. Defensive coercion is fine. Even initiatory coercion is fine for some such as anarcho-communists like Johann Most who advocated terrorism. There is nothing that makes something anarchism other than opposition to the state. TheIndividualist 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] That's not true, either, though. --AaronS 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] If it wasn't anarchism it wouldnt have the prefix "anarcho" attached. "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchists and now eco-anarchisms." -Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231. TheIndividualist 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] No offence intended, but that is a rather lame rebuttal to what I've written. The semantical meaning of the term is irrelevant as I have stated, nevermind that it was developed by 20th-century anarcho-capitalists who have their own obvious biases. A reductio ad absurdum easily nullifies your inference: if political classifications were based solely on semantics, I could develop a communistic ideology called "communo-capitalism" and correctly declare it a subset of capitalism, even though it is actually contrary to capitalism. Absurd, isn't it? Thus, the semantical meaning of the term, and essentially the term itself, is irrelevant; what matters is its political and historical similarity to anarchism, of which virtually none exists. -- WGee 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The "rebuttal" was a quote from a mainstream political philosophy source. You can argue until the cows come home but mainstream sources consider it a form of anarchism and Wikipedia is about sourced information, not your personal ideas. TheIndividualist 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] (Actually, your rebuttal didn't contain the quote when I first commented; you added it later.) -- WGee 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Chill about a bit, there, dude. I wouldn't say mainstream sources, but perhaps a mainstream source. --AaronS 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anybody can right a book and assert a fact; what we need here are well-established, highly-esteemed, reputable sources. Hefty assertions require hefty sources, and a reference to a few unnotable authors is not sufficient. Interestingly enough, I could probably find various analyses of anarcho-capitalism which distance the ideology from anarchism. -- WGee 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The only writers you're going to find saying anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is anti-capitalist writers. No surprise there. TheIndividualist 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] On the Internet, perhaps, but not necessarily in libraries. Unfortunately, though, I don't have access to such a comprehensive library as you do, and am therefore not able to conduct any meaningful bibilographical research right now. That does not mean that your sources deserve mention in the lead (which would be an instance of allocating undue weight to them), nor does it imply that opposing views don't exist. Your suggestions that your sources are mainstream are moot. -- WGee 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Another problem is that, because anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new and absolutely uninfluential ideology, there is not much disscussion of it amongst the more reputable, well-known sectors of academia. Accordingly, it is difficult to say that any source is "mainstream", as a mainstream opinion on anarcho-capitalism doesn't really exist. -- WGee 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] And collectivist forms of anarchism are influential? I look around and a see the world becoming more and more capitalist and away from communism...not the other way around. I am not saying anarcho-capitalism is influencing this but to say other forms of anarchism are influential is ridiculous. They are becoming increasingly obscure by the minute and no one cares. TheIndividualist 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Further, I find that most general sources on anarchism don't even mention anarcho-capitalism at all. --AaronS 04:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Oh, well, unless you can find mainstream sources (non-rabid anti-capitalist) that say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism your argument is just personal opinion and doesnt really matter for the article. There are plenty of mainstream references that say that it is. TheIndividualist 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] You might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit. Anyways, that doesn't make much sense. The positive claim is that anarcho-capitalism is considered to be a form of anarchism. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. You feel that you have provided that proof, whereas others do not. If I wanted to show that anarcho-capitalism was not considered to be a form of anarchism, I could let silence speak louder than words. But, in this case, all anybody really needs to do is show the myriad of "mainstream" sources on political philosophy that include anarchism but do not mention anarcho-capitalism at all. --AaronS 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] How many sources do you require saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism? TheIndividualist 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Although you're right that my argument in thus far personal opinion, it is intended to note that the insertion of a reference to anarchism in the lead is an ill-conceived and conentious idea. My argument is relevant to the use and placement of sources in this article, and so does matter some. It's not as though I'm not trying to insert any original research into the article. Furthermore, I don't necessarily have to find a source which states that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. As Aaron point out, the fact that many writings on anarchism don't even allude to anarcho-capitalism is evidence enough that its classification as a school of anarchism is contestable. And as I've said before, your interpretation of what is "mainstream" is moot. -- WGee 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Any text that about anarchism that doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism is simply not an exhaustive source on anarchism. There are LOTS of texts about anarchism that aside from not mentioning anarcho-capitalism don't even mention individualist anarchism but that doesn't mean individalist anarchism is not anarchism. It just means that it's not a through text on anarchism. TheIndividualist 04:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Any text that about anarchism that doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism is simply not an exhaustive source on anarchism. Yet there are several comprehensive sources that are exhaustive lists. And when those non-exhaustive lists exclude anarcho-capitalism, it may very well be because it has not been intellectually influential enough throughout history to deserve mention. That brings me to my next point: when I spoke of influence, I meant intellectual influence throughout history (although several examples of anarchism in practice have been documented by academics). Anti-capitalist anarchism has dominated anarchist intellectual thought, insofar as to constitute the only credible, historical form of anarchism. Out of all of the important anarchist theorists, none of them claimed to be or are widely considered to be pro-capitalist. Its this historical precedent, as I've stated before, that makes the classifcation of anarcho-capitalism as "anarchist" hotly contested. -- WGee 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Aaron that you should tone town the rhetoric, some of which I consider incivil and all of which I consider unnecessary. I'm not trying to insert original research into the article, as you insinuate; I'm simply suggesting, through my argument, a more enlightened placement, use of, and labelling of references which consider anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism. Of course your sources aren't irrelevant; my underlying point is that they are highly contenstable and should therefore be presented as highly contestable. Remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground; Aaron and I are not acting as POV warriors, and niether are you, I assume. Likewise, remember to assume good faith; in other words, assume that our intentions are to improve the encyclopedia, not harm it. Once that mentality prevails, rather than the "us versus them" mentality, the editing process will flow much more smoothly. -- WGee 05:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] What??? Where have I been uncivil? And when did I ever claim you trying to put original research in the article? All I did was point out that anything you put in has to be sourced, just in case you wanted to put your own opinion in. Which is the same thing you and Aaron have been saying to me, by the way. I provided a source and can provide more. TheIndividualist 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I said that you insinuated that I was trying to insert orignal research. Perhaps "uncivil" was too strong of a word; to be more precise, some of your comments, I feel, served to increase tension and promote an atmosphere of heated contention. -- WGee 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] And I think you and Aaron have been insinuating I'm putting original research in the article, when in fact I've been putting sourced information in. TheIndividualist 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think you've been putting exaggerated, 'ill-placed, and weaselly-worded information into the article, but not original research. In fact, I acknowledged your use of sources, stating: "Of course your sources aren't irrelevant; my underlying point is that they are highly contenstable and should therefore be presented as highly contestable." -- WGee 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Weaselly-worded? It's not weasel words if it's sourced. And look at what I wrote. I didn't say it is a form of individualist anarchism. I said "some consider it a form of individualist anarchism" and attached like 8 sources. That is not "weasel words." TheIndividualist 05:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Medieval Iceland Is this section necessary? Does it conform to WP:NPOV? Is it original research? Some people have expressed concern about it in the past. What do you all think? --AaronS 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] All I can say is huh? How is it orgingal research when half the section is an extended quote by a ancap writer, and the other half is a heavily sourced respose to it? I can see an NPOV argument about ancap/anarchist terminology, but this seems to be attacking the article simply for the sake of attacking the article. I'm not going to remove the tag, because I'm not really involved in editing this article at the moment, but your issues with the section come across as bizzare to me. (Oh and FWIW, the complaints about this had to do with the Somolia part of this, which no longer exists-- I think the consensus about that was the writing on anarco-capitalism in Somolia never rose above the level of blogging.) --Saswann 02:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Woah, there. Just throwing it out there. I wasn't attacking anything, just asking questions. You're right that it doesn't qualify as original research; I suppose that my point, there, was that it doesn't seem to be a significant discussion, so selling it as "anarcho-capitalism in the real world" might be a new synthesis. But, you're right, it's more of a WP:NPOV issue. --AaronS 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] On what grounds it's a NPOV issue? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Undue weight. The section should exist, but should be qualified and reduced. --AaronS Undue weight says "that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In that section equal weight is given to the claim that Medival Iceland had some features of an anarcho-capitalist society and to claim that it "was a communal rather than individualist society". Section can be reduced but I really don't see a point in that. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] You're giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. I think that you misunderstand the policy. All you did was restate the gist of WP:NPOV. You didn't read the undue weight section. If David Friedman, and perhaps a couple other people, think that Medieval Iceland resembled an anarcho-capitalist society, then that's a minority viewpoint. --AaronS 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is article about anarcho-capitalism, so presenting anarcho-capitalist view on certain things is not giving undue weight to that view. That (presenting a-c theories) is the exact purpose of this article. If we were to add a-c view to the article about history of Iceland, that would be giving undue weight; here it's not. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] That's probably true. Good points. --AaronS 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Glad that we can agree on something. -- Vision Thing -- 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think the example of the Old West can be added in that section. There is an article about that attached to this article. TheIndividualist 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Ironic that the article comes from The Journal of Libertarian Studies. I'm not really sure that one academic essay is enough, though. --AaronS 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The Journal of Libertarian Studies is a peer-reviewed journal. It is enough. TheIndividualist 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] What is so "ironic" by the way? TheIndividualist 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] This was also published in a peer-reviewed journal. But I understand your point. If you want to include it, it would have to be qualified, of course. I said that it was ironic because you have been arguing that anarcho-capitalism belongs in the anarchist tradition instead of the libertarian one, and here you present us with an essay about anarcho-capitalism from an academic journal focusing on libertarian studies. ;-) --AaronS 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The Journal of Libertarian Studies was created with the undertanding that libertarianism referred to individualist anarchism in the US. Individualist anarchism in the 19th century and early 20th century used to be called libertarianism. Old books about Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner refer to them as "libertarians" and anarchists interchangeably. Libertarianism and anarchism are synonyms in old anarchist literature. Murray Rothbard and others just continued the term for the pro-capitalist individualism. TheIndividualist 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] That's probably because earlier books were influenced by Proudhon and European anarchism, which was much more significant at the time. In French, the dominant political and philosophical language of the time, and the language of Proudhon, "libertaire" means anarchist, whereas "liberal" means libertarian. Confusing, yes. --AaronS 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Exactly. Karl Hess founded with Murray Rothbard Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought in 1965. I think that may have been before the term "anarcho-capitalism" was invented. They just considered themselves anarchists. TheIndividualist 05:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Topheavy The introductory section of the article is rather dense with information, perhaps needlessly so. If one can't see the ToC without scrolling at 1024x768, I think things may have gone somewhat awry. I'd favor coming up with a more concise introductory paragraph, with any other information moved to the appropriate section of the article as needed. It fits Wikipedia:Lead section better that way.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] No thoughts on this? Surely we can be more concise than what's up there right now.--Rosicrucian 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your relevant and uncontroversial point might have been lost in the bickering. ;-) --AaronS 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Upon further inspection, it does look like VisionThing tidied it up a good deal, and I just missed it. Kudos, VisionThing, that's definitely looking like a step in the right direction. I'll give it another look in 1024x768 once I get back from work, as I don't have local admin rights to adjust my workstation's resolution.--Rosicrucian 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Improper Citations Many of the sources now being inserted into the article by TheIndividualist were originally inserted by editors RJII and Hogeye, who have now been banned and have a history of inserting sources that do not back the claim or are not properly referanced (i.e. no page number/chapter for entire books, referancing the editor of a compilation of essays without mention of specific essay/author, etc). Given that these referances were first inserted by dubious sources, and given the high likelihood that theindividualist is a sockpuppet of one of the aforementioned now banned users, I'm calling for a citecheck for this article and several others which have been stuffed with the same sources for the same claims. In particular, I would like to know if the texts actually support the specific claims being made, and will begin to visit my local university library in the coming weeks to check them. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] That's probably a good idea. It is true that most of RJII and Hogeye's citations were selectively quoted. Sometimes they would be contradicted on the very same page. --AaronS 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I would add that it does seem peculiar that TheIndividualist appeared out of nowhere and is making the same arguments and using the same sources in the same fashion and with the same tone as RJII, who, last we heard, victoriously vanished in a cloud of smoke with a maniacal, villainous cackle, after being banned. --AaronS 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] That's not true. Hogye is banned because of personal attack and RJII for the way he left Wikipedia. Can you show some examples of sources that do not back the claim? -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I removed several today from the individualist anarchism article one at a time and indicated when the source did not support the claim, the examples can be found in the history of the article. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] What does it matter WHO inserted the sources? The article is well cited. TheIndividualist 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] It matters because there is a necessity of trust involved in sources that cannot be easily checked. If the individuals have a pattern of behavior that suggests they include improper sources, and a pattern of behavior of abusing wikipedia, then it becomes difficult to check their sources. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I haven't seen any pattern of such a thing. Have you? Can you provide evidence? It seems you go around claiming that RHII and Hogeye were putting in improper sources but it is just empty claims. TheIndividualist 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Look through the edit history of the pages involved and you will find dozens of instances of myself pointing out when and where and how the referances were misused or improperly cited. If someone who isn't clearly a sockpuppet of RJII/Hogeye asks for individual examples I would be happy to provide them. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, I ask for individual examples of misused or improperly cited sources in this article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I suspect he won't provide examples with the claim that you are a sockpuppet of RJII/Hogeye. That seems to be a common tactic. If all else fails, accuse them of being a sockpuppet. IndividualistAnarchist 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] This comment is really funny, now, considering that you were a sockpuppet. Bye, bye. --AaronS 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You should probably note that you're a sockpuppet of User:TheIndividualist on your user page, IndividualistAnarchist. I'm not sure why you removed that note. Also, the fact that you're using two usernames to edit the same article might be in violation of Wikipedia policy. It certainly is needlessly confusing. --AaronS 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm not violating any policy. I'm no longer going to use that username. That's why I removed the note. I removed teh note by this usename so anyone could see the new username. IndividualistAnarchist 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] These are a few that I've already removed from the anarcho-capitalism article, they are also being used in this article, as well as individualist anarchism and anarchism. [1], [2], [3], [4] As for evidence of VT being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of RJ/Hogeye, I already presented it. [5] The commonality of the "tactic" of suggesting that individuals editing these articles in similar ways to Hogeye and RJ may be sockpuppets is seconded only by the number of sockpuppets they seem ready to supply [6], many of which have already been banned. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] LOL, so I'm a sock-puppet of RJII or Hogeye? And maybe RJII was Hogeye's sock-puppet, or Hogeye RJII's? I only see that you removed sources, not that you showed that they were misused. -- Vision Thing -- 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] You asked for sources that were improperly cited, the reasons for being improperly cited are in the edit summaries. I've never claimed that Hogeye and RJ were the same person, but you are a sock-puppet of RJII. This claim isn't anything new to you, I brought this up on your talk page long before I brought it to the admins, you just ignored it. Now you are trying to press the claim to discredit it, but the evidence kinda speaks for itself. You would have to be one hell of an obsessed meat puppet to go through these pages and find so many of RJs edits and resurrect them word for word, its much more likely that you simply are RJII. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I've seen you deleting sources just because RJII/Hogeye put them there. You're not checking the sources. You're just outright deleting sources with the claim that RJII/Hogeye insert bad sources. Then you come out and claim that RJII/Hogeye have a history of putting in bad sources when you're the one starting the rumour. TheIndividualist 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] To my knowledge in all cases I have removed sources because they were insufficiently documented or misattributed or ambiguous IN ADDITION to being inserted by RJII or Hogeye. If you can point out any instances where I did not provide reasons to remove the citations apart in addition to their dubious editors please do and I will happily change them back myself. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] thought. But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is the a contemporary variant of this school." Intangible 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Do you have a page number? IndividualistAnarchist 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Page 21, under the section "Anarchism". Intangible 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From "The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought" (2002), edited by William Outhwaite: "At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right." Page 14 -- Vision Thing -- 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The sockpuppet straw-man

I am extremely tired of hearing people revert edits and discrediting editors on the basis that their arguments resemble the arguments and edits of banned users. This is straw-man logic, and also a form of ad hominem, appeal to motive and composition. If you cannot refute the arguments and/or sources on their own grounds, then you haven't a leg to stand on. I have tried to be extremely cooperative in the hopes of forming a consensus by taking into account the opposing views, and have even aided in editing of the article which inserts a questioning tone into the article for the sake of trying to appease those who claim the article is POV, but it doesn't seem like it's ever enough. I hereby leave this article to the dogs, and hope that one day the conflict will be resolved (hopefully not to the absolute detriment of this article) and would like to return sometime to help patch up and rebuild. Until then, farewell. Two-Bit Sprite 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, keep in mind that all of your edits -- which are much appreciated -- have been countered by a few users who refuse to budge an inch in the other direction. While I assume that they are acting on good faith, and respect their opinions, TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist and company haven't really tried to reach a compromise at all, whereas a lot of other editors have. The sockpuppet charge, while tiresome, is unfortunately understandable, considering the proven and self-admitted harrassment, disruption, and POV-pishing that has occurred on anarchism-related articles on the part of RJII and Hogeye. Further, it has always been added as an afterthought, and has never really been the meat of anybody's claims. There are other, more important issues at hand. I understand that you feel strongly about the subject of this article, and I respect that. I certainly hope that you won't leave as a result of the recent heated discussion. Your input is appreciated, and you're welcome here. You're right that the sockpuppet argument is very, very difficult to substantiate. But, like I said, I'm sure that, after thinking a bit about the situation, you might understand where some people are coming from. For years, we've dealt with sockpuppet abuse on these articles. The people behind the abuse have no lives outside of Wikipedia and troll it like an AOL chatroom. Sockpuppets are probably Wikipedia's greatest weakness -- along with gaming the system. Both will probably contribute to Wikipedia's demise, if nothing is done about it. Anyways, I hope that you decide to stick around and not let any of the heated debate get to you. It doesn't need to be this heated -- I agree with you on that -- so maybe we can work to calm it down a bit. --AaronS 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm sure there are sock puppets on both sides. Obviously Wikipedia was designed to allow sockpuppets. People may need to get things done that they couldn't if they had to be traceable to the same username all the time. Wikipedia is very anonymity friendly. I don't see anything wrong with having sockpuppets at all. IndividualistAnarchist 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, I know Blah from outside of Wikipedia, so he's not a sockpuppet. Francis is an admin, and he's from the UK. I'm me. That's leaves TUF, who is not a sockpuppet, by process of elimination. But I think it's silly to break it down into "sides," anyways. The issue was that sockpuppets have made the same edits that you have made. Not damning evidence, but it is grounds for reasonable suspicion. Everybody should probably just calmn down. --AaronS 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Being that I am a sockpuppet, I agree that they can be legitimate. However, using a sockpuppet to avoid a ban on your IP is a violation of wikipedia policy, and using sockpuppets to over-represent your position or avoid the 3RR destroys the purpose of the project. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] The RJII account was blocked for being a multi-user account. More than one person was using it. No specific user of the account was banned from using Wikipedia. So it make no sense to call anyone a sockpuppet of RJII. Who is RJII? Anyone who edited under that account is free to come on and edit Wikipedia. I'm one of those people. IndividualistAnarchist 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Thanks RJ. BTW - You never finished your manifesto. Could you get back to it before you get blocked again? Thanks. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I was talking about abusive sockpuppets. --AaronS 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't make reverts based solely on the belief that they were made by sockpuppets, unless those sockpuppets have already been banned themselves for being sockpuppets, in which case wikipedia policy calls for it. Its not like sockpuppet use by previously banned users is rare around here, as Lingeron and Drowner have very recently demonstrated. If they had the decency to abide by wiki standards when they enter the community, learn from their mistakes when they are temporarily banned and come back ready to start over (or don't come back at all), then things would be different. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] Another even more recent example of a banned sockpuppet editing these pages Individualistanarchist. citecheck Some user has put a tag to this article again. What specific cites are being questioned? Intangible 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] As has been said -- although I have a fuzzy memory, but it's safe to assume -- the ones placed by the aforementioned banned users, who have been known to misattribute citations. --AaronS 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, those couple of references that I could and did check were ok. Such as The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought and the Dictionary of Marxist Thought. There are other references on Template_talk:Anarchism as well, which are not referenced here, but could. Alas, I cannot attest to the older books, but I guess one just has to assume good faith on those ones. I have no reason to believe that those are incorrectly cited, since two have already been proven correct. Intangible 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have no reason to assume good faith with any of those users. They have shown, over and over again, that they are undeserving of such an assumption. --AaronS I've cleant up the section that this was pertaining to (at least I guess it was this section). Please refer to any other specific reference that you think is unfounded. Otherwise I will have to remove the citecheck tag from the article. Intangible 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm too busy to deal with the citecheck, but I do believe Blah said he was working on it. Perhaps we should wait until he satisfies his own curiosity with regard to the matter, before we remove the tag. --AaronS 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] No, we should first have some evidence that there are references which don't support some claims. -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] To best of my knowledge, RJII and Hogeye are not known to misattribute citations. Do you have any exaples of that? -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] medieval iceland What's the NPOV tag about? The sources seem to be ok. Intangible 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Undue weight, as explained above. --AaronS 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Archived Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Lead sentence People keep on changing it with ostensive disregard for the sources discussed on this talk page, and with ostensive disregard for this talk page in general. The current sentence reads as follows: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, replacing tax funded defense of liberty and property with with voluntarily funded private suppliers of a judiciary, policing and defense. This definition is confusing, grammatically awkward, and actually incorrect. It suggests that anarcho-capitalists only advocate the privitization of jurisdiction, policing and defense; in actuality, however, they advocate the privitization of all functions currently carried out by the state. Here's one verifiable definition: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and national defense."[7] Based on this source, I will reinsert my original definition, with some changes: "Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the provision of all of its functions—including jurisdiction, policing, and national defence—by the free market. In the future, I ask that people verify their additions with sources. -- WGee 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The changes, while perhaps less than perfect, did address a few problems with the sentence as you reverted it: Not all functions of the state will continue under AC - some are inherently coercive, and will be abolished Policing and military defence are not really the same function, and the description doesn't make clear that "national defence" covers defence against internal predators "Systems of justice" doesn't make clear that both civil courts and criminal justice are included. Argyriou 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I will address your assertions point-by-point: That anarcho-capitalists reject "initiatory coercion" is well documented in the lead, so this first sentence will not be misleading. The current wording, I feel, is the clearest and most accurate way to define ancap in one sentence. Plus, it's sourced, unlike some of the alternatives. These are just a few general examples intended to emphasize the fact that ancaps promote laissez-faire capitalism in all areas of society. Thus, we don't need to be utterly precise in these examples. Remember: this is just the lead; more detail is provided later in the article. I disagree: both civil courts and criminal courts are part of the justice system, aren't they? This example is intended to be inclusive, not exhaustive. -- WGee 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your sentence is bad, just as the source's sentence is bad. "All" of the functions of states would not be replaced. Taxation is a function of the state. Censorship is a function of the state. Prohibition of drugs is a function of the state. Banning private ownership of the means of production is a function of the state. What the state's functions are depends on what state you are talking about. The only functions that would be left to the free market would be provision of non-aggressive functions that states have been known to perform, such as protecting individuals from violence perpetrated by other indivduals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by O-boy (talk • contribs) (O-Boy). I agree, but your propagation of that was ineffective, confusing, and mired by anarcho-capitalist jargon and technicalities. The basic idea of ancap was well-conveyed in my original sentence, no matter how imprecise you believe it was. In any case, I altered the lead sentence to reflect your concerns and the concerns of Argyriou. The result is a slight increase in vagueness; nonetheless, the definition is still factually accurate and as precise as we can muster in one sentence. -- WGee 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Since I was the one who started chaning the intro some short time ago, I will say this: The essential services are recognized as such by anarcho-capitalists. They want these to be provide for by the free market. Anarcho-capitalists do not see them to be essential functions of the state. civil defense vs. national defense. The latter is confusing, since the concept of nation is highly similar to state. jurisdiction vs. judiciary. The latter is necessarily provided for by a government Intangible 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] My suggestion for the lead paragraph: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the provision of legitimate services usually provided by the state - a judicial system, protection from criminals, and protection from foreign aggression - by the free market. Central to the philosophy is the idea of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud, including the tax function and monopoly of force of the state. Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists, property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject the state as a systematic aggressor that should be eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual "has the right to own the product that he has made."[1] and that profit is a natural occuring and non-coercive part of trade. This embrace of capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state. Here are my reasons for the changes: There needs to be a distinction between legitimate functions and non-legitimate functions provided by the state. ACers believe that a judicial system, police protection (only against what ACers consider crimes), and national defense, so long as there are still states, are legitimate services, but that a monopolistic government cannot legitimately provide those. Some functions of the state which are considered legitimate by nearly all non-anarchists are not considered so by ACers - taxation and maintaining a monopoly of force. The sentence which began Anarcho-capitalists reject the state ... was overblown and redundant, so I trimmed it. Argyriou 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is the concept that needs to be put across. Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker (predecessor of anarcho-capitalism) explains it like this: "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices;... and, finally, that the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent of its villainy because it enjoys the unique privilege of compellhlg all people to buy its product whether they want it or not" (O-Boy) I'd rather give a different description. Instead of political philosophy, I'd say philosophy or philosophy of the individuum, because it certainly is not only a political philosophy - M.S. But is that an accessible definition that belongs in the lead sentence?--Rosicrucian 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Lead paragraph Here is the lead paragraph as it stands now: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, and the provision of all goods and services—including essential services such as jurisdiction, policing and defence—by the free market. Central to the philosophy is the idea of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud, including state-imposed restrictions on commerce. Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists, property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject "the state" as an unjustified, monopolist thief and systematic aggressor that should be eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual "has the right to own the product that he has made."[1] and that profit is a natural occuring and non-coercive part of trade. This embrace of capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state. I tried to incorporate the concerns of Argyriou and others into the paragraph without making use of anarcho-capitalist terminology, which can be confusing and off-putting to the uninitiated. For example, what exactly is the "monopoly of force of the state"? What are "legitimate services" in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists? What does "the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud" entail in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists (I've tried to explain in laymen terms that it entails an opposition to all restrictions on commerce imposed by the state, which seems correct from what I've read in the rest of the article). These vague terms and phrases should not be utilized in the lead, although they may be acceptable in the main body, where they can be explained in detail. Some constructive input on my edits, and on the lead in general, would be appreciated, as I hope to reach a consensus on the lead sometime soon. But please keep in mind my primary concern while offering a critique: that we should avoid vague terminology in the lead and simply "tell it like it is". -- WGee 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] My revert The current version is fine the way it is for the most part, and there are a lot of POV problems with the old version which have already been rectified in recent versions. Editing of the intro by several editors is not signs of controversiality, but most are minor fixes and clarifications. If resurection of the old intro can be justified here on the talk page, please do so; until then we will continue to work on the existing version. Two-Bit Sprite 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] However, I must say, seeing the size contrast between the old version and new version, I do have to admit that the new version has grown substancially, and has a lot of specific information which is later repeated in other sections. I.e. For anarcho-capitalists, property... might be a bit too much detail for and intro? And the last paragraph I think is well covered already in the History and Influences section... Two-Bit Sprite 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Problems with the old version which has been resurected: Usage of language like "private property norms" which implies that a) anarcho-capitalists aim for the status quo in terms of property, which is definately not the case, they instead wish to establish much simpler conceptions of property. The "norms" of property involve states and include such things as imminent domain, search and seasure (occasionally without warrent), etc. "unlimited right of contract" — this is disputed even among anarcho-capitalists. Some ancaps argue that, i.e., one cannot contract oneself into slavery. "aggressor against sovereign individuals" — uses ancap lingo in the voice of wikipedia, implies that wikipedia assumes that individuals are indeed soverign without question. "laissez-faire" — does not preclude all forms of state intervention, i.e. from the laissez-faire article, "It is generally understood to be a doctrine opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights." (emp. mine). Talk of a "government monopoly" in the voice of wikipedia — some would argue that the government does not hold strict monopoly as courts, defense and property enforcement are still offered suplementarily on the free market. Again, ancap lingo. "involuntarily funded through taxation" and "private, competing businesses that provide voluntarily-funded services" — Again, libertarian/ancap jargon, greatly begging the question. I do agree that the recent versions are getting a bit long (see my comments above) but replacing the current version with an older more slanted version is not the solution. Please try to work with the other editors who have spent time and energy attempting to correct instead of going back to those things which we have intentionally removed. Two-Bit Sprite 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] "Unlimited right of contract" before that it is stated that each individual is sovereign, which implies no one can own someone else. "laissez-faire" is indeed correct. Since anarcho-capitalist reject the state, your definition is wrong. A government is indeed a law monopolist. I see nothing wrong with the intro, except that it might need some wikifying. Intangible 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] "an older more slanted version is not the solution". This is an unfair rule. The older version was a feutuered article. You should be careful before you edit this version as you want. For example, it is no political philosophy. Abolotion of the complete state is no political goal per se. --Uiofvnondc 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] How is not wanting 'older more slanted' versions of an article an "unfair" rule? As for featured status, this does not mean the article could stand improvement. Featured status is not immortality, if it was, the page would become locked to edits as soon as it got the status. Two-Bit Sprite 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] There were more deliberate editors at the older version. Should we always start to discuss a new version to correct the old version? --Uiofvnondc 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The article states that anarcho-capitalists believe that individuals are sarcasm. I realize that one could argue that this implies the prohibition of signing oneself into slavery, this is not for wikipedia to judge. This is original research, drawing conclusions in the article which are not backed by sources other than by direvation. Wikipedia does not form conclusions like this, but merely documents the theories and conclusions of others. The language in the old version makes it sound like wikipedia believes that individuals are soverign and that "obviously" this means that one can/cannot sign oneself into slavery. No this is simple logic. Individual sovereignty implies that no one can own someone else. Your notion "of signing oneself into slavery" is irrelevant to the anarcho-capitalism article. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Now we're into a discussion of the logical coherancy, which is not appropriate on wikipedia, no matter how 'simple' the logic is. The point remains the using the voice of wikipedia to make that connection makes it sound as though wikipedia endorses the premiss. Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] That fact that anarcho-capitalists reject the states does not imply that laissez-faire automatically means non-state. If you have source which say otherwise, perhaps you should edit laissez-faire. There is a difference between a positive and negative definition of laissez-faire. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Care to explain? Are you trying to make the argument that "true" laissez-faire is "naturally" anarchistic? Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] As for government being a law monopolist, while it is true that most (perhaps all) ancaps believe this, the old version of the article makes it sound like a matter-of-fact. Two-Bit Sprite 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Law is meant here in a greater sence, namely that the state can dictate a certain social order. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This isn't made clear, and is still using the voice of wikipedia to present this. Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] There has been significant progress on the article since it gained its featured status. Let's not get into the old argument of "well it was featured once, so we should revert it to its featured status." It wasn't cute when Shannon did it, and theres' really no justification for it.--Rosicrucian 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Seconded. Two-Bit Sprite 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have had some concerns about how topheavy the intro is getting though, as stated above. VisionThing did some good work on it to trim it, so it's certainly gotten better since I originally brought that up.--Rosicrucian 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Then tell me why it should be a political philosphy? This is wrong or at least overweight in the first sentence. --Uiofvnondc 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--Uiofvnondc 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Per Wikipedia article political philosophy: Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy. Three central concerns of political philosophy have been the political economy by which property rights are defined and access to capital is regulated, the demands of justice in distribution and punishment, and the rules of truth and evidence that determine judgements in the law. Seems accurate to me.--Rosicrucian 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism kinda undercuts the argument for it to be a political philosophy. Intangible 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Heck, even if you're one of the folks that say it's a form of libertarianism, it's still squarely a political philosophy.--Rosicrucian 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. It is a philosophy about concerning politics, thus a political philosophy. The fact that anarcho-capitalists sit around and think about/discuss political institutions like government makes it fairly identifiably political. Two-Bit Sprite 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Then look to politics. "Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups." "It is the art or science of government." This is no issue of anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Considering that Anarchism is described in its article as a political philosophy, you are perhaps putting the cart before the horse here.--Rosicrucian 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Classical Anarchism is something treated in political philosophy because it has positive approaches to a kind of politics. But not anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Calling something a political philosophy is not a value judgement as to whether it is statist or anti-statist.--Rosicrucian 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Fine. And why should one call it "political"? --Uiofvnondc 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Why shouldn't one call it "political"? Under what non-POV definition does "political" not apply to an article that is part of the "Politics Series" under both the Anarchism and Libertarianism templates?--Rosicrucian 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Categories and so on are only for order and organization. --Uiofvnondc 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are talking in circles. Yes, categories are for order and organization, mentally as well as on wikipedia. You still have not shown why wikipedia should not consider anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy? What's your agenda, what are you trying to get at, it is hair splitting. I understand that maybe some nut job libertarian might say that it is "anti-political", but that should be sourced and attributed, not in the voice of wikipedia. The average person is going to consider this a political philosophy and this is what the wiki should reflect regardless of your (or someone else's) personal philosophies on "what is politics, really", etc... Two-Bit Sprite 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The editor must deliver the evidence for his knowledge. But you have no knowledge as you are stating yourself. You want to use vernacular weasel terms to serve an "average person". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and no soap box. --Uiofvnondc 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] My point is that the average person defines "politics" in such a way that it would include anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy and we have no reason to break that convention other than your "philosophical" musings about "no wait, I think politics really means this". The point remains that the primary focus of anarcho-capitalism is the abolition of political government, meaning ancap is a philosophy which concerns itself with politics (it just so happens that it's philosphy on politics is that it should be abolished) therefore it is a political philosophy. Two-Bit Sprite 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Political philosophy makes only positive approaches about politics and "fundamental questions about the state, government, ... blah blah". You can prove this easy. Anarcho-capitalism isn't listed in almost no reference book and is not content of the curriculum in any political philosphy course. --Uiofvnondc 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] It was formulated by political philosophers. It is primarily debated by political philosophers. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. How is it not a political philosophy?--Rosicrucian 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC) "enforcement of a legal code by authority." Sure not! --Uiofvnondc 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The fact the it isn't mentioned in most text books simply prooves that it is a fringe movement, not that it isn't political, your logic is flawed. Two-Bit Sprite 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] How can you prove that it must be a political philosophy? And, how can you claim that it would be important, when it is not treated as political theory by political philosophers? Not even ancap scholars are decribed as "political philosphers". --Uiofvnondc 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Murray Rothbard is a "political philosopher" and he formulated the philosophy.--Rosicrucian 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Where is he called "political philosopher"? --Uiofvnondc 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] See here Two-Bit Sprite 20:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] mises.org is writing about political philosophy. This does not mean that it is. Search yourself. --Uiofvnondc 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You tried to argue that "Not even ancap scholars are decribed as 'political philosphers'." and I'm showing you a source which is very ancap-oriented having pages upon pages talking about political philosophy. Two-Bit Sprite 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] So what? I write also comments about political philosophy. I am no political philosopher. And even if I would be one then it wouldn't be clear which kind of a political philosopher. You are poking in the fog. --Uiofvnondc 07:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are setting yourself up as a straw-man. Rothbard is a published political philosopher. You are fogging up the room with your abstract musings about the definition of politics (which you can't provide sources for) and then accuse people of poking in the fog when they are making strong points (how far can we stretch this analogy? :P). Two-Bit Sprite 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] @Two-Bit Sprite You don't work for a consent. This is unacceptable. I don't speak with you. Deliver references for your controversial edits or hold your horses. --Uiofvnondc 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I agree entirely with Two-Bit-Sprite that we should restore the former introduction, for all the reasons he stated. The current revision is confusing, off-putting, and tendentious because of its heavy use of anarcho-capitalist, idiosyncratic jargon, as Two-Bit-Sprite noted. The former lead, which I and others had worked on extensively, is a better platform for improvement and can eventually be modified to everyone's liking, I'm sure. The restoration of the current lead was unnecessary and actually degraded the quality of the article. It may have a place in anarcho-capitalist literature, but not in a neutral encyclopedia that's intended to appeal to a broad array of users. -- WGee 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] By the way, I think you ought to calm down, Uiofvnondc. Please remember to be civil. -- WGee 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are new to this article and have no place to be critisizing my edits, if you were to look at my edit history and my comments on not only this talk page, but my talk page and the talk pages of other users you will see that I have been fighting for consensus for weeks! Please to not blindly accuse me of not attempting to make consensus when you yourself have just plopped yourself right in the middle of it out of nowhere and started making outragious, counter-consensus edits without discussing them on the talk page. The version you want in place reads like a libertarian panphlet and confuses the reader with jargon and rhetoric. This is not only counter-productive for wikipedia, it also gives anarcho-capitalists (I am assuming you are one based on your (albeit, short) edit history) a bad name for refusing to be self-critical and rational about the subject. Please stop. Two-Bit Sprite 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You put POV without any reference into the article. I warn you. --Uiofvnondc 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Please assume good faith, Uiofvnondc.--Rosicrucian 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Then deliver references for your version. This is good faith. How much time should I give you? --Uiofvnondc 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Idle threats aren't advancing your position at all and only serve to make you seem like a spastic nut-case. Your edits are no more referenced than mine, so you haven't much of a leg to stand on, but I will oblige you. What would you like references on? Two-Bit Sprite 05:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm not trying to be inflamatory, I'm merely suggesting that you calm down a bit and attempt to discuss this with us rationally instead of ignoring my points (as I have several above which you have not responded to) or making vague threats about "I warn you" or "How much time should I give you?"... This is not productive. I am very happy to discuss this with you openly, but only so long as you are willing to be civil and open to my input and ideas. You speak of consensus, yet I see only one other person agreeing with you and several disagreeing with you, yet you refuse to discuss the issue rationally accusing others of not forming consensus with you. Two-Bit Sprite 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] @Two-Bit Sprite Your personal attack: "Idle threats ... make you seem like a spastic nut-case" Thanks. Your are not willing (and not able, of course) to deliver a reference for "political philosophy". This is the first point in the first sentence. I have still not started to discuss much about the second and third issue but you are already making trouble at the first one. It's no problem when you have different opinons or that you claim that my arguments are not better but you are deteriorating the article with POV or wrong weighted opinions. So, you ignore Wikipedia NPOV policies. --Uiofvnondc 08:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] As I've already stated, I feel you need to present a well-founded argument for how AC is not a political philosophy as it seems you are the only one who seems to hold this position. What definition of "political" are you using which excludes AC. Anyways, I said I would indulge you, so here it is: Miriam-Webster defines politics as "5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view" here is Rothbard talking about political philosophy specifically by name. "Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory." David Gordon, here. "Rothbard's evolving political views..." Justin Raimondo, "An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard", p. 33 "Other differences, which also still exist, are more philosophical: should we be Lockians, Hobbesians, or Burkeans: natural rightsers, or traditionalists, or utilitarians? On political frameworks, should we be monarchists, check-and-balance federalists, or radical decentralists?" (em. mine) Murray Rothbard, "A Strategy for the Right" in "The Irrepressible Rothbard" p. 5 Two-Bit Sprite 16:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are not familar enough with basic wikipedia polices: 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Your "references" are all no proof. You have only bad indications. I need only one reputable source. Which one should be one? Which one should I confute? --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think the trouble is we're just not operating on the same wavelength here. We don't really understand why you're objecting to calling it a political philosophy, when 90% of anarchist and libertarian movements are political philosophies, and your explainations for the objection have been rather vague, even after we've explained that calling something a political philosophy is not a value judgement on whether it is statist or anti-statist. Especially in the case of anarcho-capitalism, its view that the preservation of public order should be provided by private means is a view on "the enforcement of a legal code by authority." Anarcho-capitalism has strong views on what is and is not a legitimate government, and where a government derives its authority to do what. That makes it a political philosophy by most definitions. You seem to be operating from a different viewpoint, but have taken little time and words to actually explain that viewpoint so that we may debate and achieve consensus.--Rosicrucian 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have explained this. Ancap is no subject of political science because there is almost nothing political. And there is no "politics" in this movement. The only thing which could be political is an "public right" to "ignore" the state. That's all. This is far away from the whole history of political philosophy. The second claim "that calls for the abolition of the state" is also misleading. It is not the intension of Ancaps to take away the state from the whole world or a whole country because it is a individualist ideolgy. But your phrase implies a collectivism. This is wrong. --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sidestepping your usual vague argument about "it's not political," let's take a look at the abolition of the state argument. The article repeatedly reiterates that "Anarcho-capitalists reject the state as a coercive monopoly that derives its income from legal aggression (i.e. taxation) and thereby violates the non-aggression principle." Which means that anarcho-capitalists are calling for the abolition of the state, or at least the abolition of the state as we know it. This is a common thread running throughout the article, and thus deserves to be summarized in the lead sentence or at the least the intro paragraph because it is so entwined with the article itself.--Rosicrucian 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What you reiterate about the article is an ethical/ideological consequence. What the article's intro describes could be a political doctrine. When you blame me for "vague arguments" then you should not defend them yourself. --Uiofvnondc 19:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. What I really want to know is what motivates you to oppose its being called a political philosophy. -- WGee 17:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] NPOV, and you? --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Modern Somalia We have to add something to this example, because it doesn't hold to truth anymore. Since the uprisings of the Islamic Court Union in early 2006, the anarchism in Mogadishu (were it was most prevalent) has almost ended. We now have a situation of crisis between the "federal government" and the ICU. Mogadishu is more of a theological dictatorship than anything comparable with anarchism. I think we should therefore add this to the column to prevent misunderstandings. - --Moddy 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The Somalia reference has always been invalid, for how on earth can it be cited as an example of a stateless capitalist society when Somalia itself is a state? The recently-unfolding events in Somalia make the reference even more unwarranted. If this were the laissez-faire article, then perhaps the reference would have merit. -- WGee 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Additionally, I think the reference was skewed to make Somalia seem like a real-life example of anarcho-capitalism; I doubt the book even mentioned the word anarcho-capitalism or said that Somalia was a "stateless" society. Note that an unregulated market economy is not necessarily an anarcho-capitalist one. -- WGee 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have read the book. The authors didn't write about a state. Governments are far away of peoples live in wide regions of Somalia. Of course, an unregulated market economy is necessarily an anarcho-capitalist one. What else? --Uiofvnondc 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism takes great pains to avoid coercive practices of any type. Somalia was ruled by brutal warlords, and stumbled upon an unregulated market economy more or less by accident. I would say it falls well short of the anarcho-capitalist ideal.--Rosicrucian 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 1. When Somalia was ruled by brutal warlords, what is your problem with Somalia today. 2. There are many states - if not all - far away of a democratic or constitutional ideal. Should we say, there are no really states? --Uiofvnondc 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Somalia is ruled by warlords who murder their opponents and loot and destroy their property, thereby violating the non-aggression principle. The country is also ruled by Islamic clerics who impose strict Sharia law in their strongholds. The militias of the Islamic Courts Union and the warlords do not operate out of contract, as they would in anarcho-capitalism; rather, they oppress their subjects with physical intimidation and local hierarchies. Moreover, albeit it a very unathoritative one, Somalia does have an internationally-recognized national government and that does legislate beyond the bounds of natural law. Thus, there can exist a free market economy that is not anarcho-capitalist; your suggestion otherwise is ludicrous, because anarcho-capitalism is much more than an economy, as evidenced by this article. -- WGee 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The U.S. are ruled of a warlord. Somaliland and Puntland are not ruled by "warlords". Every crime violates the non-aggression principle. Must an "ancap society" be without crime? Anarcho-capitalism is not only made by libertarian thinkers but also by economists without NAP-doctrination. And Somalia isn't ruled of Islamic leaders. The Islam is a strong holded religion in Somalia. This is no rule of authoritative people but it is costomary law enforced by private arbitrators. Every Somali may become a private arbitrator but he must seek confidence. This is often near by private property law. Your "internationally-recognized national government" is not present anywhere in the north. Puntland and Somaliland have also sockpuppet "governments" with a laughable budget. A Somali told me something about 15 million $ per annum. I am not clear about this. Probably from international fonds. But interventions of a government is not noticeable in the north. Your governments are a bad joke. Of course, anarcho-capitalism is much more than an economy. I don't deny this. So what? Democracy is also much more than an economy. But when you search a comparison then Somalia is an example (well or not) of a currently stateless society as so much as the U.S. are an example of democrazy society, isn't it? --Uiofvnondc 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Although I'm having much trouble understanding your argument, I can say for sure that your understanding of Somalia is skewed, to say the least. Somalia is ruled by a combination of Islamic militiamen and secular warlords, and their strongholds are not bound by political borders (e.g. Somaliland and Puntland). These two hetereogeneous groups have de facto replaced the government as the rulers of the nation. Much like an authoritarian government, they physically intimidate civilians who oppose them, and through this intimidation they pillage homes as they wish and impose idiosyncaratic laws (such as Sharia law) in their strongholds. Just because a "government" doesn't practically exist, it does not mean that other oppressive rulers have not assumed power. Somalia thus does not resemble an anarcho-capitalist society. Why would any anarcho-capitalist want to associate their ideology with the humanitarian distaster that is Somailia, anyway? -- WGee 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I can't help but think a great many anarchists of varying flavors have gotten a disproportionately rosy look at the "anarchism" of Somalia out of wishful thinking and a desire to say "Look! Anarchism works!" Which ultimately is a pitfall of any political philosophy that doesn't have a real-world counterpart to point to as a proof-of-concept.--Rosicrucian 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is no rule of authoritative people but it is costomary law enforced by private arbitrators. That's an oxymoron: arbitrators are necessarily authoritarian. (Though maybe this oxymoron stems from the fact that English is not your first language?) In any case, the militias are not operating out of voluntary contract, as would be necessary for anarcho-capitalism to exist; rather, they are violently imposing their will upon various, often unconsenting populations. In other words, nobody is voluntarily paying the militias to protect "natural rights"; the militias have arbitrarily decided to rule, with no limit to the extent of their authority. Surely that cannot be compatible with the anarchist ideal that anarcho-capitalism claims to espouse. -- WGee 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Before you want to discuss with me you have to accept some prepositions There is no "the one Somalia" with struggling (islamic) "warlords" everywhere. The North is quiet and peaceful. When you make all in one judgements without any proof then I must dismiss you. When you say that "Islamic militiamen and secular warlords ... are not bound by political borders" then just this is an image of "private security agencies". They are defending their property (rightful or not). So they are "property owner" with the same right for correctness. Nobody says that Somalia, resp. the quiet and peaceful part, is an ideal of an anarcho-capitalist image or that it is an anarcho-capitalist society. But the comparsion is allowed in the same way as democrats would claim that the U.S. are a democracy. In your understanding, the U.S. is no democracy since it doesn't fullfil the ideal of a democracy. Furthermore there is no democracy in the whole world because all states with "democratic" governments fail in to be rightful democratic. So, what's wrong with your understanding? Quite simply, anarcho-capitalism is only a meta-system of thinking like perfect democracy is only an theoretical ideal which can never be reached. The fall of government is no "humanitarian distaster" in Somalia. Obviously you are bad informed. When disputing parties voluntarily agree to an arbitrator then this is not "authoritarian". Please stop with telling your private wisdom. One of the strengths of Somali law is that it is close to natural law as Van Notten says in his book. You must not agree. I tell you only a fact of an imho reputable source. Last but not least. Conventionalism to the NAP in a ancap society is desirable in the libertarian impact. But there is no requirement in a stateless society to an "anarcho-capitalist" to act on NAP. The anarcho-capitalism of Freedman doesn't need any NAP. --Uiofvnondc 09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sidebars Earlier, we'd moved the Libertarianism sidebar down because having it right beside the anarchism one squishes the layout terribly. The discussion is above. I don't mind moving the Libertarianism sidebar up a bit, but I do think we can't have them right next to each other. It's just messy. Perhaps put Libertarianism on top, and anarchism below?--Rosicrucian 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Heh... I didn't realize someone else had already talked about this, anyways, I have more comments below. --Two-Bit Sprite 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] That was my original goal: to have libertarianism on top and anarchism below. I just didn't know how to effect that change and ended up inadvertently placing the templates side-by-side. -- WGee 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Templates While I agree that both libertarianism and anarchism play a very large role in anarcho-capitalists theories, I have to object with both templates being at the top for asthetic reasons. I think we need to pick one, and move the other down. In 1024x768, having both templates at the top squeezes the intro such that it doesn't all fit in the first screenful. I feel the intro is perfectly sized as it stands, and could withstand any reduction, so I say the only option is to move one of the templates... Thoughts? --Two-Bit Sprite 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit Firstly, there are several spelling and grammatical errors, but those are minor slights. Primarily, the problems are, in contextual order: Confusing the reader by lack of explaining the theory as a political philosophy, and then immediately discussing politics. Reference to "the state" outside of the context of politics is confusing as it has multiple meanings. State of mind? Is it refering to the phyisical concept of state? Immediately explaining the ideology in negative terms (i.e. what it rejects). "The free market ideal of a stateless society..." sounds like wikipedia is claiming the the ideal free market is a stateless society, when plenty of people disagree (see most economists). "profided by an economy and social system of privacy of all goods and services..." — mispelling of the word "provided" and misuse of the word "privacy". Also, undue weight with the italics; "all" means all, no need to over-stress it, you are not argueing with anyone in this article (which is what it sounds like you are trying to do). Makes reference to mysterious "Rothbard" figure without explanation or even a full name or wikilink. Even if this were provided, it is a bit early to introduce historical figures until the concept itself is fully explained. "Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require collective regulation to be successful..." — still has an antagonistic tone, as though the article is a rebuttle to something, which it isn't supposed to be. Sounds like Wikipedia is preaching to the "evil collectivists". This is not encyclopedic. —Two-Bit Sprite 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Before I start any discussion about the edit style and issues of taste - this is not the main point in Wikipedia - you have to deliver a reputable source. See above. Moreover you have more changed than "my last edit" and you have removed more than my work. --Uiofvnondc 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Concerning "political philosophy", both Anarchism and Libertarianism are defined as a political philosophy and Anarcho-capitalism as a form of both can't be nothing else but a political philosophy. As for the sources, here and here anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a political theory. -- Vision Thing -- 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Concerning "political philosophy", both Anarchism and Libertarianism are defined as a political philosophy and Anarcho-capitalism as a form of both can't be nothing else but a political philosophy. -- is a new syntesis. See W:NOR. (It is also wrong but it is the same.) As for the sources, here and here anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a political theory. -- You need a reputable source that ancap must be a political philosophy. Your 2 references don't tell anything about it. On Rothbard: "His areas of interest were economics, history and political philosophy and he has written works on economic history," So what? I am also interested in political philosophy. "Perspective on the History of Economic Thought26; a history of the American colonies from the 17th century to the American Revolution, Conceived in Liberty27; works on economics, Man, Economy and State28 and Power and Market,29; works on political philosophy," So what? Rothbard commented historical and contemtorary political philosophy. "political theory" in the title of a essay. -- So what? One may quest what should it mean? The word "political" is often used in a vernacular sense. --Uiofvnondc 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sources or not, I don't see how it is not a theory concerning politics. The fact that it is against politics is proof that it concerns itself with politics thus making it a philosophy of politics. I don't see how this can be questioned. Saying I need sources to "proove" this, is like saying I need sources that say it is a theory. It simply is so by definition of the term "political". It is a philosophy that criticises politics, therefor it is a philosophy about politics, plain and simple. --Two-Bit Sprite 18:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I haven't the slightest clue why you think referring to anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy is an NPOV violation. It certainly is not orignal research or a "new" synthesis, either, because a referenced article on political philosophy already exists. If you keep objecting to the term, we may have to replace it with the generic, broad term ideology, whose pertinence to anarcho-capitalism is indisputable. -- WGee 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] @Twobitsprite: This is your new synthesis. This new synthesis is not allowed by W:NOR. It is nothing more to say. And I have no problem with "anti-political philosophy". --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] @WGee: In your "referenced article" is a list of "Influential political philosophers". For example, Hayek shall be one but Rothbard not. Or Friedman: Friedman has coined his important part to anarcho-capitalism. How can Friedman be a political philosopher? When anarcho-capitalism must be a political philosophy then every person coining the term must be anyway a political philosopher or there must be at least an other way to coin the term but which one? There is no remark about it but political shall be so important that is must be noticed. Why? To speak with your words: I haven't the slightest clue why you think referring to anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy. I have no POV-problem with "ideology". The only thing of anarcho-capitalism which could be "political" would be a public right to ignore/leave the state to an own sovereignty. (And this is now my unreferenced sysnthesis of "political".) The rest is absolutely apolitical. You can say it is also a "social theory". Ok. I would agree. But a social theory must not be political. To say, it is political, is far away from of a neutral tone and far away of the actually practise in political science. --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] By the way, I unequivocally agree with Two-Bit-Sprite's Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit. -- WGee 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is no democracy. --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is not a battleground, either, though your defensive and sometimes aggressive tone suggests otherwise. In any case, to say that anarcho-capitalism is not political is abosultely ludricrous: anarcho-capitalism intends to radically restructure the entire political system as we know it. To say, it is political, is far away from of a neutral tone and far away of the actually practise in political science That is such an outrageous, groundless, and ridiculous postulation. I encourage you to read any scholarly political science text, or even to just read some Wikipedia articles: socialism, anarchism, communism, fascism, conservatism, liberalism, social democracy are all political ideologies—anarcho-capitalism is no exception. You insist on impeding progress in this article over one word; what's worse is that your arguments make utterly no sense and are not supported by a single source or precedent (because none supporting your argument exist). I'm convinced that your opposition to the word "political" is a corollary of your unfamiliarity with some conventional English semantics. -- WGee 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] How am I aggressive? Are your arguments dieing down that you need personal reviews? At first you have to deliver a reputable source for your edit. This couldn't be so hard if you would be right, isn't it? --Uiofvnondc 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Our statements of fact are based on the most simple deductive reasoning: Premise: Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. Premise: Anarcho-capitalism studies fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. Conclusion: Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy. To which one of the premises do you object? I assure you that no native English speaker would consider the word "political" a tendentious one: the word "political" merely means "relating to politics". You have failed to present a coherent argument as to why the use of the word "political" is an NPOV violation and why anarcho-capitalism is not a political ideology or philosophy. Please read Ideologies of parties, for example, where you will find that anarcho-capitalism is defined as a political ideology. Please briefly read also the articles on politics, political science, and political philosophy. --WGee 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Very well put. --Two-Bit Sprite 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sources are unnecessary for things that are god-damned obvious. That's why we don't have to sprinkle the ghosts article with sources from scholarly journals repudiating the existence of ghosts. --AaronS 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] It was obviously no "political" philosophy during years in Wikipedia and a featured article without it. But now, surprisedly, some people will hoick it with all power. Why? --Uiofvnondc 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The article's FA status is moot, because it is currently under review, and as comments have shown, it probably should not have ever been accorded such status. We're working towards that goal, now, but it will be impossible as long as this discussion is occurring. If you do not think that anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, then I invite you to write a treatise on how a philosophy can discuss politics without being political, advocate altering politics without being political, and so on, and then have it be published. I think that you may be confusing a notion (which, I believe, probably does not exist) like politicist with a descriptor like political. The former would denote advocacy, whereas the latter simply informs us that it deals with questions of politics. For anarcho-capitalism to be anti-political, it would have to advocate the rejection of politics in favor of I do not know what. Even then, it would simply be an anti-political political philosophy. --AaronS 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] on how a philosophy can discuss politics -- Which politics? The NAP is no politics. To reject the state is no politics, economic theory is no politics and so on. without being political -- What is political? What do you mean exactly? advocate altering politics without being political -- Only a small and inapplicable part of all ancap theories advocate anyway an "altering" of politics. Anarcho-capitalists wouldn't longer write critics on the state when they could simply secede. And when they could secede then they wouldn't make any critics about the state or any artful suggestions about politics because it wouldn't be their matter. It is only a statist view that anarchists are involved into politics. --Uiofvnondc 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] As a problems of political philosophy Rothbard saw: "nature and role of liberty, property, and violence." (The Ethics of Liberty) -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What's your argument? --Uiofvnondc 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Those are the problems on which anarcho-capitalism tries to answer. Political philosophy doesn't need to have anything to do with government, elections, parties, etc. -- Vision Thing -- 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] "Specifically, it (Crusoe economics) can aid greatly in solving such problems of political philosophy as the nature and role of liberty property, and violence.[2]" A comment about political philosphy. The same is when I say: "Political philosophy need more accuracy and thruthfulness." This is no politcal statement. It is only a statement about political sciences.--Uiofvnondc 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what are you trying to prove but here is one clear definition from Rothbard: "Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property)." -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This defintion is onesided. It is correct that politics is the proper role of violence in human life. But to say that property comes from the proper role of violence in human life depends on the term property itself. Rothbard used consequently in this book his natural law persepective to declare universal public rules. But many anarcho-capitalists don't follow natural law rules. For example, property is a voluntary treaty within two parties without violence. Nobody calls this "politics". It is not a treaty and it is not allotted property for the thirth and forth party or person. So, this property is no public rule for all and it so no deal with the proper role of violence because it is voluntary. You may say that Rothbard's theory is a natural law political philosophy. OK. But is anarcho-capitalism a natural law philosophy? Or is anarcho-capitalism a political philosophy by Rothbards controversial natural law part? No. No. No. This is much too easy. This leads to wrong assumptions and therefore it is POV. --Uiofvnondc 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] split1 @WGee about "political" and "related to": Please, look to the connotations of "political" on M-W. or answers.com and then say me which connotation you mean. deductive reasoning: Your premise is wrong or at least inexact. Political philosophyAnarcho-capitalism is not the study of ... "law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority." Nevertheless it would be a new synthesis. This is forbidden by W:NOR. Rothbard made an important comment about political philosophy which is not evaluated in Political philosophy. Rothbards effort and intension was always to establish a "philosophy of liberty" which would be pertinent to the political scene. Of course, his wish was to construct a political philosophy of liberty because this would mean at least that his ideas of liberty would be affiliated anyway in the political sciences. His work "Ethics of Liberty" "attempts ... to set forth a systematic ethical theory of liberty. It is not, however, a work in ethics per se, but only in that subset of ethics devoted to political philosophy." So, he wanted that other people would assimilate his ideas into contemporary political philosophy. This had not happened because political philosophers in whole history have made only positive approaches of any political systems or hierachical public orders. Also the classic anarchist philosphers like Prodhun aimed to an authoritative political order. Rothbards work is until today absolutely not compatible to political philosophy. To claim it would be purely political now is a new and unusual thesis in the political scieces. If you reflect to a vernacular sense then it would be a weasel term. --Uiofvnondc 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Other source says "Rothbard's political theory of anarcho-capitalism", but I agree with AaronS and WGee, sources are really a non-issue here. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] "Other source" is no reputable source. And agreements to mysticsism is no Wikipedia like behavior. But I see you want to enforce this opinion against my reasoned arguments. Then I add a section in the article reflecting how ancap is a political philosophy and how not. Maybe for your disgrace. --Uiofvnondc 12:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What will the new section say? "Uiofvnondc has argued (poorly) that Anarcho-capitalism should not be considered a political philosophy.[1]" ??? At first, your POV statement in the intro is poor. --Uiofvnondc 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You're dodging the question... I'm asking you what your new section would say. —Two-Bit Sprite 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Only some facts in relation to political philosophy and political science. You have started this topic as to be so important. --Uiofvnondc 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You say that: "Political philosophy is not the study of ... 'law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority.'" If you're contesting another Wikipedia article's definition of a term, that argument would be better made on that article, rather than attempting to redefine it without consensus for this article.--Rosicrucian 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I've read your correction. However, anarcho-capitalism does have a view on "law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority." That view is that the state does not have any special authority to enforce a legal code, and that its practices in doing so are illegitimate and monopolistic. As we've been stating all along, even being antipolitical is a political viewpoint.--Rosicrucian 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Ah, now you mean, "a view on" is "the study of". Which sense shall it make in our discussion when you bend the terms as you need it? The view that the state would have no right to enforce a legal code is no study of law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. The task of political philosophy was always to develop political theories of law and law enforcement to justify and establish public rules. Anarcho-capitalism cannot deliver any contribution to this because it would be a contradiction in itself. When you agree that this is an anti-political view why do you not write that it is anti-political? --Uiofvnondc 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Again, this is a problem with your understanding of English. Anti-political is not the same as un-political or non-political. Two-Bit Sprite 23:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What again? I answered to Rosicrucian. He had used the term. Read this before you turn on me. --Uiofvnondc 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I understand that Rosicrucian used the term, I am merely giving my input. He used the term 'antipolitical' and you distorted that term to mean 'nonpolitical'. You are dodging my point. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are confused. I have not used the word non-political. --Uiofvnondc 15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] But that is what you are saying, that anarcho-capitalism is non-political, i.e. is not political. Two-Bit Sprite 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have used clearly the word anti-political. One time more, then I become abusive. --Uiofvnondc 08:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Then you have used it incorrectly, is what Sprite is saying.--Rosicrucian 15:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your entire argument is that anarcho-capitalism is not political, therefore you are saying that it is non-political, yet now you change your argument such that you assert that it is anti-political, which is not the same thing. Anarcho-capitalism is not a philosophy the criticizes the study of political philosophy, instead it is a political philosophy that criticizes most other philosophies of politics. Also, are you attempting to make threats at me with you "then I become abusive"?? If so, you will not get anywhere with your idle threats, except maybe banned. Two-Bit Sprite 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] split2 @Uiofvnondc You earlier said that: "Not even ancap scholars are decribed as "political philosphers"." However, in introduction of The Ethics of Liberty it is said: "Accordingly, Rothbard saw himself in the role of a political philosopher...". Also, "Libertarianism as developed in The Ethics of Liberty was no more and no less than a political philosophy". -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] "Political", in this context, means "Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state." [8] You said: The task of political philosophy was always to develop political theories of law and law enforcement to justify and establish public rules. That is utterly wrong. The task of political philosophy is to merely study and postulate on fundamental questions about political authority, not necessarily to justify the existence of authority. That statement of yours proves that you don't understand what political philosophy/politics/political science is; that is why you have been unable to present a sensible argument. Just because the ideology wants to abolish legal authority and the state, it does not mean that it is not a political ideology. Honestly, your argument is ridiculous and senseless, and the fact that you are impeding the article's progress over this is frustrating. -- WGee 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 1. I have already answered to this at 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2. libertarianism and political philosophy - what a hard and overweight word! Walter Block (scholar, Austrian School) writes exceptionally: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation. That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification and answering misconceived objections."--Uiofvnondc 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] "To reject the state is no politics. . ." Erm, yes it is. Refer to the definition above. -- WGee 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I have asked you for the connotation of "political" on M-W. or answers.com. Answer this! --Uiofvnondc 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] OK, but it seems odd that you'd want to confine me to the use of two dictionaries. . . According to Webster's dictionary, political means "of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics" or "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government." Both of those definitions are applicable to anarcho-capitalism. In any case, Vision Thing has already presented sources attesting to anarcho-capitalism's status as a political philosophy, and I have directed you to Ideologies of parties, which lists anarcho-capitalism as a political ideology. Your argument is inherently flawed because it is based on an incorrect notion of English semantics. -- WGee 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] political means "of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics" - Anarchists don't relate to politics. They want only their freedom. (Example: "Voting is a political act") Non-voting can also be a very powerful political statement/act. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Only when it shall transfer a political demand. But powerful? That would be new to me. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The act of open and vocal non-voting has been used by anarchist for decades. Demonstrations outside of voting centers, etc. I suppose 'powerful' would be subjective, but nevertheless it has been used. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Most ancaps who I know say only that it makes no sense to vote. That's all. --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 'Most ancaps who I know' is not a varifiable ro reliable source. Two-Bit Sprite 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What do you kow what I can support? Look to your own sources. --Uiofvnondc 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] or "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government." -- Ancaps are not the government. Could it be possible that you have not understand the meaning of these dictionaries? For example, when you say: "taxation is political crime". Then you relate to politics of government or state but not to yourself. Again, I think you are misinterpreting the nuances of the English language. I think you are interpreting the word 'relating' to mean 'associated with', instead of 'relative to' or 'in terms of' as it actually means in this instance. I'm not even sure I understand what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] No, on answer.com are examples for the connotations. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You tell others not to use the vernacular meaning of the word, and then continue to refer to a single dictionary as though it were the end-all-be-all of the english language. But I will play your game. Answers.com under 'political philosohpy' immediately cites Britanica, which says: "Branch of philosophy that analyzes the state and related concepts...". Yes, Anarcho-capitalism analizes the state and related concepts and it's analysis is that states are intrusive and unnecessary. So, according to your chosen source, a/c is political. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I said already that political philosphy makes only positive approaches to politics. This is an empirical fact of the political sciences. A fast defintion doesn't take this into account. And, the only relation is that it is a counter philosophy. --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is the historian's fallacy, saying that in the past all Xers have always done Y means that Y is inherent to X. This is the same argument that claims that Anarcho-capitalism can't be a form of anarchism because anarchists have traditionally been anti-capitalist. This is like saying that Pragmatism is not a true epistemological philosophy because it breaks the traditional idealism of previous epistemologists. Two-Bit Sprite 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Therefore ancap is no classical anarchism and contemporary political sciences doesn't speak about anarcho-capitalism as philosophy (if at all). --Uiofvnondc 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You concede my point, then attempt to argue as though it supports yours. My point is that just because most political philosophers ponder how a state should operate does not mean that it is forbidden for another political philosopher to contemplate the justification of the state, and further to conclude that it is not justified. Two-Bit Sprite 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Quite simply, there is no suited connotation. I don't know any anarcho-capitalist party. I think, you are making jokes. --Uiofvnondc 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't know of any anarchist party either, yet you earlier were talking about how anarchism is political in contrast with anarcho-capitalism. The lack of a party does not mean the lack of a political theory. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] One small "political" "theory" doesn't make yet a "political philosophy". These terms are very inexact. Philosophy should be a "field of study". Anarchocapitalism is quite no political field of study except of the legitimacy of the state. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The theory about the legitimacy of the state is the core of a/c theory, so how can you accnowledge that that core is political, and then claim somehow that a/c is not political? Besides, your understanding of the word 'philosophy' is a bit odd. I would say that 'science' is a "field of study", but philosophy is "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline."[9] Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The theory about the legitimacy of the state is only political by the fact that one can deduce a public right to secede. The core is much more. Economics, social theory, ideology criticism, private law enforcemnt, private security, private money, ethics, classic liberal history and so on. (I have only used the defintion of the wikipedia article. I am not sure if it is correct.) --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You are still argueing in circles. You admit that there at least some political aspect to it, yet reject the whole thing as non-political? The economics, social theory, etc all stem from this political insite of the right to reject coercive institutions, plus some abstract theorizing about how society would evolve to deal with the lack of a state. Two-Bit Sprite 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] On the whole it is non-poltical. How can you deny this? You have a statist view. The anarcho-capitalist social and economic theory is also valid when there would be no state. Maybe nobody would have constructed such theories without states or other mafias but something is not political only by the fact that it probably wouldn't exist without a state. For example, a book about the history of U.S. governments is only a bibliography. It wouldn't exist without states. But it is absolutely non-political. --Uiofvnondc 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalists postulate on how a state-less society would operate, but the primary arguments of anarcho-capitalism are its criticisms of the state; the rest is orthogonal. Ancapism is not in and of itself an economic theory — most anarcho-capitalists embrace Austrian economics, but this does not make it the core of ancapism. Look at the majority of Rothbard's books, most of them are about the state, and are criticisms and attacks on the state. Two-Bit Sprite 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] split3 Well I think User:Uiofvnondc is claiming that anarcho-capitalism might not in itself give rise to political actions, but that is not wholy correct. Rothbard would argue that there exists a political philosophy within libertarianism (and thus anarcho-capitalism), that would entail a strategy that holds liberty as it highest political end, and searches for means that will give rise to liberty in the quickest possible way. In an anarcho-capitalist society this question of course cannot exist, since everyone will live in complete liberty, with no political ends that come to mind. Intangible 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I know that Rothbard followed a strategy to construct a "political philosophy of liberty" in his book "Ethics of Liberty". But if you call this a "libertarian political philosophy" or if you call this the attempt to establish the right thinking into contemporary political philosophies is a point of view, either. I prefer the latter view. --Uiofvnondc 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I don't understand what you're trying to express. If anarcho-captialism seeks to, in your words, "establish the right thinking into contemporary political philosophies," it is a political ideology. -- WGee 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This was only an approach of Rothbard. There is no need to accomplish his political affairs as anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] From book's description: "The Ethics of Liberty authoritatively established the anarcho-capitalist economic system as the most viable and the only principled option for a social order based on freedom." Libertarianism, as developed in The Ethics of Liberty, is anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Maybe this book is a little bit political. This doesn't make Rothbard to a political philospher, not to mention complete anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] It's rather reaching to try to claim Rothbard isn't a political philosopher. The man was a founding member of the American Libertarian party.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] So what? He left the party after he saw that the party couldn't help him. Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the introduction of The Ethisc of Libery said that Rothbard is a political philosopher. That's a reliable source and I don't know why are you fighting with windmills here. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is not true. Hoppe writes: "Rothbard was the creator of a system of social and political philosophy based on economics and ethics as its cornerstones." ... "Rothbard's unique contribution is the rediscovery of and philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism." ... " Accordingly, Rothbard saw himself in the role of a political philosopher as well as an economist essentially as a preserver and defender of old, inherited truths, and his claim to originality, like that of Mises, was one of utmost modesty. Like Mises, his achievement was to hold onto and restate long-ago established insights and repair a few errors within a fundamentally complete intellectual edifice." As I statet above, you may say that Rothbard's theory is a natural law political philosophy. Not more. --Uiofvnondc 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Then it is a political philosophy, what is your boggle? Two-Bit Sprite 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] A cup of tea doesn't make an ocean. --Uiofvnondc 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] And clever saying don't make an argument, please don't sideline my points with your witty aphorisms. The rejection of the state is at the core of Anarcho-capitalism, all other points are merely postulations on how a society without centralized government would operate. Two-Bit Sprite 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Can we stop joking around? Uiofvnondc has gotta be yanking our chains. How else can he claim, on the same day, that anarcho-capitalism is anti-political, not non-political,[10] but non-political, not anti-political?[11] His sense of indignation is growing inauthentic. I say we cap this discussion soon and move on to more important things. This isn't serious. --AaronS 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] SIC. But your are serious?! Laughable. --Uiofvnondc 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] First paragraph of intro My suggestion: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that embraces stateless capitalism, and calls for the provision of all goods and services—including systems of jurisdiction, policing, and territorial defense—by the free market. Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require regulation to be successful and reject the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange. They assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made and that property can only be legitimately derived through trade, gift, or original appropriation. This embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state. -- Vision Thing -- 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Sadly, we have a hard struggle about a correct intro with more than 3 wariers, all with different aims. Even if we would have a consensus about it then the next editor would change it in one week or two months. But I can agree with this version as a basis except for "political". --Uiofvnondc 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] The following sentence is still rather unencyclopedic: Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require regulation to be successful and reject the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange. I think the following might be a better way to put it: The philosophy posits that market regulation is not a requirement for economic success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange. Less redundancy, and a more neutral voice.--Rosicrucian 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] It’s ok, but "posits" is not correct. Maybe something like this: "This philosophy argues that unregulated/unhampered markets can do a better job than government in providing economic and social success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange"? -- Vision Thing -- 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Kind of getting onto a different approach there. Perhaps: The philosophy argues that the open market can provide social services and personal security more efficiently and effectively than government, which it views as having an unjustified monopoly on these commodities. It asserts that market regulation is not a requirement for social and economic success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange. Breaks it down into two sentences, and avoids confusion.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I would replace "open" with "free" and "commodities" with "services", but that's about it. Are there any other objections to this intro? -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well it sounds a little bit utilitarian to me. That "the open market can provide social services and personal security more efficiently and effectively than government" seems to be a consequence of economic thinking, not of any ethical consideration of anarcho-capitalism. Intangible 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] It is consequence of economic thinking; both Rothbard and Friedman are economists. We can't circumvent that. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] How about this: "The philosophy argues that the free market should provide social services and personal security rather than government, as it views forced funding through taxation as counterproductive and/or immoral." That way you can get rid of the jargon about "monopoly" which doesn't make much sense, because obviously government doesn't have a monopoly on defense since there are private security guards. It certainly doesn't have a monopoly in providing food, etc. That'sHot 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] First part is already said in the first sentence of introduction, so it's redundant. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What about the current intro? What do you folks find disagreeable about it? -- WGee 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Again: I find disagreeable "political philosophy" and "calls for the abolition of the state". See above. But why do you ask at all? --Uiofvnondc 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Regarding your edit, I didn't find anything in the works of David Friedman about non-aggression axiom and individual sovereignty. So I would rather put that in the second paragraph. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is also a strong argument against "political" philosophy. What is so important that you must call it "political" philosophy in the first sentence without ifs and buts.--Uiofvnondc 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, first and foremost you seem to be the only one pushing for its removal, and the remainder of the participants on this talkpage seem to feel its inclusion in the first sentence is merited as the philosophy deals with fundamental political questions such as the legitimacy of governmental rule rather than more general philosophical ones. While you wheedle and ask us to source this, the evidence is in the article itself, as well as the correlations that it bears to the article on political philosophy. Bear in mind that there really is no "consensus of one," and the only real requirement for the rest of us to move on with the article and consider the dispute finished is a rough consensus, not a perfect consensus.--Rosicrucian 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your artifical and makeshift term of "rough consensus" is as licentious as "political philosphy". --Uiofvnondc 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] My "artificial and makeshift term" is the same language Wikipedia uses regarding consensus. While Wikipedia can often be subject to the tyranny of the minority, it doesn't have to be.--Rosicrucian 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I also think that our friend forgets that one of the basic tenets of those who support consensus-based decision-making is that compromise is necessary; otherwise, consensus will never be reached. --AaronS 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Nay, a compromise can mean half true and half false. But where is your compromise? For example "anti-political philosphy" or "in some parts a political philosophy".--Uiofvnondc 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Ah, you mean that Wikipedia couldn't often be subject to the tyranny of the majority. No, your argument is only of pragmatic kind to enforce your position. It is just easier to form a majority power against a minority than to deliver a reputable source for the own POV. --Uiofvnondc 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, when I say "monopoly" I'm using the actual phrasing the article uses later on, which is why I included it.--Rosicrucian 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I did some research and according to Murray Rothbard, it doesn't have to have a coercive monopoly on defense services to be a state. It can simply be something that taxes. Here is a quote: "Let me say from the beginning that I define the State as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. Any institution, not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a "State"." (Society without a State) [12] That'sHot 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] How about this version? -- Vision Thing -- 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm liking your current revision on the article, Vision Thing. It's nicely tight, and fairly informative. I think it passes Wikipedia:Lead section swimmingly.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] This clause is false: "Anarcho-capitalists assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made. . ." Rothbard's pertinent quotation says: ". . .if every man has the right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made." In this quotation, he is referring to natural resources that were previously unowned. In other words, if one mixes one's labour with unowned natural resources, then, and only then, does it become his property. If one is under the contract of a corporation and manufactures a computer, however, that computer does not become his property, even though it is the product that he as made. Thus, the clause is false or, at the very least, terribly misleading. Moreover, we already mention the homestead principle in the lead, so the clause "Anarcho-capitalists assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made" (which is essentially a reference to the homestead principle) is superfluous. --WGee 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] As it was said in the same sentence, property can be legitimately obtained through trade, gift, or original appropriation. Work contract is a form of trade; one trades future products of his labor for money (wage). Nobody has stolen product of his labor from him, he simply traded it for money. -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Superflous perhaps, but I'm not seeing it as false per se.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, one could be conservative and say that it is misleading; but if it is misleading, it is inherently false (my logic being that if it is only "half-true", it is essentially not true, i.e. false). We cannot make such general statements about anarcho-capitalism in this case; we must clarify what Rothbard means when he says "he has the right to own the product that he has made." Mutualists, other individualist anti-capitalist anarchists, and some socialists believe, unconditionally, in "the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [13] Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, believe in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced, only if the product was made using previously unowned natural resources. And to address your point, Vision Thing, (assuming I understand it correctly) trade does not necessarily imply a contractual division of labour, for trade is possible in anarchist economic systems such as mutualism, which do not recognize a division of labour. Even if your statement were true, Vision Thing, we shouldn't be confusing or misleading readers with vague implications or paradoxes. Thus, to say, unconditionally, that "Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made" is essentially false, because anarcho-capitalists only believe this to be true in a particular case: when one mixes one's labour with an unowned natural resource. (Note that in the paragraph from which the quotation is derived, Rothbard was specifically talking about the appropriation of "material natural objects in order to survive": that is, natural resources. In other words, "product", in that context, means "that which is made using unowned natural resources.") --WGee 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] What socialists are you talking about? The anarcho-communists don't think "the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." They say an individual has a right to be provided what he "needs" by the community. There is no right to individually own what you produce in anarcho-communism. If you're talking about the self-proclaimed "socialist" Benjamin Tucker, he is the same as the anarcho-capitalists as owning what you produced from the earth's resources or recieved through trade. The exception is on land, where if you stop using it, you don't own it anymore. That'sHot 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I will clarify then: mutualists, other individualist anti-capitalist anarchists, and some socialists believe in the right of the individual to own the product that he has made. -- WGee 03:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Right. That's what seperates individualist from collectivist anarchism......the right to individually own what you produce instead of it going into a collective pool where it is distributed according to need. That's why anarcho-capitalism is considered an individualist form of anarchism. All individualists oppose the authority of the community to decide (such as through democratic process) who needs what. If you produce it, you own it, until you decide to trade it for something else. I don't know why you say it's a false statement for Rothbard. Neither Rothbard or Tucker would think that if you take someone else's property and produce something out of it that it's yours. It only applies if you're working with materials that haven't already been turned into property by someone else. That'sHot 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] You didn't understood me correctly, I'm not saying that trade necessarily implies a contractual division of labor. I'm saying that contract between employee and employer is a form of trade. But I agree that that statement is superfluous since it's already covered with original appropriation/ homestead principle. -- Vision Thing -- 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] To say that a contract between an employee and an employer is a form of trade is to say that trade entails a division of labor, which is not necessarily true. In any case, the statement is redundant, as you said. -- WGee 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Believe it or not, speaking as a former entrepreneur, telling people what to do is labor. People need others to tell them what to do or little gets accomplished on the job. A lot of people choose to work for others exactly because they want someone else to tell them what to do instead of taking their own initiative to create their own jobs and tell themselves what to do. Most people prefer to have their hand held and be guided around, and that is the job of the manager or business owner. When people go to work for another, an exchange is made. "You perform the labor of telling me what to do, and I perform the labor of doing it because I don't know what to do and I need someone making sure that I don't slack off." If the business owner/manager doesn't peform the labor of guiding and pressuring the employees to produce, they will slack off, the business will fail, and everybody will be out in the street. Not everyone has the initiative and discipline to keep themselves from slacking off and not everyone knows what to do to make a living. That's where the employer comes in. A trade is made. Both parties labor in different ways. Besides managing the employees, you have to manage the cash flow and make sure the business stays liquid, you have to manage inventory, you have to negotiate with suppliers and merchants. Sometimes you even have to haggle and bribe government officials in order to get around oppressive regulations that interfere with the free market, especially here in Brasil. Anyone who thinks running a business with employees is not labor intensive is living in a fantasy world. When smoeone goes to work for an employer they are relieving themselves of a lot of labor and headaches. It is a trade. Like VisionThing said, it's a division of labor. DTC 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Mediation I see that Anarcho-capitalism is listed as needing a mediator. I am willing to mediate this case, as I have familiarity with (I think) all political and economic systems, including the variants of anarchist philosophy. Please leave a note if this is acceptable or not. Thanks. - MSTCrow 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your talk archives indicate you have recently been removed from the Mediation Cabal. Is it really appropriate to offer this?--Rosicrucian 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Well, if you notice, you don't actually have to be part of the Cabal to mediate. Not going to stop working simply because of politics. The users decide who mediates. So whether it's "appropriate" or not is rather subjective, policy-wise, it's fully appropiate. - MSTCrow 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Now that the trollish sockpuppets are gone, do we really need mediation? -- WGee 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think one might actually be back. See DTC's contribution history. He arrived over the weekend and began a flurry of familiar edits. I may be jumping the gun, but there's nothing wrong with some extra caution, considering the history of these articles. --AaronS 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'd say this is a different person, the writing style is much different, and a bit better. Also, the focus on labor in some of thier comments is a bit different. Although the user is still a bit suspicious in being a new user that seems so familiar with wikipedia and has a single directed goal. Two-Bit Sprite 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Taking a break I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Your temporary leave of absence is well warranted. I, too, have grown annoyed by the fanatical polemicism of the sockpuppets, which is why I've decided to stop editing this article for a while. Unfortunately, articles related to political science attract the most die-hard and ardent editors, who detract from the liesure of editing. -- WGee 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Stylistics I think that the list of thirteen sources one after another in the Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism section is a little ugly... Maybe this could be fixed up to look better? Supersheep 20:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 18 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25 Contents 1 Anarcho-capitalism and Individualist Anarchism 2 Consequentialist? 3 Another real-world example 4 Article far too large. Split! 5 Merge 6 just open greed? 7 List of sockpuppets 8 Sources 9 Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard 10 Wolf DeVoon 11 Currency 12 OED 13 Large swaths of original research 14 Invitation to the Anarchism Taskforce 15 NPOV 16 Intro needs trimming 17 removal of "orignial research" 18 "a form of market anarchism" 19 Adding free-market anarchism 20 Avrich as source 21 Anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism 22 Torts filed against corporations for liabilities arising non-contractually 23 Bulk-deletion of ancap != anarchism sources 23.1 Iain McKay, Anarchist FAQ 23.2 Chaz Bufe article 23.3 Sabatini Anarcho-capitalism and Individualist Anarchism Your honor is verging on creating an edit war over saying in the opener that Anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with Individualist Anarchism. I'd like this discussion moved to the talk page. While there is plenty of evidence (as sourced above) that Anarcho-capitalism is a form of Individualist Anarchism, I balk at suggesting that they are synonymous. Murray Rothbard himself refused to call himself an individualist anarchist, since the term was preempted by Spooner and Tucker for their own (differing) philosophy (see The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View, page 7). While Individualist Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism do have a broad intersection, it is not accurate to say that Anarcho-capitalism is "also called" Individualist Anarchism. --Academician 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm making not making a claim that "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are necessarily synonmous. Usually they are, but sometimes they aren't. The claim is that the terms "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are often used interchangeably for the same philosophy. For example, Wendy McElroy calls herself an "individualist anarchist" and she says she is a Rothbardian. That makes her an anarcho-capitalist. And if you look at the reference books on anarchism, Rothbard is referred to in many of them as an "individualist anarchist" rather than an "anarcho-capitalist." They are often synonyms. The same for "free market anarchism." Not everyone is aware of the term "anarcho-capitalism." I heard it called "individualist anarchism" before I heard of the term "anarcho-capitalism." Your honor 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] As far as economics goes individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not synonymous. Individualist anarchism is mutualism, they are in favor of private property but also subscribe to the labor theory of value. They both champion the individual but the economics are different. Anarko-Kapitalizt 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism too. Usually when someone is referred to as an "individualist anarchist" they're Rothbardians. Very few individualist anarchists are mutualists. Modern-day mutualist Kevin Carson says "Although there are many honorable exceptions who still embrace the "socialist" label, most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." -Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, Preface. For example, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy does not refer to herself as an anarcho-capitalist but a Rothbardian "individualist anarchist" See McElroy, Wendy. The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens (2005) According to Simon Tormey, "there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." Tormey, Simon, Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 There is no rule that to be an individualist anarchist you have to subscribe to the labor theory of value and the outdated mutualism and Benjamin Tucker stuff. Your honor 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Saying that anarcho-capitalism is "also known by other names, such as ... individualist anarchism" implies that the two are synonymous. They are not. Even if most modern individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, the implicit statement that the terms are synonymous A) is potentially offensive to the anti-capitalist individualists, B) is potentially offensive to anarcho-capitalists who refuse the individualist anarchist label, C) is disparaging of individualist anarchism's history, most of which - and the most well-known of which - came before anarcho-capitalism, and D) suggests that earler individualist anarchists, such as Tucker, Spooner etc., were anarcho-capitalists when they were in fact anti-capitalists. It is appropriate to note, in the section covering the wide variety of names anarcho-capitalism has been known by, that "individualist anarchism" is one of them. It is simply not appropriate to insert that one term (and not all the others) into the leading sentence. It would also be cumbersome to have all the various terms in the introductory sentence, which is why the section on other names exists. Let me use an analogy. At the punk rock article, a user changes the lead to read thus: Punk rock (also known as hardcore or pop punk) is an ... Do you see the problem? Punk rock existed well before hardcore or pop punk came into existence. It is true that in the 80s, most of punk was called hardcore, and now, most of what is called punk is pop punk, but the terms are not synonymous. That edit would be liable to ofend people, and would be reverted instantly. Hardcore and pop punk are only subtypes - dominant subtypes, certainly, but subtypes nonetheless - of punk rock as a whole. That would be to neglect the history of punk rock. And, similarly, inserting individualist anarchism in the lead of this article would be to neglect the history of both anarcho-capitalism, whose founder distanced it from individualist anarchism, and of individualist anarchism, which long predates anarcho-capitalism and the most well-known proponents of which were not capitalists. -Switch t 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't matter if anyone is "offended." I'm not helping to create a "politically correct" encyclopedia. The fact is that anarcho-capitalism is just one of a few other names that refer to the same philosophy. There is no legitimate reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence. I put a parenthetical note there stating that not all philosophies that are referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same as this one, so I don't see what the problem is. I'm not sure you understand. It's not just that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism. It's that anarcho-captalism IS individualist anarchism. It's an alternate name for it (regardless of whether or not other philosophies are called individualist anarchism too). Not all anarcho-capitalists refer to themselves as anarch-capitalists. Many refer to themselves as individualist anarchists instead. As the Kevin Carson source pointed out, most who call themselves individualist anarchists are Rothbardians. And it's not just self-labeling. Many scholars refer to it as individualist anarchism instead of anarcho-capitalism as well. It's simply an alternate name for the same thing (not always, but often). Your honor 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, but it does matter if people are offended because Wikipedia says something false. Individualist anarchism is not just another name for anarcho-capitalism. If there's "no legitimate reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence", then why do you insist on only adding one of them, and that one being the most controversial and misleading? The parenthetical not ewas messy, made the sentence hard to read, and added nothing to the article that isn't noted elsewhere. It's not that "not all philosophies that are referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same", it's that the philosophy referred to as "individualist anarchism" is different. The information is already in the article. You are only trying to confuse the matter, conflate two seperate ideologies, and make the article harder to read. There's no reason to do that merely to give prominence to information you like when it is already in the article in the appropriate place. -Switch t 07:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] He has a legitimate point. There are Rothbardians who don't call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" but "individualist anarchists" such as Wendy McElroy or "market anarchists." Benjamin Tucker was a market anarchist too but not an anarcho-capitalist. A lot of anarcho-capitalists don't like the term "anarcho-capitalism" because it leads to confusion by people who are not familiar with how free-market capitalism is defined.Anarcho-capitalism 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] In fact, here's a source right here using "individualist anarchism" as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism: "*"[David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society and the State, University Press of America, 1983] [e]xamines the doctrine of individualist anarchism or "anarcho-capitalism," a branch of libertarianism, which desires to universalize the market as the primary mechanism for coordination of social activity. Reviews the range of economic positions encompassed in anarchism, from anarcho-communism at one end to individualist anarchism at the other, pointing out that anarchism, in this view, is compatible with capitalism." Review in Journal of Economic Literature (JEL 83-1167, p. 1620) of David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society, and the State, University Press of America, 1983Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Consequentialist? Consequentialists such as Friedman disagree, I don't have The Machinery of Freedom on hand right now, but I'm pretty sure there is a passage where David D. Friedman not only very explicitly denies being a consequentalist, but in fact expresses his amusement about the idea. Instead, he puts up philosophical arguments to show that both naïve consequentialism and naïve deontological/natural-rights ethics can lead to absurdities when taken to their logical extremes. In general, Friedman seems not to worry about this too much. Unlike staunch everything-from-first-principle rationalists like Rothbard, but notably very much in the spirit of Popper and Hayek, he doesn't seem particularly committed to an all-ecompassing grand axiomatic System Of Ethics And Law, but prefers to show how his ideas make sense under a variety of reasonable assumptions, and analyze them more from the perspective of a social scientist than that of a moral philosopher. I think this derives from a relative lack of interest in actual politics. Friedman does not seem to be worried that having subtler ideas or a more mess-with-your-mind writing style would make it harder to attract a political following than a more Randian "I'm always right and this is how the world works" style. Sjeng 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's true. Here he is talking about it in a debate with rights-theorists libertarians: What's Right vs. What Works. Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. Liberty. January 2005, Vol 15, No 1 Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I liked that article a lot. I will stop the inappropriate chatting on the talk page now.Sjeng 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Another real-world example Don't some people consider Somalia as another example? Fephisto 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I haven't seen a source for that.Anarcho-capitalism 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/1569022... Sunbat 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_stateless_somalis.htm and here an article by the same author Sunbat 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] But those don't say it's an example of anarcho-capitalism. A source would have to say that explicitly or it would be deleted out of the article for being "original research."Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I havent read the book, so i cant give you any quotes alas. maybe someone else can, check mises.org maybe? Sunbat 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] This? [1]. However, upon looking, I'm getting a lot more articles saying it's not an example, so, nm. Actually, doesn't the [Anarchy in Somalia] article point to Anarcho-capitalism being there? Fephisto 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Article far too large. Split! There is too much information on this page that doesn't need to be here. Suggestions, Reduce the size of the introduction! Reduce the size of the non-aggression axiom section and move relevant information to that page Reduce the size of the section on Classical liberalism (and so on...) Reduce the size of The Austrian School school section Reduce the size of the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section. Basically, pages exist on all these topics, independently of this topic. Therefore, you don't need to duplicate the information here. The introduction is not meant to provide everything about the topic either. I would do it, except that I have a lot of stuff in the real world just now, and it is easier to suggest to other people. Also, I'm not really a contributor to this article, so you people might get annoyed if I did it without asking. And I've suggested basically the same thing over at the anarchism page as well, once you are done here, you might pop over to help there. AFA 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] No such thing as "too much information." This article is definitely not large. It's pretty small.Anarcho-capitalism 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] Agreed with User:Anarcho-capitalism this is normal size for a featured article. Lord Metroid 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] The point is that it is duplicating information found at other pages. As such, we are maintaining two versions of the same information. What is the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply] If that is the case, than the duplicate information should be removed from the least essential article for the specific topic of the duplicated information and be replaced by a smaller conclusion and referal Lord Metroid 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] This article is too large, please look at wikipedia policy.--Dwarf Kirlston 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merge What's the crazy shit about mergeing. A Featured Article being merged with market anarchism. 2 different topics. No way I would agree with that. Lord Metroid 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Concur. Intangible2.0 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wouldn't "market capitalism" include the anti-capitalist Proudhon's Mutualism? I oppose a merge. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] I oppose a merge as well. If anything there could be subsection of market anarchism titled Anarcho capitalism.... which would re-direct you here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoweLeif (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] just open greed? I have thought for some time that anarcho-capitalism is a very bad thing. Most anarchist sects want freedom from government in order to correct some injustice in their system or such, but I am of the opinion that anarcho-capitalists simply seek to increase their wealth by abolishing any and all laws binding them, thus letting them run rampant. Invadra 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is not the correct place for discussing this subject as the talk pages are meant for discussing editing of the article associated to the talk page. If you want to discuss philosophy, I know that the messageboard of Free Domain Radio discusses moral and political philosophy and because the host of Free Domain Radio is an anarcho-capitalist that message board is populated by people that would gladly discuss anarcho-capitalism with you. Lord Metroid 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of sockpuppets User:Crashola is a sockpuppet of a banned user. For details, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. -- infinity0 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sources Here I will start a centralized discussion about sources on anarcho-capitalism (not) being a form of anarchism so that we don't need to repeat same arguments on several pages. I agree with argument that since "The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought" only refers to specific individuals associated with individualist anarchism, one of whom was Nozick, it shouldn't be used as a source for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with anarchism" can't be used for argument that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. According to Wikipedia:No original research policy, synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is not allowed. Concretely: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. In this case this means that the fact that some people claim that capitalism is not compatible with anarchism cannot be used to advance the position that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought says: At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right. They don't speak about individualist anarchism as a dead philosophy but as a living philosophy in the form of anarcho-capitalism. "Dictionary of Marxist Thought" makes a claim that anarcho-capitalism is a contemporary variant of individualist anarchism. That is all that matters. Tertiary sources are allowed per WP:NOR. "BASTARD Press", "SPUNK Press" and "Frontlines" seem to be do it yourself publishers and are sources of questionable reliability. As such they should only be used in articles about themselves per WP:V. -- Vision Thing -- 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] I upped the subsection for "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with anarchism". Many of the sources are relevant. One of the sources (Tucker) predates the term, but discusses the relationship between anarchism and socialism as a socialist individualist anarchist. And it's largely his legacy that's disputed. Generally, these divide into (1) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be non-anarchist (2) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be non-capitalist and (3) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to mix non-anarchist capitalist and non-capitalist anarchist elements. A fourth subsection, divided into pre-Rothbardian and post-Rothbardian subsections, of market anarchist works on the relationship between anarchism, socialism, and capitalism might be better. Jacob Haller 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 2 - Nope, this one doesn't work. The argument is not "A and B, therefore C". It is "Not A, Not B, therefore Not A+B". Its a logical deduction (heck its really a tautology) akin to A=A and Not A=Not A, and thus not covered by your above wiki-policy quote. Unless you are claiming that anarcho-capitalism means something different than anarchism + capitalism. Evidence for that claim would be welcomed, perhaps you are saying that anarcho-capitalists use the term anarchism differently than any other anarchists do? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Original research policy clearly states: precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. Authors you listed didn't publish precise analysis in relation to the topic (anarcho-capitalism). -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] There is no precise analysis here. There is a logical tautology. If you think that is precise analysis, I suggest you look up the meanings of the words involved. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Determining whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism definitely requires a precise analysis. Also, those authors didn't wrote about anarcho-capitalism (which is required by OR policy to use them as a source). -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] There is no determination here, any determination is left to the reader. The text is merely stating a fact, that these writers do not consider anarchism and capitalism to be compatible. The idea that these sources should be removed because they do not specifically mention anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous when they are clearly talking about the relationship between anarchism and capitalism. To remove them on this standard would require that we remove all the quotes by Molinari and others, is that something you are advocating? Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] I overlooked one of your last edits were you have changed the text. Current version is acceptable with rewording. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 3 - Okay, that makes sense. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 4 - I don't see the point of using a tertiary source when there are plenty of primary ones, but whatever floats your boat. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] 5 - Spunk press is not a do it yourself publisher. They have a long history of publishing many authors well-known in the field. Do you have evidence that Frontlines and Bastard are self publishers? If so I would like to see it. It is odd that you are holding these particular sources to such a high standard, when several of the sources already in the article fail it. You don't mind if I begin to remove sources that are obviously self-published? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] "BASTARD Press" is DIY publishing to produce content for the InfoStall [2], for Frontlines I haven't managed to find any information which is evidence enough about their notability, and "SPUNK Press" is not a publisher but an online archive. By the looks of the article you used as a source [3] it hasn't be published anywhere. In general I don't have anything against self-published sources if they are used for sourcing of uncontroversial content, but for controversial issues like whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism only reliable sources must be used. If you look through the sources used for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, you won't find any self-published source, or even source coming from anarcho-capitalist (and there are many of those). -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is simple then, you've made clear that this is a controversial topic, reference to which you keep changing in the text. Since you've now based your argument for rejecting my sources on the claim that this is a controversial issue, you've no reason to continue to remove indications of such from the text itself. Also, to help you stick to your own standard I'm going to remove Ralph Raico, since he is a libertarian with a vested interest in portraying anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I'm keeping the Frontlines bit, cause I don't think your inability to find evidence of their notability counts, I could say that about a lot of the references in this article, controversial or not. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] To me a question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not a controversial issue, anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism without a doubt. It also isn't controversial issue for those scholars who say that it is a form of anarchism. It is only a controversial issue for those scholars who argue that it is not a form of anarchism. Since they are in minority their view shouldn't be presented as a generally accepted. Who is in the minority? The vast majority of anarchist theorists have argued that capitalism cannot survive without the state, which implies that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, oxymoronic. These fork into arguments which hold that non-socialist-anarchisms are not anarchist, and those which argue that non-socialist anarchisms are not capitalist. Jacob Haller 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] That can also imply that anarcho-capitalist theorists envisage their version of capitalism in a different way than those anarchist theorists did. -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ralph Raico is libertarian but as far as I know he is not an anarcho-capitalist. However, I will agree on his removal if you will agree on removal of your libertarians and anarchist as sources for claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism on the same basis (subjectivity). Concerning, "Frontlines" I can't even find any evidence that such publisher exists, and that is enough to put into question their reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] You are trying to play this both ways. When it comes to the text you claim that the status of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is non-controversial, and continue to remove any reference to controversy. When it comes to sources you disagree with you claim that it is controversial, and continue to insist on leaving only those sources that referance AC as a form of anarchism. You ignore and dismiss all sources that would demonstrate the controversy and insist they they must be in a majority without any evidence at all to back up that claim. This is not a discussion you are engaging in, but an attempt to push through a particular viewpoint. Anyway, its a strange standard you are advocating, if we are going to remove sources due to the political ideology of the source then you will find more than just Raico left out, Susan Brown and Paul Avrich would also be removed, among many others. Or are you suggesting we remove only those sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and keep the rest? Its certainly seems to be what you are suggesting in your edits. Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm leaving it for you and other editors to decide. For me it works either way. -- Vision Thing -- 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Etcetc, can you provide quotes for "Sources that consider anarchism and capitalism mutually incompatible"? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Can I? Of course. Are you asking me to dig up every reference and provide you with a full quote? If so, why? Etcetc 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Because I tried to check something and I found some discrepancies. But anyway, we had the same procedure for sources which support claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, so it is only fair to follow it here too. -- Vision Thing -- 12:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Give me a single example of a discrepancy and I'd be happy to give the quote to justify the reference. As to the anarcho-capitalist sources, many of them failed to correspond to the text when I check them and were posted by individuals now banned from wikipedia for engaging in blatantly anti-wiki behavior. In other words, ALL of the anarcho-capitalist sources are suspect. I'd be happy to provide a quote from each and every source I have posted if you do the same with the anarcho-capitalist ones. You have already reinserted several suspect sources, indicating that you have no intention of being intellectually honest about this, but if you've changed your ways I would be happy to oblige your rather strange request. Etcetc 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sure, you can find all quotes here, under Sources section. As for discrepancies in your sources, I have read page 238 from 'Political Theorists in Context' by Stuart Isaacs twice and I'm not clear how you have concluded that he argues that anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] The quote you've called into question is "Anarchism was a movement based upon equality and, like communism, it sought a working class revolution to overthrow the state." The quote is on page 240, I suppose the page must have flipped over while I was typing in the citation. Of course, there are plenty of other quotes as well, like "In other words, anarchism has at its core a belief in the direct democratic participation of all in the decisions that affect the societies in which they live." on the page before. Etcetc 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neither of those comments addresses capitalism. First (btw, talking in the past tense) talks about revolution to overthrow the state, not capitalism, and second talks about direct democracy, so you would need to do some (mistaken) original research to use that one. Also, author you quoted says: In an unlike turn of events many neo-liberals of the 1980s and 1990s turned towards anarchist ideas. These new libertarians argued that the state (in particular the welfare state) needed to be 'rolled back' to allow individuals' greater freedom to exercise their own ambitions and enterprise. Both Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Regan in the USA benefited from this Right-leaning anarchist spirited discourse. So you are clearly adding your own spin to the comments of this author, and maybe to rest of them too, since he is clearly not indicating that anarchism and its ideas are incompatible with capitalism (I imagine that you consider both Thatcher and Regan as ultra-capitalists). -- Vision Thing -- 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] The fact that they "turned toward anarchist ideas" does not imply that they were anarchists, nor that their political philosophy was compatible with anarchism. Are you actually suggesting that the author was implying that Thatcher and Reagan were anarchists? Obviously capitalists can have some anarchist ideas, so can fascists, that doesn't make either group anarchists themselves. Your attempts to dismiss this source border on outrageous, are you actually trying to argue that a workers revolution is in any way compatible with capitalism? If you think that reference to direct democracy requires original research in order to consider it incompatible with anarcho-capitalism, then you have an awfully high standard. One that would rule out several of the pro-capitalist sources you continue to champion. After all, some of them only indicate that Murray Rothbard was an individualist anarchist without making any mention of his being an anarcho-capitalist. That would require the great leap of imagination for the reader to like Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism with his attributed individualist anarchism. Yet you seem to think that without a direct statement indicating that anarcho-capitalism is or is not anarchism it is all original research. You need to make a choice, either we include sources that obviously support the text even though they don't simply repeat the same exact statements, or we throw out all instances of interpretation, anaylsis, and deduction on both sides that don't measure up to your suddenly high standards. Its your call, I'm cool with it either way, so long as you cease to apply a double standard. Etcetc 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] What I'm saying is that workers revolution against state is compatible with capitalism. As for direct democracy, did you read its Wikipedia article? If you didn't it says Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy. And you are arguing that direct democracy and capitalism are incompatible... -- Vision Thing -- 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, and Switzerland is a bastion of anarchism. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, though only when it suits you, of course. The text is clearly referring to direct democracy in an anarchist context. And yep, a "workers revolution" that is "like communism" as the text explicitly compares, is in fact incompatible with capitalism. Etcetc 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Why was Tucker's AtO removed from the list? Jacob Haller 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist capitalism. Some sources even classify Tucker as an anarcho-capitalist. -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist capitalism according to... Vision Thing? Etcetc 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's debatable. Tucker and Rothbard had different views of land ownership and banking systems. Rothbard often argued that non-Lockean land systems and non-metallic banking systems violated natural rights; however, Tucker and Rothbard proposed similar methods for resolving disputes, which have been extended to allow for multiple land systems and multiple banking systems. But somewhere we have to distinguish between Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism and Malatesta's pf anarcho-communism... In effect, Tucker states that anarchism cannot be capitalist in the ordinary sense of the term (which makes as much sense as saying that classical individualist anarchism was not socialist in the ordinary sense of the term, except that socialism has had two rival ordinary senses since the late 19th century, and capitalism has had one ordinary sense, which confuses markets and privilege). Jacob Haller 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard I read on the internet that Ron Paul, candidate for president of the U.S., was a close associate of Murray Rothbard. Is this true? Anyone have a solid reference for this? After reading this, I'm recognizing a lot of Rothbard influence in what Paul says. Paul sounds like a near-anarchist. Ansetropen 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note, Ansetropen, like Crashola and so many countless ones before, is yet another banned sockpuppet. Etcetc 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rothbard helped Paul develope his understanding of economics, but he never converted Paul to an anarchist. Paul is a minarchist. Allixpeeke (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Paul was definitely a closet Anarchist imho. As for their ties, when Paul ran for president in 1988, Rothbard was his economic adviser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.9.101 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] No~o, Ron Paul has some libertarian tendancies but he is far from an anarchist, even closet anarchist. He is a career politician for beeps sake! Lord Metroid (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wolf DeVoon By all means, ignore The Freeman's Constitution, Laissez Faire Law ISBN 978-1-4303-0836-2, and The Good Walk Alone ISBN 978-1-4303-2859-9 196.40.32.185 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Currency No where in this article (or any place else ive looked) explains what form of money would be used in anarcho-capitalist society. What types of money would be used? That's a question that I'm sure many who are unfamiliar with "hardcore" free market ideas would like to have an answer to. However, I'm not sure that this question belongs in this article, since I feel it is better to deal with the general philosophical aspects, and leave economics to more appropriate articles (Free market, Business cycle, etc.) Also, it is of course impossible to know what currency would be used in an anarcho-capitalist society, since people are free to do as they wish (anarchy = without rulers), and use whatever method of trade they would deem most beneficial. The same goes for any and all aspects and details of an anarchist society. You simply can not know what it will look like beforehand. One can only watch it evolve. However, it should also be said that it is today clear that gold is a very logical choice of currency, and almost all anarchist economists (most notably those of the Austrian School) advocate a gold standard. —Per Hedetun (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure how to divide the topics aming the articles. The basic market anarchist position is to have multiple competing currencies. This means that if one bank/association inflates its own currency, it doesn't inflate the rival currencies. (This also allows gold, silver, land, grain, etc. to compete as backing media, which was important to the older traditions but is less important to ancapism). (If ancaps focus on gold, are there any special objections to competing media?) Rothbard condemned fractional-reserve banking as fraud. Many post-Rothbardians disagree. They argue that if the bank states that it is fractional-reserve, discloses what insurance it has for runs, what conditions it has for limiting/forbidding withdrawals, etc., then it doesn't involve fraud. Jacob Haller 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] Post-Rothbardians? Anyways, the original question of what money will be used cannot be answered directly, there all kind of reasons why some moneys mights outcompete others, that all has to do with transaction costs, convertability, etc. Intangible2.0 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] The entire "argument" is based on a lack of understanding of what "money" is. You can't just decide that whatever is going to be money. Money has to arise out of barter by natural means (see Mises' regression theorem). Different monies could arise in different more-or-less-disconnected economies, but the idea of many "competing monies" within an economy is just silly. At the moment, money is government paper. You can't get back to gold, or anything else, without a complete regression to a barter economy. (That's why government paper continues to circulate even (or especially!) after the government in question has ceased to exist, as with the "Swiss dinar" in Iraq, etc. In theory, governments could reverse the "trickery" they used to go from commodity money (gold) to fiat, but that's not going to happen, and you can't do it yourself, unless you can somehow gain control of the government's monetary authority) —Tacitus Prime 13:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Huh? You assume there's some basic difference between barter and currency systems, aside from fiat interference, and that competing currencies act like the former. Well, currencies have competed many times in the past, without fixed exchange rates, and without trouble. Jacob Haller 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, there's a difference between money and barter - why they have different names, for a start. I don't know why you think I think the difference has anything to do with fiat. When you speak of competing currencies, are you referring to (a) proto-currencies "competing" to become "money" in an economy just beginning to emerge from barter, (b) currencies from different areas in an economy that hasn't yet settled on its own (e.g., the use of a wide array of European coins in various colonies in previous centuries), or (c) a stable, functioning economy that has multiple local currencies (not merely engaging in foreign exchange operations) over a sustained period of time. Only (c) would be "competing currencies" in the way being talked about here; if that's what you mean, please name an example. —Tacitus Prime 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] ??? "Money" is what "serves the purpose of the tool, money." Any easily portable high-value good does that, as do high-value notes. The difference between currency systems and barter systems is one of degree. Categories A and B beg the question - they presuppose that multiple currencies mean an incompletely-developed currency system. Category C is fairly common, especially if we add special-purpose currencies to local currencies, and a fourth category D - a stable, functioning economy that has multiple currencies with substantially-overlapping ranges - is not, to my knowledge, uncommon. However, I specialize in eras and areas with large states using their taxation power, and sometimes more drastic measures, to support their official currency, and this tips the scales against alternative currencies. Jacob Haller 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] We're using different definitions of "money" - "any portable high-value good" is just any portable high-value good; it's not money. Diamonds are portable high-value goods, but try walking into your local supermarket and paying for your groceries with diamonds! The difference between barter and a money economy is precisely that there is a general medium of exchange (money) in the latter, so that everything can be priced in terms of that; you don't have to have a "price of cows in eggs" and a "price of cows in goats" and so on between every pair of goods, with associated high transaction costs (and it's much more than just "a matter of degree") - there's obviously a (strong) tendency to move in that direction. Having multiple monies is essentially the same thing - the tendency must be to move toward a single money; multiple monies can only exist as a transition state. —Tacitus Prime 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] OED I was surprised to find the definition of anarcho-capitalism in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is the entry: "A theory or ideology based on a belief in the freedom to own private property, a rejection of any form of governmental authority or intervention, and the upholding of the competitive free market as the main mechanism for social interaction." Operation Spooner 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Large swaths of original research I don't even know where to start but there are huge sections of original research in contradiction to WP:NOR, the one I think is a good example is the entire Anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism section which should preferably be changed to give the same info (and a lot of it is good info, if sourced info is possible, or removed though that is not ideal as a large part of what makes this a good article is that information. Cat-five - talk 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Only sources I can give you about "Anarcho-capitalism isn't a legitimate form of anarchism" is from User:Lordmetroid/essay_anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_is_an_individualist_anarchism: - Notice: I have not written this essay myself nor any of it's content, I merely copied it because I found it an interesting piece of text. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Invitation to the Anarchism Taskforce In the spirit of anarchist pluralism and inclusivity, anarcho-capitalism, national-anarchism, agorism, green anarchism and sects and offshoots of all varieties have been allowed mention in the Wikipedia articles and template regarding anarchism. So I'd like to continue this panarchist solidarity by inviting you all to join the newly established Anarchism Task Force, an arena for collaborating on improving anarchism articles of all varieties on Wikipedia. Skomorokh incite 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] NPOV All links and references are heavily skewed towards anarchy. None that are critical 81.228.195.119 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hu? It is an article about an anarchistic idea... What did you expect? If you want to reference the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section, please do. But the article it about an anarchistic idea. This is not an NPOV issue. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Intro needs trimming It's called the introduction for a reason. You don't have to cram every single point in the article into the intro in summary. Fearwig (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] removal of "orignial research" I don't see why the section about the labelling of anarcho-capitalism had to be removed. The issue of the name of the ideology is a controversial one amongst anarcho-capitalists. For example, Ian Bernard would commonly say in his radio show that the term "anarcho-capitalism" is misleading and thus would use "free-marketeer" as a substitute to avert such misunderstanding. See here - http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Free_marketeer. I'm sure any frequent listener of his radio show would attest to that. Stefan Molyneux, as another prominent anarcho-capitalist, would call himself a "philosopher" as a more accurate label than "anarcho-capitalist". Francois Tremblay, who recently wrote the book "But Who Will Build The Roads" describes himself as a "market" anarchist, since he believes the word "capitalism" to be misleading. I'm going to add this, since I don't see how it qualifies as baseless "original research". It is a salient controversy in anarcho-capitalist circles. Instead of critiquing, maybe a wiser course of actions would be to actually study the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists, prior to claiming that such a point is without foundation. Lapafrax (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] "a form of market anarchism" In the first sentence in the introductory paragraph, it suggests that anarcho-capitalism is a form of market anarchism. Even though the sources suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, there is not any reliable sources suggesting that it is a form of market anarchism. Numerous sources suggest that free market anarchism is a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. (e.g. [4] [5] [6]) I found no sources suggesting that anarcho-capitalism is a form of market anarchism. Murray Rothbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist, even used the term free-market anarchism as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. In the free-market anarchism article, it mentions that only two groups--agorists and anarcho-capitalists--identify themselves as free-market anarchists. Agorism should be mentioned in this article, because all agorists are also anarcho-capitalists. So why some mistakenly assume that agorists are market anarchists but not anarcho-capitalists? This further supports the conclusion that market anarchism is not a superset of anarcho-capitalism, but it is a synonym. Furthermore, I suggest redirecting the article free-market anarchism with this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and two highly overlapping articles should be merged. There are, and will be, no sources that differentiates between anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism. We therefore should assume that these two are actually equivalent articles, according to WP:OR. They are not even "highly overlapping." It is unmanageable to create maintain another version of this article. Benjamin Tucker, an market anarchist, is also mentioned here; even though he did not explicitly identify himself as an anarcho-capitalist. The term anarcho-capitalism was coined much later by Murray Rothbard, which may be a reason why Tucker did not identify himself as such. This may also be the case of similar historic figures such as Gustave de Molinari and Lysander Spooner, who are also embedded in this article. The term anarcho-capitalism is used much more commonly than the other term. Visit the discussion page of the other article for an elaboration. The redirect proposal has been suggested for quite some time, so now it is about the time to actually redirect. I don't think anyone would mind if the other article was redirected, as there has been no activity on the redirect proposal. This article contains everything that is included in the other article, and you can also copy the contents of anarcho-capitalism to free-market anarchism, so just blank that page and write a redirect. Thank you for your time.71.175.31.106 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Adding free-market anarchism The term free-market anarchism is used commonly as a synonym of anarcho-capitalism than a superset of it. According to the WP:NPOV policy, we should include the significant view, no matter what is correct, no matter if it is proven or not. The term free-market anarchism is used much more commonly as a synonym than a superset. (see discussion above) Therefore, we should include the synonym, to respect the NPOV policy. 71.175.31.106 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Avrich as source OK so I have now found the section of Anarchist Voices that is being cited as considering a-c a form of anarchism, thanks for the help. But I see that it is footnote explaining an interviewees use of the term "Rothbardian" and reads almost in full "Followers of Murray N Rothbard, American economist, historian and individualist anarchist. He edited Left & Right during the 1960s his books include...." So we're talking about 3 lines in footnote to a 700-page book! I think the status of this as an "aside" needs to be made clear in the reference, given Avrich's authoritative status as a historian of anarchism. I'm guessing that'd best be done by including it's footnote status in the WP ref. I'll be doing that later on, (once I work out the formatting :) ) Chaikney (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Seeing as the reference doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism, I have removed it. Good work, Skomorokh 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] If Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism for his philosophy and he's an individualist anarchist, then anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchism. This is common sense. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] If Lucy coined the term anti-corporatism for her philosophy, and she's a vegetarian, then anti-corporatism is a vegetarianism. This is common sense. Skomorokh 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes if she calls her philosophy anti-corporatism and a source says that philosophy is vegetarian, then her philosophy, anti-corporatism, is vegetarian. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but that would not imply that the source says Lucy is vegetarian. That would be original synthesis. I like what you have done with the Avrich source, by the way. Regards, Skomorokh 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism I have added the following note in the section of criticism: "The Anarchist International, see [7] holds that anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism, see [8]." (Anna Quist (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply] As it is not reliably sourced, I have removed it. Please stop adding poorly referenced material to the encyclopaedia. Sincerely, Skomorokh 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Torts filed against corporations for liabilities arising non-contractually Was this really original research? It seems consistent with anarcho-capitalist principles. I just can't remember if I've read it anywhere else. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] I felt the posting was self-evident when I originally made it, but to resolve the issue, I've added a quote from Rothbard which supports the original point.194.205.140.225 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Bulk-deletion of ancap != anarchism sources I have reverted the deletion of half of the sources in "Sources which say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism". They were alleged to be unreliable and/or misinterpreted. I want to hear exactly what the objections to them all are. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Iain McKay, Anarchist FAQ AFAQ is the most comprehensive source on this side of the dispute. the author is the editor of Black Flag, the UK's 2nd longest running anarchist periodical it is about to be published in book form by AK Press I can see no good reason for seeing this as either unreliable or misinterpreted. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] How do we know that everything that is in the online version is in the published version? There may be some things that the publisher didn't accept. Has the book actually been printed yet? Richard Blatant (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's being typeset, Current plan is for a launch event in September in Glasgow; only changes to the online version were for length reasons as far as I know. It's already had 10 years of fact-checking. Chaikney (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] I didn't have much a problem using this until I just saw the policy. Apparently, this can't be used regardless according the policy things "that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" are not to be used as sources. The FAQ makes it clear that they are promotional in nature. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Chaz Bufe article "These "Libertarians" not only glorify capitalism, the mechanism that denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority, but they also wish to retain the coercive apparatus of the state while eliminating its social welfare functions"”hence widening the rift between rich and poor, and increasing the freedom of the rich by diminishing that of the poor (while keeping the boot of the state on their necks)."...No room for misinterpretation here. As for its reliability: it's a published source that pithily summarises the common social anarchist view of capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Bufe basically says that whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or not depends on definition of anarchism. Under one definition it is form of anarchism, under other is not. Because of that he can't be used as a source that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] He actually gives HIS definition: He says "This is what it is: In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" and "religious anarchism" are possible." One could even use this as a source for anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism. I haven't because there are plenty of other sources that where there is no lack of clarity over what they're saying. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sabatini This was published in an anarchist journal (AJODA) and deals directly with the issue. It's referred to when this comes up in forum discussions. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] This and Anarchist FAQ are what WP:V calls questionable sources. Questionable sources are defined as publications: "that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." and they "should only be used as sources about themselves." -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Justify that statement, Vision Thing. AAJODA is a respected journal, and AAFAQ is praised by notable scholars, widely read, has been published by AK Press, a reputable publisher (see An Anarchist FAQ. P.S. Your input would be most welcome at WP:ANCITE, where we hope to settle questions like this definitively in future. Regards, Skomorokh 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] It is really a journal? I would say it's a magazine. I can get it at the local bookstore in the magazine section. It appears they simply print letters or articles people send in to the magazine. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you want sources on what anarchists think, you need to go to anarchist periodicals. It has never been properly featured in academic journals, the classic texts were all issued as pamphlet or newspaper ("journal") form. AAJODA has been published for around 20 years. Branding it a magazine as if it were equivalent to TV Weekly is deeply misleading. It's about as notable an anarchist source as you could find. Chaikney (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] This is how AK Press describes themselves: "AK Press is a worker-run collective that publishes and distributes radical books, visual and audio media, and other mind-altering material. [...] AK Press works hard to destroy and move beyond capitalism, toward a non-exploitative, sustainable, and just economy. [...] We’re proud to call ourselves propagandists and hope that the materials we provide both agitate and provoke." [9] If that is not a description of an extremist, questionable source (per Wikipedia's definition) I don't know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oh for heaven's sake. Now the most prominent publisher of anarchist books is going to be ruled inadmissable?! As a source for an article linked from the Anarchism portal!? Then we need to get rid of all the libertarian think tanks and academics, also. They fit the same criteria. This is getting silly. Chaikney (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well, if you'll notice, none of the sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism are from anarcho-capitalists or from anarcho-capitalist publishers or even professed libertarian publishers. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Published by capitalist enterprises, though; by capitalist economists? In what way does complete detachment from a subject make you reliable rather than, say, prone to repeat contentious claims at face value? Echo chamber effect. Capitalist enterprises aren't keen on publishing anti-capitlist literature, you know. So we could condemn all anarchist sources as unreliable and have an article that bears no relation to reality. Chaikney (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] AK press gets paid too. They're as capitalist as anyone else, regardless of how they organize their private ownership of the means of production. Richard Blatant (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't know if you're being serious or contrarian. Are you about to suggest that AK Press are anarcho-capitalist? They are a workers co-op. No hierarchy, no boss. No selling labour in return for time. The society they exist in is capitalist. They are not capitalist in any meaningful sense. This illustrates how far anarcho-capitalist ideas about capitalism are from anarchist ideas about capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's still private ownership of the means of production. That's the basic definition of capitalism. They are engaging in private ownership of the means of production and making money from it. Capitalism allows people to arrange their means of production however they want to arrange it. That's the essence of private property. The owners control it, as opposed to society at large, as in anarcho-communism, or a government controlling it. Capitalism doesn't require a "boss." Anyone that owns their own business, a sole proprietorship, is engaging in capitalism too. Richard Blatant (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 20 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25 Contents 1 Intro 2 Balance in the lead 3 Origin 4 This page is too big. 5 Origin of term & controversy 6 RFC for lede 7 Slight factual error 8 victimless crimes 9 Nonfiction and further reading 10 Global perspective? 11 Where to put Molinari and fans? 12 Cleanup 13 Somalia as Modern Example 14 Redirect/merge Free-market anarchism here? 15 3rd paragraph 16 Fictional Literature Addition 17 Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism... 18 Confusion regarding a sentence in the intro 19 On "Early Pennsylvania" (Section 3.3) 20 Anarcho-capitalism = Tea Party movement 21 David Friedman 22 Featured article? 23 Market anarchism 24 Individualist Anarchist? 25 Not NPOV 26 Merger proposal 27 Amish 28 RfC on Stefan Molyneux Intro Seriously, does this intro really need to be this long? —Memotype::T 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Other introductions are even longer. Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] True, but I think this can still be trimmed down some, it's a very daunting lead. —Memotype::T 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] It is now three paragraphs - the recommended size. The former fourth paragraph fits in nicely under the philosophy section (with a minor tweak). JLMadrigal (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Great job, the lead now looks much more approachable. Thanks —Memotype::T 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Balance in the lead The lead makes no mention of the criticisms outlined in the article. Perhaps inclusion of the Noam Chomsky quote would be apposite. --MoreThings (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Origin I previously edited in a link to a Google Books scan, which turned out to probably have an incorrect date. This publication, from 1965, however has the date clearly visible in the scan itself, and mentions "anarcho-capitalist principles", which means that the term originated before 1968 as stated here. The Spectator, July 2, 1965 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trefork (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] This page is too big. It's about as big as the main article on anarchism. Since this is such a small school of thought, I must ask why it has such a massive article. Zazaban (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] After a short skim-over, I feel that a great deal of this article should be cut. There is waaaay too much detail. Zazaban (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Though it's slightly longer in prose size than anarchism (51kb vs 41kb, neither egregrious by size guidelines), wiki is WP:NOTPAPER and length of article is not an indicator of importance or anything. This is a featured article, so removing a "great deal" of it would be highly inappropriate, unless we wanted to split it off into sub-articles. Regards, Skomorokh 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Origin of term & controversy Someone keeps deleting the fact that the term was coined by Murray Rothbard, and the ambivalence or outright rejection that he and many others expressed about using the term "anarchism" which has always had an anti-capitalist meaning 69.228.251.134 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's already in the article. And please don't try to push some POV about anticapitalism. Anarchism qua anarchism isn't anticapitalist. Leave your Infoshop capitalism-hating at Infoshop, please. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've protected the article for 72 hours due to the edit war. Please discuss the substance of the edits here; further reverts may result in blocks. Skomorokh, barbarian 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] The fact that the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Murray Rothbard is very important and should be right at the beginning of the article. Also important is the word "arguably", which was added for 2 reasons. First, to express the rejection among traditional anarchists of the relatively new term "anarcho-capitalism" as part of the (always anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. Secondly, because the very person who coined the term, Rothbard HIMSELF admitted that it WASN'T anarchism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html "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." --Murray Rothbard That these footnoted and uncontroversial facts have, in the space of a day or so, been called "POV" "vandalism" and reverted reflexively without discussion should tell us something about the ideological fanaticism inhabiting these pages. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] That of which you speak is in the article already, and does not need to be at the beginning of the article. The only reason to put it at the beginning is to push the POV that anarchism is anticapitalist. Such a discussion has been done to death on Wikipedia already, and it has been decided to not "kick anyone out of the tree". Please leave your idealogical fanaticism at Infoshop. Thank you. Further, when you look at the time the article was written, Rothbard had not yet fully embraced the term anarchism. A few years later, he had. So whatever your supposed point is with the quote just doesn't materialize. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Agreed with Knight, this is simply POV-pushing. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] After the aforementioned hysterical claims of "POV" "vandalism" to describe perfectly reasonable and sourced edits, no one should take the new accusations seriously. We all know that both Soxwon and BAAWA are die-hard right wing-capitalists. So the final decision should rest with someone who doesn't have such a stake on the issue. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for admitting that you're POV-pushing. Continuing to POV-push will result in you being reported and possibly banned. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's YOUR POV and false accusations that will get you reported and/or banned.69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] When you edit anarchocommunism, anarchosyndicalism, and all the rest in the lead to say that they are terms coined by whomever, then you can legitimately have your edit. Until then: all you have is a POV. And I made no false accusations, either. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's become clear that 69.228.251.134 is going to continue to push his disruptive edit. The philosophy section of the article already states that Rothbard's idea was the first well-known version. There is also a criticism section and a section on anarchocapitalism and other anarchist schools. No anarcho-whatever article has "anarcho-whatever is a term coined by X" in it. There is simply no reason for 69.228.251.134's edit. Granted, it is at least sourced. But it just has no place in the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] RFC for lede Dispute over wording of the opening statement. Soxwon (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's not me who is pushing a disruptive edit. The fact that the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Murray Rothbard is very important and should be right at the beginning of the article. Also important is the word "arguably", which was added for 2 reasons. First, to express the rejection among traditional anarchists of the relatively new term "anarcho-capitalism" as part of the (always anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. Secondly, because the very person who coined the term, Rothbard HIMSELF admitted that it WASN'T anarchism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html "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." --Murray Rothbard Since traditional and historical anarchism has always been anti-hierarchical and against both, capitalism and the state (as shown by the literature and the coiner of the term "anarcho-capitalism" himself) the explanations in the lead should grant as much importance to the anarchist critique of "anarcho"-capitalism, as it would to a movement that labeled itself "anarcho"-statist i.e. a movement that shared some critiques of capitalism with traditional anarchists, but which emphasized as its goal, the creation all around the planet of, say, "voluntary nation-states". So the question, as was obvious from the beginning, is not whether or not these facts are mentioned somewhere in the article, but whether or not their importance means they should be in the lead.69.228.251.134 (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] No anarcho- page mentions in the lead who "coined" the "term" being discussed, so why this edit is so important as to be the first one to do so must be demonstrated. Frankly, it is pure POV-pushing being disguised as a legitimate edit in order to marginalize anarchocapitalism. Recall: it has been decided to not kick anyone out of the tree here on Wikipedia as far as the whole anarchist "dispute". The article in fact mentions that there is a "dispute" over anarchocapitalism and the rest of the "anarchists". It does not belong in the lead--not unless 69.228.251.134 now wishes to do the same for each and every anarcho- article on Wikipedia. The fact that 69.228.251.134 has only done this for anarchocapitalism speaks to the fact that it is POV-pushing and should not stand. And that 69.228.251.134 has consistently misrepresented the truth (e.g. saying that there was a discussion on the talk page when the timestamps showed that there wasn't, saying on his talk page that he didn't perform 3 reverts in 24 hours when the timestamps show him performing 3 reverts in just under 19 hours) speaks to the fact that he is not doing these edits in good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] My thinking on this is guided by two important considerations: First, this is an article about a concept and associated works/movements. It is not an article about the word. Second, we should make some effort to follow the focus of secondary sources about what issues are prominent. Who coined the word is not a prominent issue in most literature I've read on the subject. So on the basis of those two factors, I see no reason for who coined the word to be something that is discussed in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] Slight factual error The text below the image in section 1.5 states that Murray Rothbard believed the American Revolution was United States' only just war. This is not quite correct. He believed the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence were the only just wars. See: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html Not sure how to fit it into the context but if anyone feels like fixing it, there you go :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] True, but he didn't consider the U.S. part of the "War for Southern Independence" to be justified.--bjwebb (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] victimless crimes I don't think it is a consesus among the anarcho-capitalists that the so called victimless crimes would be rendered moot. David Friedman argues that some cities or local communities could actually pass private laws banning drugs or even, if the enforcement of such laws was efficient from the perspective of the consumers. The outcome he predicts would be that in a stateless society some liberal cities (e.g. New York) would allow for hardcore drugs such as heroine whereas traditional communities would even ban liquor consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nonfiction and further reading The further reading is completely redundant of the earlier nonfiction section. Anything relevant, like links, from the former should be moved to the latter, and the further reading section deleted. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] That doesn't quite fit with the wiki style guide. The literature section serves a navigational purpose, it is a sort of summary for another article. On the other hand, the further reading section serves to supplement this main article (e.g. anarcho-capitalism, not the "list" sub-article entitled Anarcho-capitalist literature). Preserving article hierarchy helps with both readability and the article's usefulness as a quick reference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Global perspective? I'm not sure why that tag was added, as nothing has been put in the talk page about it. The article mentions, to my knowledge, all the important figures in anarcho-capitalism, including American and European thinkers, and historical instances such as Iceland. The concept is universal in application, so I'm not sure what could be added in that regard. Are there Asian or African angles to the concept that are missing, and if so, what are they? I'm honestly perplexed as to what could be added. This is a featured article, which means it has been rigorously examined and been found to be of the highest quality. This just seems like a random tagging. Thoughts? —Torchiest talk/contribs 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Random tagging is what it looks like from here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, if no one objects, I'm going to remove it. LK (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see it's back and same problems remain so removing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Where to put Molinari and fans? First I've added the sorely lacking synonyms to anarcho-capitalism and the fact that it is a libertarian philosophy. Re: Gustave de Molinari, not sure where to put info about him since he both had similar early ideas and has modern fans influence by the other modern anarcho-capitalists. There's a quote in his article where Rothbard calls him first AC. Ideas? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Cleanup I cleaned up a few obvious problems today. But article in generally overly wordy and sometimes redundant and self-contradictory, sometimes poorly referenced, and with strange POVs here and there. But not something I'm likely to clean up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Somalia as Modern Example Somalia is a textbook example of an anarcho-capitalist society.Leahcim506 (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] [citation needed] --LK (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Redirect/merge Free-market anarchism here? Someone wants to do that at Talk:Free-market_anarchism#Redirect_to_anarcho-capitalism. I think this article belongs as subsection of Free-Market anarchism. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] 3rd paragraph I feel as a reader the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is hard to read. I can't place it, but it just doesn't seem to 'flow' very well Jinothius (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Fictional Literature Addition Viception (http://viception.wordpress.com/) is a fictional anarcho-capitalist book. I tried adding it before, but was overruled. Will someone add it? Ravulio --(talk), 17 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply] Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism... ...so why the association between the two theories? I'm not saying that anarcho-capitalism is invalid or non-existant. I just find it odd that many anarchists have paid dearly for fighting capitalism as an authoritarian institution over the years only for some right-libertarians to come along and corrupt the term. Anarchy means no authority, yet employers and landlords hold authoritarian positions inseparable from capitalism. Furthermore, because the two theories oppose each other, associating them only serves to confuse to the detriment of both theories. How about removing the association and just listing individualist anarchism as an influence? KLP (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] On wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I haven't disagreed with or contradicted any reliable sources in clarifying the distinction between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists. Let's avoid confusing readers. KLP (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] It's not even clear what you are proposing or for what article, so one must assume you want to delete this article and move it under individualist anarchism, which would be very much vs. the many WP:RS that support this. I should have just asked you to clarify your unclear proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I have a couple of proposals for this article: Change comparisons between anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists to comparisons between anarcho-capitalists and most anarchists. Individualist anarchists also oppose capitalism. Move the capitalism category box above the anarchism box. Capitalism is the primary constituent of anarcho-capitalism and deserves foremost placement. KLP (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] You know, this discussion has been done to death. Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum. It's in the archives for the talk page several times in different forms. Anarchy means no rulers, not no authority. Historically speaking (which is what you're trying), only catholics can be termed christians. Why do I bring that up? Because you're trying some historical argument that all anarchists were opposed to capitalism, blah blah blah, and now some libertarians are trying to "corrupt" (your word) anarchism. Just as the protestants "corrupted" christianity. IOW: that won't fly. Learn to live with the fact that capitalism and anarchism are compatible. Or don't. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that you stop trying to push a POV which has been dealt with already. Anarchism is the "primary component", as you term it. There's already an article about anarcho-capitalism and its place in anarchism--which is linked to. I think that should take care of your suggestions. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Relax. I had to get everyone's attention somehow. My suggestions will simply put this article in compliance with Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and improve coherence in general. KLP (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Obviously someone has been busy with that article, but the issue isn't compliance with article but policy and what is put in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Original poster. By your opinion the same can be said for anacho communism/socialism with a person being at the authority of the collective but that is not what anarchy means. Anarchy means stateless and government-less, it does not mean without authority. Dunnbrian9 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] What opinion? KLP (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Dunnbrian9 That's not true. There is a huge difference between an authority that a person has because of his knowledge and an authority because of his luck, coincidence, help by others, position in the byrocratic system. Anarchy means without rulers. If someone is giving you orders than he is a ruler, so you can't say that's anarchy. BTW Anarchy and anarchism is different. Anarchy is a state and anarchism is a philosophy. In the anarchist philosophy there is no space for authority that comes from above and is not spontanious (earned by knowledge and not abused afterwards). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.172.112 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Confusion regarding a sentence in the intro "Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms,[15] and vice versa." Is this statement meant to say that anarcho-capitalists consider all anti-capitalist anarchists that came before them not to be anarchists? I think we should remove "and vice versa" and advance the clarity of what is being said-- That anarcho-capitalists generally do not consider anarchists before Murray Rothbard anarchists, or that they consider their positions to be contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] @Original poster. No... The statement says that what I explained in the above post. Read it. Capitalism + anarchism can't go together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.172.112 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] By vice versa, it is implied that anarcho-capitalists view socialist anarchy as a contradiction in terms. Someone or some body of people must control the distribution of resources and the means of production within a socialist society. Those people represent an authoritative body which acts in the same way any State would act. They have the ability to take property (resources) from some and give to others without the consent of the individual; which is the primary objection of anarcho-capitalists to statism. It is impossible to have a system of entirely voluntary interactions if individuals are not allowed to retain private property rights over the assets they have produced with their own labor. Humans will naturally defend that which they have produced as their own. Any attempt by an external body to appropriate the product of a man's labor without his consent inherently results in violence and is non-voluntary. 158.61.151.200 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] @talk That body is not an authoritative body. It's just a body that has an evidention of the income and outcome and they don't have power over others. So If questioned, the people inside the body can rotate on some mandat so the horizontal structure is preserved. And "They have the ability to take property (resources) from some and give to others without the consent of the individual; " is not true, because the individual freedom is as important as the collective freedom, so everything is free in an socialist anarchist society as long as the people agree on that. And of course, for the next sentence, the creation of a system in which everyone exactly geets what he deserves is more than hard to create (but will always be the best) because of the human factor and the thing that everyone will thinks that he deserves more than he is given. But that system, of course, is part of the social anarchist movement and it is called collectivism and you can't disquallify the social anarchist movement with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.172.81 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalists view a separation of individual and collective "freedom" as also being oxymoronic in nature. An individual can necessarily not be free if the product of their labor is being expropriated by others against their consent.Michael.suede (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] On "Early Pennsylvania" (Section 3.3) That entire section seems to be completely irrelevant. I suspect that literal anarchy is a complete misdefinition of the situation referred to, and thus using that situation as an example of anarcho-capitalism severely hinders the logic and credibility of the entire article. Also, the section is way too short and gives virtually no explanation or background. I considered just deleting it, personally, but I didn't want to take such a drastic step without obtaining feedback first.Gniob (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I read the source article. Section 3.3 is relevant, but still way too short, etc. Is there such a term as "stub section"?Gniob (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism = Tea Party movement In essence, what the Tea Party movement and people like Peter Schiff are shouting, isn't that not just simply Anarcho-capitalism what they want? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Not an anarcho capitalist, but no. 68.84.235.198 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] David Friedman I was wondering if it would be beneficial to provide additional information on David Friedman's theories of the business model and interaction of private law agencies; elaborating on his ideas could provide a more thorough and comprehensive exposition of the differing views especially considering that his expertise is legal theory and economics. rob777 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think so.--MeUser42 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] I cannot believe David Friedman is not mentioned in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buntje (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. David Friedman ranks with Rothbard as one of the fathers of modern anarcho-capitalism. He should be in the intro and there should be a more in-depth section of his works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.11.158 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Featured article? This article has had numerous revisions since the last review of its featured article status and looks very different from when it passed that review (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&action=historysubmit&diff=473511427&oldid=21031135). I propose that we consider reviewing its status again. KLP (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Market anarchism There are multiple market anarchist ideologies one of the more popular being Mutualism(Which differs greatly from Anarcho-Capitalism). I think the part that says "also referred to as Market Anarchism" should be removed. It implies that Market Anarchism is a synonym for Anarcho-Capitalism, which is heavily biased to say the least. --Sharangir (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] also referred to as Market Anarchism -> sometimes referred to as Market Anarchism --MeUser42 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Does not solve the issue of it implying that Anarcho-Capitalism is the one and only market anarchist ideology. When in fact there are older and more popular market anarchist ideologies that are even anti-capitalist. --Sharangir (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Maybe this can be solved by rewriting it to something like "Often referred to as market anarchism by capitalists, despite there being other older anarchist market ideologies". But then without my bias. Something that makes it clear capitalists refer to it as market anarchism, but others do not think "anarcho-capitalism" when they hear the terms "market anarchism". --Sharangir (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] And why does "market anarchy" redirect to this page? The mainstream of market anarchism has always been socialist, eg 'mutualism,' 'economic democracy.' That's the anarchism mainstream since inception and it's staunchly anti-capitalist. Finx (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] I actually just had a market anarchist friend of mine point this out to me as well. I asked him for sources and he recommended "Markets not Anarchy" along with mentioning the name "Charles Johnson" and the proliferation of the term on C4SS and Radgeek. I wonder if it might be worth creating an article on Market Anarchism and removing the redirect. Zell Faze (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Individualist Anarchist? It seems to me questionable that "individualist anarchist" is included as a description of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought. While it is true that prominent founders of the philosophy, such as Rothbard, were heavily influenced by earlier Individualists such as Benjamin Tucker, it is the case that, by and large, the Individualists rejected outright most of the key components of capitalism. All throughout the publication of Liberty Tucker derided usury: profit, interest, and rent, and clearly rejected the general notion of capitalistic absolute property rights in favor instead of possession and use. Tucker also was painstakingly clear that his philosophy belonged to the general socialist tradition and the thought of other Individualists such as Warren and Spooner clearly belonged to the socialist camp as well - even if they didn't explicitly say so. Here is a good summary of Tucker's socialist thought from his own writing: http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/socialism-what-it-is Walkthejosh (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkthejosh (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] So your argument is ancap is not necessarily individualist because there are individualists who are not ancap? How does that invalidate the notion that ancap is necessarily individualist? Byelf2007 (talk) 4 August 2012 That's not quite the nuance I was going for. I certainly agree that ancap has drawn from the Individualists, but I don't think that makes ancap Individualist. For instance, much of the social anarchist thought on and criticism of capitalism mirrors Karl Marx, but it would be incorrect to classify social anarchists as Marxists. I see ancap as a philosophy that picked up some key points of agreement with the Individualists and then went in its own direction, often time forwarding conclusions that the Individualists would be uncomfortable with to say the least. The section on this page entitled "Nineteenth century individualist anarchism in the United States" delves briefly into some of the key disagreements ancap and Individualist philosophy have with one another. It seems to me that general Individualist thought (Tucker for specific example) on profit, interest, rent, and private property is distinctly not capitalist (some would argue anti-capitalist). At its core, Individualist Anarchism is not capitalistic. As a result, I don't think it correct to classify anarcho-capitalism as a form of Individualist Anarchism. Walkthejosh (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ahh, I see. Well, yeah, I guess you're right--ancap isn't necessarily individualistic. One could justify ancap on collectivist grounds, because collectivism is emphasis of the group over the individual--its basically an ethical stance and not a political one (by the same token, one could be an individualist socialist). I'm gonna go ahead and take the "individualist" bit out of the lede, although I suppose there's probably a plausible case for ancap being necessarily individualistic. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 August 2012 I don't believe there is any collectivist justification for AnCap. AnCap is based on self-ownership (of the individual). If such a collectivist justification exits, it should be in the article. Dude6935 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] A utilitarian collectivist could come to the conclusion that capitalism is the system through which wealth is most efficiently used, thereby furthering the wellbeing of society at large. I've met at least a couple of AnCaps on Reddit who claim to have arrived there through such a utilitarian/collectivist path. I'm unaware of any publications that meet Wiki's sourcing guidelines that affirm this, but this has been my experience. Lwsimon (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] You have merely described how AnCap could be utilitarian. While the word collectivist is in your response, you do not discuss the concept's application to capitalism. The only possible collectivization in AnCap is through an individual's choice to join a collective. This clearly makes AnCap individualist since all people are presupposed to be individuals before any man chooses to join a collective. Dude6935 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Not NPOV I'm sure this has been brought up before, but this article reads like it's been written by an-caps, which is fine if NPOV can be retained, but it hasn't been. This article could use the attention of someone who's familiar with the subject matter, but who isn't an anarchist or an ancap. When this article was featured, it felt much more even handed.Gigacannon (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] It has not been brought up before, and the article is still featured. Please specify where you feel NPOV has been violated. JLMadrigal (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] The trouble is only a-caps seem to be interested in teh article. Although there is a criticism bit. Maybe expand that?(Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply] Merger proposal Proposal that the page Free-market anarchism be merged into Anarcho-capitalism due to duplicate terms in the opening definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiWildWildPedia (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose for reasons mentioned above by editor Sharangi: "in fact there are older and more popular market anarchist ideologies that are even anti-capitalist" but will support merger with either main Anarchism article or Anarchist Economics article. Note that this is not the first time someone has wanted to redirect this article, and that the last two attempts ended with abuse by ancap editors, which escalated to the noticedboards and several times required suspension from Wikipedia. Finx (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Weak oppose. Oppose because there is a reasonable difference between different types of free-market anarchism. Weak because, although there certainly is a difference between different types of free-market anarchism, the difference is not nearly as extreme as it is often made out to appear. The problem ultimately stems from the name anarcho-"capitalism," which disguises the fact that anarcho-"capitalism" actually rejects much of traditional capitalism. The real difference between the different approaches to free-market anarchism is not that some support capitalism and others do not—none really support traditional capitalism. The difference is merely to what extent the various approaches to free-market anarchism accept or reject absentee ownership, and the question is not cut-and-dry. We can't simply say that mutualists reject all absentee ownership, since most mutualists would agree that a family should not lose its home and all of its belongings simply because it decided to go on a one-week vacation. Nor can we simply say that anarcho-"capitalists" support all property claims; Rothbard made it clear in For a New Liberty that there are unjust property claims that should not be respected, and even defended workers seizing the means of production in certain contexts in his essay "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle." In summation, while there is definitely a real difference between the different types of free-market anarchism, and while I oppose the proposed merger, I nevertheless believe it is worth noting that the difference is more nuanced than the terminology may lead one to believe. allixpeeke (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Support These concepts may not be exactly the same, but they're close enough that a merge makes sense. The lede of this article even says anarcho-capitalism is also referred to as free-market anarchism. Neither article really explains a difference, making me think the difference boils down to academic and political bickering. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] 'Oppose: Both are different ideologies. In general discourse, market anarchists oppose capitalism. They define capitalism as entangled with state. For example, corporate lobbying, corporate bailouts etc. They "capitalism" and "state" at the same time. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Support - with reservations. The "free-market anarchism" article is defective. Free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are identical. Both ideologies oppose collectivism and support free markets (the free flow of capital). Collectivization of property requires a state, so it is incompatible with free-market anarchism. Merge the articles and remove hegelian propaganda. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose - Free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not the same thing and to think that they are identical is to confuse capitalsim with the free market. The difference is pretty simple, free market anarchists want a free market but are fundamentally opposed to capitalist property relations. Free market anarchists are socialists in favour of co-operatives, anarcho-capitalists clearly are not. Free market anarchists still want to end capitalism and see it as fundamentally exploitative and unavoidably hierarchical. With respect to this, they have far more in common with anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists. Anarcho-capitalism clashes enough with traditional anarchist ideas to warrant it being defined separately, not to do so would be confusing at best.Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Oppose: to those interested they can go check the new state of the "market anarchism" article. In it it is clarified that market anarchism is not reducible to anarcho-capitalism but that there exists an old current of anti-capitalist market anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] Amish The Amish are pretty well fitted into the a-caps model (or close enough, like Iceland). It needs some mention here (and probably there(. Here are some links (not all notable, but a starting point): [1][2] ([3]*)[4][5][6][7] (possibly synthesis()[8](Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply] Unless you can find self identifications of those people under "anarchocapitalism" clearly that should not go here.--Eduen (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] RfC on Stefan Molyneux An RfC has been opened at Talk:Stefan Molyneux - The RfC question is "Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?" -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 22 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Contents 1 Protected edit request on 27 June 2014 2 Tea Party 3 Following the LEAD guideline 4 RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? 4.1 Survey 4.2 Suggested compromise regarding disputed material 4.3 Threaded discussion 4.4 Closing 4.5 References: arbitrary break Protected edit request on 27 June 2014 This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. The last sentence of the introductory paragraphs, "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist" needs a citation regardless of if it's true or not. 2601:7:7E00:8A8:8BB:FC92:1FA8:DA12 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Multiple citations for the statement are in the body, as well as being linked to and discussed in the RfC above, which, as noted in response to previous edit requests, relates directly to this content. WP:CITELEAD is open as to whether citations should also appear in the lead, but it's not obligatory. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per N-HH. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Tea Party If something about the Tea Party is put in the lead section, per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of referenced article text. Please don't put new material in the lead section alone. Binksternet (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Following the LEAD guideline At WP:LEAD, the guideline says that the lead section is to be a summary of information contained in the article body. The following text seems to me to be a suitable summary of article body text: Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist. The article body goes into more detail on this point: Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality. Most social anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism because they view capitalism as being inherently authoritarian. In particular they argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary, and that maintaining the class structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which is incompatible with an anarchist society. The main article about this issue is identified for the reader: Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Here at this article, involved editor Knight of BAAWA expressed that the text seen above in bold should not be made part of the lead section, "even according to WP:LEAD".[1] Please explain the position to me, as it looks otherwise on the face of it. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Does the lede for evolution mention "teach the controversy"? No, of course not. Does the lede for Earth mention the Flat-Earth society? No, of course not. Does the lede for sociology mention phrenology? No, of course not. Does the lede for christianity mention that some catholics do not consider protestants to be christian (and vice-versa)? No, of course not. The lede is not for such things. Please stop trying to make it be that way, given your complete misreading and misunderstanding of WP:LEAD. And please don't say that those articles are not relevant to this discussion, for they are. It's called "consistency". You will have to explain to all of us why you think anarchocapitalism is so special that it deserves this special treatment that other articles don't have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] The information removed is entirely relevant and should be reinstated. Anarchism is the parent philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, and thus their relation is absolutely appropriate to illustrate here. Contrary to Knight of BAAWA's examples, omitting this information would be more like the Catholicism lead failing to mention Protestantism, or vice versa (both, in fact, do). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) First, to look at your examples, the Earth article does not mention the Flat Earth Society. The Sociology article does not mention phrenology. The Christianity article does not tell the reader that certain groups consider each other not to be Christian. So if we look only at the WP:LEAD guideline, none of these articles would carry your suggested summary statement in the lead section, because there is no such referenced text in the article body. Second, you have flipped the mainstream and minor relation of traditional anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Traditional anarchism has more text written about it, more study of it, and is more established as a position. So traditional anarchism is the more mainstream topic, in this sense. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, is newer, less studied, and less established. Therefore your examples should have been whether the Flat Earth Society mentions that the Earth is spherical (it does), or whether some other article about a minor position tells the reader about the mainstream position (it should). Here at the anarcho-capitalism article, it is very relevant to tell the reader how this field is viewed by those who came before. Third, you have not quoted the WP:LEAD guideline directly to explain what part I might be misunderstanding. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] The sentence that both of you want added is completely irrelevant to what anarchocapitalism is, and is dealt with in the body of the text. I'll give you an example via wikiprecedent: christianity. The lede does say that protestantism came from catholicism, just as the lede for anarchocapitalism says that it is an individualist anarchism form (parent). But the lede of christianity does not say (though it could with references) that the catholics did not consider protestants to be christian (and vice-versa). And given that historically western christianity was catholic only for a thousand years, we see the argument from antiquity attempt clearly fail. As to what you misunderstand, Binksternet, it is due weight. I'll give another wikiprecedent: evolution. There is neither mention of creationism nor ID in the lede for evolution. At all. Period. But it is clearly significant enough to have been brought up in court in the US many times regarding the teaching of it and of ID. One would think, then, that it would get mentioned. But no, it's not. Why? Because it's irrelevant to what evolution is. Similarly, that some people view anarchocapitalism as not part of anarchism is irrelevant to the lede as well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] I am not finding your argument very compelling. You started with WP:LEAD, saying I was misunderstanding the guideline, then you switched to WP:WEIGHT, which is another thing altogether, making me assume that you have abandoned the argument about WP:LEAD, acknowledging that it does not help your point. The WP:WEIGHT guideline discusses whether to represent minor viewpoints strongly or weakly as compared to the representation in published sources. However, the viewpoint of traditional anarchism is the mainstream view, and cannot be lessened by an application of WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream view always gets prominence on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] So you don't find how other pages are set up to be compelling? You don't find consistency in pages to be compelling? Suit yourself, but neither precedent nor WP:LEAD are on your side. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Knight of BAAWA, sorry, but that's just outright nonsense. Your examples were obviously set up in error and thus are not appropriate analogues to the current dispute. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] No, it's not nonsense. No, my examples were not in error, and yes they are analogues to the current dispute. Further, it appears that Binksternet hasn't actually read WP:LEAD, for he would have found a section in there about undue weight. I know this because I actually read it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] The edit warring needs to stop! BRD -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Also, major edits (i.e. content removal) need to stop being marked as minor! Is this a common theme here??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] The irrelevance of the Evolution page and the argument being derived from it have been pointed out over and over, and far more apposite examples, in which definitional debates are very definitely and correctly included, provided ad nauseam. That has all been consistently ignored, as have guidelines re weight and lead structure (or rather, oddly deployed as if they somehow justify removal, when they rather obviously tend to supporting inclusion. How back to front could "it's in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead" be as an argument?). Furthermore, this content is subject to an RfC, which is still open. Due to edit warring, the page was protected .. and as soon as that is left, mid-RfC, those wanting to remove it are off edit-warring it out again? N-HH talk/edits 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] No, it's not irrelevant, much to your dismay. You too are ignoring precedent and policy. Please stop. By the way: the sentence is being edit-warred in, not out; it has no business being there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Your just saying that the comparison with Evolution is relevant, that others must be dismayed by that and that the information has "no business being there" doesn't make any of those assertions automatically true. Let's explain it again, in bullet points: What individual other pages do is not of itself probative of anything The "debate" around Evolution/Creationism is a substantive one of fact, not one of classification/description/context. Same with Earth/Flat Earth Creationism and flat-earthism are fringe concepts/arguments, hence clearly undue for the lead of the main serious page on the overarching topic; the observation that anarcho-capitalism is often not seen as anarchism is clearly not fringe, as the sources cited show Other pages, in fact, very much do note such issues (or at least did when I last looked): see for example Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, especially pertinently, National Anarchism; as well as, more trivially, Red panda, Koala, Tibetan terrier And, if you want to stick with evolution, a more appropriate, though still imperfect, comparison would be with the Intelligent Design page. Are you seriously suggesting that it should not point out in the lead – which it of course does – out that it is not considered a science? Especially if it had an "also known as Creation-Science" line and carried the "Science" template? Also, I don't know why you're telling me to "stop". As before when you tried this one on, I'm not editing the page. Btw the text that, slightly varied, is now being touted as some kind of reasonable compromise, which suggests that "Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from ... anti-capitalist anarchists", is extremely problematic and in no way a replacement for the material which needs to be there: not only does it rely on the a-c perspective, rather than that of third parties, but it if anything reinforces the suggestion that a-c definitely is, uncontroversially, assumed to be a form of anarchism, by directly contrasting it with other forms of anarchism. This is the crux of the problem – this page asserts and assumes a fundamental descriptive/definitional fact which is a matter of significant recorded dispute in the real world according to authoritative sources. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism? NAC: No consensus as to A. Weak yes as to B. Closer will not use a supervote to resolve A; either leave article as is or publish a new RFC with better circulation. Closer is not editing article to address B; participants should do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. An edit, and now a later variation of it, that includes more detail on the fact that most anarchists and much academic analysis question the classification/inclusion has been repeatedly reverted by a single editor. There has been discussion on this in the section above. In essence there are two parts to the edit and two issues to look at: A: Should the point be expanded, with references, in the section "Anarcho-capitalism and other schools", eg through the current proposed wording or some variation of it: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality"? B: Should a brief summary of the point, as referenced in that section, be included in the lead? N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Survey Yes re both A & B. The content itself is well sourced. The point also appears in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, as well as the books currently cited in the edit itself. It is verifiable information, which is included in multiple reliable and authoritative sources, and a significant point of dispute within the classification and definition of anarchism. The fact that there is such a dispute is not controversial. Not mentioning the issue – the lead and much, though not all, of the body avoid it currently – not only misleads through omission but is a breach of NPOV. As for the lead/point B, it needs to be noted there, however briefly, as it goes to the definition of the topic. The fact that we have a section, indeed a whole separate article, on the relationship between these two concepts also suggests it is significant enough to include in the lead, which currently asserts and assumes, without qualification, that anarcho-capitalism is, uncontroversially, regarded as a form of anarchism. N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No to all. You've failed to make any sort of valid points. You need to make edits to every single lede for every single idea that has controversies in order for your edits to have merit. And please stop misleading people that there is a misleading by omission and breach of NPOV; there isn't. The article in no way asserts and assumes what you say it does. Ergo, you are lying--and no, that is not a personal attack. Since the article clearly doesn't say what you say it does, and since you have to have read it to make whatever claims you are making lest you not have any clue, it's clear that you are deliberately not being truthful. Why is that? Why did you lie? You know that anyone can look at the article and see that what you have written does not comport with what the article says--so why lie? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No to both - This is an article about AnCap philosophy and history, and that requires that we stay on-topic, summarize, and give due weight the various aspects of this ideology, and so we do not have to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies. AnCap views about other ideologies is highly relevant, and should be described in a way that relates to how why those views are counter to AnCap philosophy. Views about AnCap from the perspective of other ideologies are highly off-topic, and should be only mentioned in very brief form here (this is of course reversed on the articles about those ideologies when talking about AnCap). I am perplexed at the existence of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as it is very poorly-defined, a structural mess, should probably be deprecated or re-tasked, perhaps to Great anarchist pissing matches of history. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No and No. Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with the bomb-throwing, property-hating left - who have long commandeered the term "anarchy" for their own political agenda. Hence they tend to use the term "anarcho-capitalism" rather than "anarchism". (Nor do they identify with the political right who tend to disrespect persons in a similar manner.) Regarding equality, anarcho-capitalists are actually more concerned with flattening hierarchies by allowing a level playing field where individual employer-employee relationships tend to become peer to peer, than impractical political "solutions" such as those from the left - which tend to create class rifts. Their "equality" claim is as hypocritical as their "anti-state" claim. (The "Anarchism" article is sorely lacking on this point. But that is another matter and needs be settled elsewhere.) While mention of the claim to the title "anarchism" by other schools of thought could continue to be offered in its own section in this article, it is clearly secondary. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes and yes. Wikipedia articles commonly give readers a context in which to place a philosophy. It is the AnCaps who deliberately and explicitly took the term anarchist and transformed it for their own purposes — which is a legitimate move, and their move has been overwhelmingly successful, due largely to the popularity of right-wing values of the US. But the dual meanings can easily cause confusion for the reader, and this potential confusion can be ameliorated, and therefore should be. — goethean 15:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes and yes. We are writing an encyclopedia here, so we should primarily concern ourselves with objective viewpoints such as that found in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, edited by Gerald F. Gaus, Fred D'Agostino. On page 225, Roderick T. Long says that social anarchists generally think of anarcho-capitalists as not anarchists. We should not concentrate on in-universe descriptions, taking the word of anarcho-capitalists about whether they are this or that. Rather, we should stay objective and tell the reader about the scholarly analysis, both in the lead section and in greater detail in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No and yes. If anything, it seems the section titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" (as of 20 June 2014) should be reduced. Aside from the first statement, the whole section is supported by only three sources, two of which are primary (and why the heck is so much content derived from a webmaster???); it's a lot of filler, but little actual content. I also have a concern that the first sentence uses the term libertarian as a philosophy distinct from anarchism, whereas these terms are often used synonymously. This goes straight to the heart of the issue, which is that libertarianism/anarchism, as it has been expounded since the mid-19th century, has been a left-wing, anti-private property ideology. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that so-called classical liberals in the USA appropriated both terms to describe propertarian and statist beliefs. This information should absolutely be in the article and the lead, but again, the section in question needs a lot of work. Add better content with more reliable sources to make this a good section. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes and yes. I'm not impressed with political arguments that smear the opposing team like this was a heated debate on a web board or Usenet. I see two issues that could preclude this information: is it undue or off topic? While an argument could be made for either, I personally do not agree. This is a topic that I would expect to see in the article, and, as a reader, I would be surprised to find that it had been excluded. How the wider anarchist community perceives anarcho-capitalists, and how academics have reported on this topic, is relevant and verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Suggested compromise regarding disputed material Many articles have a "Criticism" section devoted to counter arguments. Placing disputes regarding "official" and "unofficial" versions of anarcho-capitalism (as well as any disputes regarding the "legitimacy" of anarcho-capitalism) in such a section would be a fitting compromise. It's not a question of preventing readers from knowing about controversies regarding the movement, but about presenting them in an organized way. An article about the laws of aerodynamics written in the 19th century would have been corrupted if it were subject to contemporary viewpoints regarding man's inability to fly. Likewise, the laws of economics are not subject to the whims of social engineers - as the official politico-academic left (as well as the ecclesiastical right) would prefer. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] An article about 19th century aerodynamic theories must be placed in its proper context at the outset so as not to mislead readers. So must an article on politico-economic theory. — goethean 14:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Precisely. And the context in which the principles of anarcho-capitalism is understood is a clear understanding of the basic laws of economics. The reason the anti-state movement has failed on the left is because of its grave misunderstanding of capital and markets. Similarly, in the 19th century, the laws of aerodynamics were not well understood - and certainly not by the majority. What would be misleading to readers of anarcho-capitalism would be a writing-off of market fundamentals by basing its legitimacy on its popularity. The case for anarcho-capitalism must be presented clearly in the article. Opposing theories (where applicable) can be presented toward the end in the "Criticism" section. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] At least there's an attempt here to look at whether the material might be included, but perhaps in a different way, rather than the outright and absolute "no" that prevailed ahead of the RfC. That said, I'm not sure I'd be in favour of this suggestion. Firstly, devoted "Criticism" sections are deprecated on WP and, in my view, just end up as rather tedious POV laundry lists; secondly, despite this assumption seeming to be behind much of the opposition to inclusion, the material under debate here is not "criticism" of the tenets of anarcho-capitalism, it's just a brief reference to the debate about terminology and classification. Btw, I would also dispute the suggestion that anything on the page should be about presenting the "case" for anarcho-capitalism (or indeed making the case against it). An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable, authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] The problem with the disputed text is that it describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Such viewpoints clearly belong in a "Criticisms" section. Regarding the clarification of terminology, the sidebar (which could be expanded) offers an appropriate venue to describe terminology as it is used by the movement. Regarding classification, anarcho-capitalism does not fit the defective mold offered by the left (or the right for that matter). Libertarianism itself is viewed by the left as far right, and by the right as far left. So, in order to understand where anarcho-capitalism "fits", one must see the defects of existing systems of classification. To allow anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders - particularly by enemies of the movement - would increase the confusion surrounding an already complex topic. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] No topic gets to exclusively define itself, on WP or elsewhere, without reference to authoritative third-party views and analysis. Equally, the proposed text is not allowing anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders, hostile or otherwise; it merely notes significant views on definitions and terminology, as reported in reliable sources. I can only repeat that that is not criticism – any more than saying that a Tibetan terrier is not a terrier (not that this text goes that far anyway, nor should it) is a "criticism" of the Tibetan terrier – and that WP disdains criticism sections anyway. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] That's not the issue at all. The concern is due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy. That sort of information would be off-topic (to any large degree) in another article. What "traditional" left-anarchists think about AC can fit in many places, and probably the best mix is a little here on this article and a little on their own articles, in-line and in-context. The lead of this article should paint broad strokes, and I'm sorry but the quibble from left-anarchists is a minor sidenote. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] "...the quibble from left-anarchists..." --- you mean how anarcho-capitalists deliberately and successfully re-defined anarchism to something closer to its opposite? It's more than a quibble, it is a well-documented part of history that the article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never happened. — goethean 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Anarcho" comes from the simple, definition of word "anarchy" meaning "no rulers", not from "anarchism". Anarchism ("traditional") comes from the same base word. The only difference in their philosophy is what comes after we have no rulers. Its not "capito-anarchism". -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I don't want to get into a discussion of the ostensible merit of various political philosophies. Please refer back to my previous comment (it is a well-documented part of history that the article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never happened.). — goethean 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] It does not follow that "well-documented" means it should feature "prominently" in this article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable place that content (also "well-documented") belongs. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Instead of expanding the "Criticism" section, scrap it along with the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section, and create a new section preceding the "Internal debates" section (itself more appropriately renamed "Branches of anarcho-capitalism") that classifies anarcho-capitalism among relevant contemporary political ideologies - possibly entitled, "Anarcho-capitalism and Modern libertarianism". Since the Nolan Chart clarifies how modern libertarians define themselves, and how anarcho-capitalists identify themselves among the modern libertarian movement, a brief, well-sourced discussion of the political spectrum in this light would resolve the classification issue, and make anarcho-capitalism more understandable. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Criticism sections are bad form and no subject is allowed to define itself. BTW the term "anarcho-capitalism" is a clear reference to anarchism. Rothbard used the anarchist flag and cited anarchist sources. How sincere he was or whether it really is anarchism is another issue. TFD (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. We're slightly going round in circles here. As noted, the bottom line is "An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable, authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other." That is a pretty simple and basic requirement. WP is not here to provide a platform for proponents of the political school that is the topic of the page. It should not, and the proposed text does not, advocate in favour of or against anarcho-capitalism per se but simply and briefly note the wider context including, in this case and others, an acknowledged definitional dispute. Also as noted, the argument that anarcho-capitalists aren't or don't claim to be part of the broader anarchist school is neither entirely accurate nor what the page currently asserts. And even if that were the case, it should surely propel those arguing that towards accepting the inclusion of widely and reliably sourced content that briefly notes that very issue. If non-partisan, secondary sources consistently make observations that the definition and context is not that clear cut, WP should reflect that, and no policy-based arguments have been presented to counter that assumption. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] N-HH, you are again confusing popularity (among members of an opposing school for that matter) with legitimacy. The ideological context of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is modern libertarianism - not leftism. Further, the basis for anarcho-capitalism in general is not political ideology but economic reality. Its popularity among political activists is a matter better explored in such a section. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Threaded discussion The only specific point made against inclusion posted in the current discussion about this seems to be that the Evolution page doesn't mention creationism in the lead. However, this is not just about the lead, and in any event the two cases are utterly different. Creationism is a) a fringe theory that b) disputes the reality of evolution. The dispute here is about classification and terminology, not about the correctness or otherwise of any underlying theories, and nor is the "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" stance a fringe view. Far more appropriate analogies, as noted in the previous discussion, can be found in the following pages, where the taxonomic issue is covered both in the lead and the body: Red panda, Koala, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and, for good measure, National Anarchism and Creation science. N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] So you've admitted that you're just trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism. Great. You've just invalidated your entire stance by admitting to trying to introduce a non-neutral point of view to the text. I request the protection be lifted at once so that the NPOV edits can be removed. There will be no further discussion required. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure I've admitted or done any such thing or how anyone could possibly come to that conclusion or, pace your comment above, that I've been "lying" (or that that accusation is not a personal attack. Whatever). And NPOV is of course in fact precisely about representing all widely held points of view, without necessarily endorsing any of them. We have reliable, authoritative sources that explicitly note the existence of the dispute over terminology and note that the "not a form of anarchism" view is widely held. However, currently, as noted, the lead classifies and describes anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism without qualification (even if you don't accept that the prefix "anarcho-" is doing this in itself anyway, the lead also rather obviously does it by saying in the very first sentence "also referred to as free-market anarchism .." and through the use of the Anarchism template, which includes in its list of "Schools of Thought" what it calls "Capitalist" anarchism, which ordinarily links back to this page). As for "no further discussion required", the whole point of RfCs is to get exactly that, preferably from third parties. I'd suggest we let that happen. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure how a fair-minded reader can conclude any such thing. I'd suggest that perhaps it might be an idea to ease off with such overheated rhetoric and focus on the substantive content of the discussion rather than the motivations of one's ideological opponents. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Netoholic: when you say "we do not have to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies", are you suggesting Anarchism is "off-topic" and "other" to Anarcho-capitalism? Surely that if anything justifies including the material, not excluding it? Also as for due weight, we are talking about a couple of sentences to note the issue. It is not about taking one side of the argument, filling half the page with it or putting it in the very first sentence, but briefly – as you indeed suggest as well – and simply noting, per multiple reliable sources, that the taxonomical debate exists. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] General anarchism (as in the unambiguous use of the word meaning "without rulers") is relevant to AnCap philosophy, of course. The sources that you have for the particular brand of "traditional" anarchism (ie left-anarchism, I guess) is a different ideology than AnCap, evidenced by how those sources try to disavow AnCap from their ranks. As such, yes, then those sources are certainly from an off-topic ideology and do not deserve strong weight here. Brief mention is perhaps fitting in the right context in the article body, but the lead should be squarely on describing AnCap ideology, history, and any major controversies, if any. What you want to put in there is not major. Also, there is no point trying to justify this inclusion based on how reliably sourced it is. Content that is extensively and reliably sourced can still be off-topic for a particular page. Describe the "taxonomical debate" on the pages of ideologies that think there is a "taxonomical debate" - its relevant over there because its part of their ideology, but only minimally relevant on AnCap. --Netoholic @ 08:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As noted, the lead currently uses the Anarchism template and uses synonyms such as "free-market anarchism". You can't get round that by saying, "oh it refers to a totally different thing, which happens to also be called anarchism, and hence it's off-topic and cannot be mentioned at all". There simply isn't that neat sort of distinction in the real world for such topics and terminology. Even if there was, an explanation would still be warranted. Regardless, the simple fact is that the debate about the use of the term anarchism in this context – whether it is taken to mean simply without rulers and/or to refer to the predomoninantly leftist strain attested in the academic and historical record and what the relationship is between "anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" – is noted, and noted broadly in the fashion being proposed in the RfC, in multiple reliable sources about "anarchism" and about politics more generally. The definition and classification of a topic, the terminology used to describe it and how it relates to other, arguably related, ideas, are surely fairly fundamental to that topic, and hence relevant to the lead. At the very least it must be relevant to a section in the body explicitly titled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools". If you're going to be consistent in arguing that discussion about "anarchism" is off-topic and that anarcho-capitalism is entirely sui generis and discrete, you've got to scrub that section entirely and also remove the Anarchism template and the "anarchism" synonyms. In fact of course, what we should do is briefly present the issue/debate, as reflected in sources, without plumping definitively for either option, which is all the proposal entails. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Re: Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools section.... "you've got to scrub that section entirely" - The best suggestion I've heard in this entire discussion. The section should instead be dedicated to referencing AnCap arguments from sources that comment about any other ideologies (left-anarchism, conservatism, etc.). Devoting an entire section to the argument with just "traditional" anarchists is unduly weighted. Let left-anarchist complaints about AnCaps be in their own articles because those views are part of their ideology. --Netoholic @ 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] But that section is not, without the proposed addition, simply about the "argument" with "'traditional' anarchists" nor would the addition of the one-sentence content in question make it so. Anarcho-capitalists tend to call themselves anarchists, and the section is about the relationship, as a whole, with other anarchist schools. As reliable sources attest, there is an interrelationship and theoretical lineage there, and some elements of anarcho-capitalist thought sync with other anarchist ideas; but there are also disputes, about both theory and terminology. The assertion that such content is off-topic or unwarranted on a page about "Anarcho-capitalism", which would otherwise carry unqualified assertions about its relationship to and membership of the broader currents of "Anarchism", is untenable. So long as the material is presented in the round, with due weight and neutrally, it is manifestly relevant and on-topic, barring some extraordinarily strong argument to the contrary, which has yet to be presented, and is unlikely ever to be. More specifically, equally untenable is any similar assertion about the precise content under consideration in the RfC, based as that content is on the explicit meta-observation that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice .. even if they do reject the State, [they] might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists" in a chapter on "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism" in a book entitled A History of Anarchism, which is described in one formal review as "An exhaustive and authoritative study which is bound to become the standard account" of anarchism. When we also find the same observations in other, more general books, such as The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, in a sub-chapter called "The Rise of Anarcho-capitalism", the foundations of any objections fall away to anyone with an open mind. How can such explicit treatment of the topic of Anarcho-capitalism in authoritative sources not be relevant and why should individual random WP editors get to override/veto the judgment of those sources? Fine, there's a debate about how exactly to present that information but the idea that it cannot be included at all is just bizarre, to be frank. Hopefully that is going to be clear to most people – I've said more than enough on this. N-HH talk/edits 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] @JLMadrigal: "Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with the bomb-throwing, property-hating left ... [whose] 'equality' claim is as hypocritical as their 'anti-state' claim". This is not about the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism, general/leftist anarchism or any other political viewpoint, nor is the material in question about promoting or denigrating any such viewpoints, but about merely noting the differences, as recorded in reliable sources, despite the similarity in some terminology and, even, in some theoretical ideas. And if, as you say, anarcho-capitalists want to disassociate themselves from [other] anarchists – as the term is usually used – I don't quite understand what the objection is to referring to the well-sourced and verified observation that the logic works the other way too, and that there is an analytical and taxonomical debate in academic sources about the relationship. N-HH talk/edits 23:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] This article is about anarcho-capitalism. As such, it may further expand on the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists regarding contrary ideologies. For example, it may clarify that anarcho-capitalists see left-anarchism as a self-contradictory term since a forced collectivization of property and capital requires a state. Any negative viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism by sources other than those in the movement need to be confined to a special section regarding said objections. The debate between anarcho-capitalists and traditional "anarchists" has its own article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Would the real anarchist please stand up? There is only one reason to not include this information if it is well sourced. wp:valid Would we unduly legitimize these positions if we included them?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] The following text and references: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" is an inaccurate representation of anarcho-capitalism, and would immediately be recognized as such by any anarcho-capitalist: It is clearly not right wing, since it fully rejects the state and rightist collectivism. Those on the right support the state monopolization of the military-industrial complex and monopolization of law via an ecclesiastical collectivization of personhood. The left views anyone supporting a free market as "right wing". Anarcho-capitalists understand that social equality is not achieved through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth (as the left believe), but through free markets where business associates are peers. Cronyism requires the state. The cited text incorrectly defines "the state" to include any provider of security and arbitration services. Such a broad definition could only support a bomb-throwing, property defacing definition for "anarchy" (since no one would be allowed to defend himself). My suggested wording below (to be placed in the "Criticism" section) would provide a clearer statement of the ideological conflict. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] References "The philosophy of “anarcho-capitalism” dreamed up by the “libertarian” New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against AK Press, (2000) p. 50 "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." Peter Marshall. Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. p. 565 "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)."Saul Newman, The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 43 ISBN 0748634959 Section F – Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? at An Anarchist FAQ published in physical book form by An Anarchist FAQ as "Volume I"; by AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh 2008; 558 pages, ISBN 9781902593906 "‘Libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’, largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of ‘anarchy’ and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, ‘minimal statism’ and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left libertarian thought and british writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006. p. 4 "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard’s claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders...so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the “anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" by Peter Sabatini in issue #41 (Fall/Winter 1994–95) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed "While anarcho-capitalists clearly would prefer to omit the state from the orchestration of capital and markets, many old-school anarchists have less faith in the free market, and would prefer not to allow the unhindered accumulation of wealth, associating capitalism with wage slavery." JLMadrigal (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] I dislike overt "Criticisms" sections, so I'd rather see this line (and its a good line stating the "conflict" with appropriate weight) placed along with other discussion of Anarcho-capitalist philosophy regarding anarchy (basic statelessness), perhaps under subheading Anarcho-capitalism#Contractual society. (related note, I think that heading is a bit misleading, since its not immediately apparent to a reader that it contains information AnCap anarchist/statelessness views) --Netoholic @ 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] As noted in another sub-thread I'm also against outright and discrete "Criticism" sections (as, indeed, is WP as a whole; nor, indeed, is this about "criticism" as such anyway). As for the critique of the current proposed text, that text is of course derived from an accredited source – that's half the point of the whole debate here – and we shouldn't suddenly be relying on our own logic to argue with the accuracy or otherwise of the source material (which is not anyway trying to represent anarcho-capitalism but to represent views of anarcho-capitalism and to place it in context) or advocating changing the text to something not directly based on that material. Equally, the alternative text, as noted elsewhere, while arguably "correct", is anyway making a different point and does not address the classification issue at all. It might be a valid addition but I don't see that it's an alternative. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Who? Who are these traditional anarchists. I think you really have to name them off. While see no issue with giving a little weight to notable people, these unnamed traditional anarchist don't really deserve that weight. As written in the survey above, that would be wikipedia giving a position. Wikipedia can't give a position. Anachocapilists say they are anarchists and "traditional" anarchists say they aren't. These are the only recorded facts. I'm not familiar with any group known as "traditional Anarchists". Not a group like say the Republican party, who will at times have a spokesman that issues a statement on their behalf. Most of the sources shown here are being to used to do just that. Your proposed change is giving undue weight to.. well that part isn't clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism is a distinct ideology, and is independent of any "proper" anarchism movement. It does not need to be classified in terms agreeable to ideologists of another strain (in this case, to leftists). In fact, if anarchy is defined as the absence of the state, then anCaps are the only "true" anarchists (since leftists require the existence of the state in order to confiscate and redistribute wealth, prevent competition, and abolish property). Rather, anarcho-capitalism is properly classified as the advocacy of abolishing the state in matters regarding BOTH person AND property. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Serialjoespycho: Traditional anarchists might better expressed as the traditional conception or currents of anarchism. Obviously the wording could be changed to that or something similar, but I'm not sure they have to be identified and named: the idea is fairly clear, surely, and also used in sources. I agree though with noting the recorded facts, and the dispute in question is well recorded. @JLMadrigal: As for the distinctiveness of anarcho-capitalism, as noted, that is the very issue that the proposed text addresses, which as ever leads me to wonder why there is such opposition to including it from those who appear to be advocates for anarcho-capitalism and why there's less complaint from them about the current state of the page, which by contrast asserts the connection without qualification or explanation. Also, as already noted by me and others, we're not here to debate the merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism or traditional anarchism [sic] nor should the page be about that. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just as an article about evolution does not need to mention creationism to be clear, an article about anarcho-capitalism need not even make reference to the misnamed "anarchist" movement. Again, anarcho-capitalism (unlike leftism) is consistently opposed to the state. The Evolution article makes a brief reference to Creationism under a "Social and cultural responses" section. A similar approach might be acceptable in an article clarifying economic realities. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] N-HH, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more clear for you. There doesn't seem case being made that this point of view is the majority point of view. It does seem to be pushed as a significant minority point of view. However if it is signifigant there would be prominent adherents. If they are prominent it is very likely they have names. I'm not an advocate for anarocaptilism. A bot directed me to this RFC. You can see that on my talk page. As far as advocacy goes since you mention it, it does seem to me that there are advocates on both sides of this issue. However that isn't very important. I have good faith that both sides can be nuetral. I'm not debating the merits of either. I am asking who the traditional anarchists are that hold this position. Unless the position is this is the majority POV, name names.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I have to say that the "debate" on this page is appalling. This isn't a place to institute your personal, ideological beliefs; Wikipedia is built on verifiability, people... find your sources! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply] Closing The last comment was 20 days ago. Since then the lede has been modified. Is this discussion resolved? If no comments are presented, I propose to archive this thread with a simple {{resolved}} note. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] S. Rich, the RfC was recently reopened, and discussion should continue. I'm a little confused as to your recent deletion from the lead, as well. Perhaps you didn't see the section in the body which makes the same claim and is supported by six sources? I don't mind leaving the statement out for the moment, as there is currently an edit war occurring and the IP user should not have re-added it. If the RfC doesn't resolve this problem (which I now believe to be indicative of a wider, POV issue), I'll bring it to the DRN. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] Actually I was supporting Ditto51, like with here. Next. I've seen RFCs pulled out of the archives in the past, but I think the better procedure is to start a new thread with a link to archived discussions. (In fact, Help pages which I've contributed to say as much. E.g., archived discussions are immutable....) At present, Mr. Dub, I don't see a need to go to DRN. Rather, if there are specific changes that are needed, let's find out what they are. (I am entirely neutral on the matter.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] References: arbitrary break References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 24 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 28 Contents 1 Removal of npov tag from neutral article 2 Request removal of Criticism section 3 Merge Proposal 4 Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools 5 Economics Removal of npov tag from neutral article This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Please remove npov tag from this neutral article. The following paragraph in the lede Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources. ...replaces the text in a neutral manner which previously stated the context as a POV. The RfC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between "traditional" anarchists and anCaps. As a result, the new paragraph is included in the lede which clarifies the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid". Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RfC). Please remove this inappropriate tag from the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please do not remove the tag, as I am still awaiting resolution at the NPOV noticeboard. Thank you! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Let's not remove the tag, as there are critical unanswered questions about neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] There will never be 100% agreement - even though the page is now clearly neutral. Please remove the tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Opponents of certain controversial topics often will perform such inappropriate tagging because it can be a sneaky way to discredit the article subject. This is no different. Instead of the tag at the top, people who have specific, actionable objections to neutrality issues should mark the specific sections ({{POV-section}}) or lines ({{POV-check inline}}) that they claim problems. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] The article conformed to NPOV...until those who want there to be a government decided to add a specific sentence. Since that sentence is not there currently, clearly the NPOV tag can be removed. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: After briefly reading through the talk page, the current featured article review, and the NPOV noticeboard thread, I still see legitimate NPOV concerns with the article that have not yet been resolved between the editors here. Sorry, but the disputes need to be resolved before we can remove the tag completely. For the moment, Netoholic's suggestion of using tags for specific sections seems like a suitable compromise for the tag until the actual disputes themselves can be worked out. Let me know which tags should go where and I'll replace put them in the article. (Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template when you do so, so that I'll see the request.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Mr. Stradivarius, the current dispute concerns the last sentence in the lead, which distinguishes anarcho-capitalism from minarchism and the wider libertarian/anarchist philosophy. I would suggest tagging that line, as well as the section entitled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools," which gives undue weight to a non-notable figure. I would also ask to delete the "Criticism" section, as it contains almost no useful information and criticisms are best dispersed through the text, per WP:CRITS. If I should request this edit in a separate section, please let me know. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] @MisterDub: Your proposal to delete the criticism section should go in a new section, yes. I wouldn't feel comfortable with enacting that without a clear consensus. If that section is also part of the dispute, then we should probably tag it too until the dispute is resolved. @Binksternet: would you be ok with tagging the sections that MisterDub mentions? If so, we should probably go through with it - it seems like a good first step towards conciliation with the editors who would like the tags removed altogether. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] The article is fully protected, so I cannot tag the criticism section with the NPOV section template. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Binksternet, I have opened a new section regarding the "Criticisms" section. For now, I think Mr. Stradivarius just wants to know if you agree with my previous suggestions of tagging both the last line in the lead and the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I support any effort that helps make this article informative and neutral. So, yes, I agree. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes check.svg Done Yes, that's what I meant. I've removed the {{POV}} tag from the top of the article, added {{POV-check inline}} to the end of the lead, and added {{POV-section}} to the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism. It is entirely neutral. Keeping the tag would be inappropriate. The other section that has been tagged has been determined by RfC consensus to be acceptable. This tag also needs to be removed. If there are any non-neutral sections in the article, state them here and we can discuss them. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If you disagree with my reading of the consensus here, you're welcome to ask for review of my decision at WP:AN. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I believe Netoholic was trying to make the point that certain editors are trying to paint anCap itself as an illegitimate point of view, and thus could not pinpoint a section that is not neutral. He was not offering a compromise. The currently tagged sections are neutral - as is the article itself. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have posted the following comment at the link you specified, and it was reverted: "If you review the article Anarcho-capitalism as it is written without any prejudice based on the opinions of editors manifested on the talk page, you will find that nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism, and that other schools of thought are presented in the appropriate section in a neutral way. Please consider removal of the tags. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)"[reply] JLMadrigal (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] @JLMadrigal: You posted at the wrong place - you need to start a new section at WP:AN, but instead you posted at WP:ANRFC. Also, you should probably mention that you are seeking review of my decision in this edit request, otherwise people might not know what you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Request removal of Criticism section This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. I am requesting the removal of the section titled "Criticisms." It is neither informative nor supported by sources. Additionally, criticisms are best dispersed throughout the article, per WP:CRITS. Thank you. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support per WP:CRITS. No need for a criticism ghetto, as if criticism was removed from the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I've deactivated the request template for now. It should only be activated after a consensus has been found. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have no problem with removal of this section in its current format. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Agree Any criticisms are best dealt with in the rest of the article. TFD (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes check.svg Done I've removed the section. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Merge Proposal I propose that voluntaryism be merged into anarcho-capitalism for the simple fact that the two philosophies are practically identical and there is almost total theoretical and functional parity between the two. They are both forms of stateless capitalism in which all goods and services, including justice, are private commodities purchased through "voluntary" means. I fail to see any difference between them whatsoever; at best, voluntaryism would be a subcategory of anarcho capitalism. Even the Voluntaryism article states that it is "closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist philosophy." It has the same proponents (Rothbard, Block), the same flag, the same ethical principle of "non aggression" and is politically and economically identical with anarcho capitalism. JDiala (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Sounds interesting, and likely, but can you point to any differences? If there's a slight difference as described in the sources, then maybe it's best to keep the voluntaryism article. So let's make sure before we undertake a merge. Argue the opposing side and see how strong it is. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'm arguing based on the rules set by WP:Merge. It states that: "There are several good reasons to merge pages:...2.Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.". A slight difference isn't, as the policy states, necessarily an argument against merging. All we need is "large overlap". JDiala (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Reading through libertarian blogs, there seems to be a difference between anarcho-capitalism, agorism and voluntaryism. Most importantly agorism appears to be a branch of anarcho-capitalism, while voluntaryism is a branch of agorism. The only reason to combine them would be overlap and scarcity of sources for all of them. TFD (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] First of all, blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. Secondly, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Agorism, it is not a branch of anarcho capitalism, nor is voluntaryism a branch of agorism. If one assumes the existence of property rights and the non aggression axiom, both of which are the essences of voluntaryism, agorism cannot be interpreted as a form of voluntaryism. It's market anarchism. JDiala (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Reliable sources are not required for discussion, only if they are challenged. It is not inspiring that after demanding rs, you then reference a comment to a Wikipedia article, which is not rs, then provided unsourced original research. By "branch of" I do not mean the same thing as but that it differs. IOW their advocates began with existing theories and branched off by altering them. TFD (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Definitely do not support that merge. Voluntarism is a philosophy that stems from the belief that all interactions should be voluntary. While for many people that philosophy leads to anarchism and capitalism, those are by no means the only two conclusions. For example, a small community might choose a leadership counsel for convenience of handling administrative tasks, but in a voluntary society, no one is obligated to abide by those leaders if they choose not to. Even certain small communist communities could be considered voluntary. -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] That's your opinion. Can you find any evidence of this in libertarian literature? The majority of anarcho capitalist theorists, like Block and Rothbard, believe that even in an anarcho capitalist society, as with a voluntaryist one, one would not be obligated to abide by those leaders at all. The defining characteristics of both ideologies (self ownership, property rights, the NAP, privatized justice, etc.) are identical. Being forced to listen to leaders is, if anything, a form of statism, which is not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, the size of the community has no relevance as to whether or not it can be classified as "voluntaryist" or "anarcho capitalist". You see, voluntaryism is more than "voluntary". Voluntary implies the non aggression principle. However, "voluntaryists" also, alongside that principle, include another one: property rights. A system based on voluntary interaction could be anything, including left-anarchism. However, left-anarchism isn't considered voluntaryism by the latter's proponents. It's rooted in property rights, which would entail capitalism. JDiala (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] The voluntaryism article has adequate sources already that describe the points I'm summarizing here. The origins of a voluntaryist's adherence to that philosophy doesn't have to come from agreement with the NAP as usually stated. Some voluntaryist's come to it via religious teachings. Some come to it from other ancient philosophy. One potential output from voluntaryist philosophy is an anarcho-capitalist society, but its cause vs effect... and AnCap is just one potential effect. As far as property rights, all that is required for a left-anarchist to be a voluntaryist is to agree that their interactions with a property owner be voluntary. Wikipedia itself is an excellent example of a voluntaryist "society" that is not based on the NAP. No one is required to participate or to work at the direction of another, and there are controls in place to prevent unwanted interaction. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support: Voluntaryism is not a philosophy except insofar as it is a synonym for anarcho-capitalism, which is more often than not; vague rejection of state activities, i.e. non-voluntary activities, would fall under (an ignorant appeal to) libertarianism/anarchism more generally. Of course, voluntaryism doesn't use traditional libertarian symbols like the black flag, circle-A, etc., but a black-and-yellow (i.e. anarcho-capitalist) V. The designer of the symbol states that "[y]ellow is a reference to gold, which was the market chosen money. So it's a reference to free market money, and by extension the free market and capitalism. Black is a reference to anarchy. Anarchy, or an-archy, means no rulers." ("The Symbol") It is also clear that voluntaryists support private property and free market economics: Carl Watner writes that voluntaryism demands, "that the resultant [economic] system be voluntary, which already implies a respect for self-ownership and just property titles. A regime of proprietary justice allows all economic systems to compete on a voluntary basis and there is no reason why voluntary cooperatives could not exist side by side with voluntary communes or voluntary capitalist companies." ("The Voluntaryist Spirit") In other words, he is explicitly tying voluntaryism to anarchism (without adjectives), but because he bases this belief on "self-ownership and just property titles," i.e. capitalism, it is clear that even his voluntaryism is simply a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. As for genealogy, Watner recently wrote that, "graphically displayed [as an Euler diagram], there would be a large circle labeled 'libertarians.' Then there would be a smaller circle within the libertarian circle, which would be labeled 'anarchists,' and within the anarchist circle would be yet a smaller circle labeled 'voluntaryists,' for those anarchists who reject electoral politics and embrace peaceful change." ("What Voluntaryism Means to Me") In other words, voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism that eschews parliamentary politics... which is already common to anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] The line containing "there is no reason why voluntary cooperatives could not exist side by side with voluntary communes or voluntary capitalist companies" is enough evidence to suggest that voluntaryism as a topic goes well beyond AnCap. The voluntaryism article probably needs more expansion on the topic of non-capitalist economic systems working in the context of voluntaryism, but merging the topic here would greatly diminish our ability to do so. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] But a "voluntary commune" that adheres to "proprietary justice," i.e. property rights, is still capitalist: "The determination of property titles is highly critical because, in the deepest sense, all property is ultimately private." "Individualist anarchism is the logical outcome of the proprietary theory of justice." "As Spooner has demonstrated, such [political] arguments must ultimately reduce themselves to either an acceptance or rejection of the self-ownership and homesteading axioms; that is, to either individual sovereignty and the principle of private property or to slavery and absolute communism. There is no middle ground of compromise possible between these premises." ("The Proprietary Theory of Justice"). So, again, voluntaryism is exactly anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] So why stop at merging with AnCap? According to this line of reasoning, voluntaryism and AnCap should be merged into libertarianism... which should then be merged into political philosophy, and so on and so on. We maintain separate articles for similar topics all over the place... the reason we do so is because each topic is used in distinct ways, such as in the very examples you used above. Classical liberalism vs libertarianism is another example... very similar philosophies, but the terms have distinct origins and usages. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] There is a difference between A ⊂ B and A = B. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] So you agree that all the subset articles should be merged into political philosophy. Should you not, I would expect you to understand the idea of subsets you just invoked, and how you can't want it in one case and not in another lest you be guilty of special pleading. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please permit me to assist you with your reading comprehension: "So, again, voluntaryism is exactly anarcho-capitalism." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please refrain from making uncivil comments or you will be reported (Notice how I'm using your tactic against you. Think you should have never tried it in the first place now?). And I'm still waiting for you to show that voluntaryism is exactly anarchocapitalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support: Voluntarism, as a concept it only belongs to this particular position and maybe to the wider US neoliberal scene. It is something mostly alien to anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Voluntary association is alien to anarchism? So I guess anarchism is all about forcing others to associate or not associate? So much then for the so-called "libertarian socialism"; that clearly is an oxymoron. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Deny: The two are different enough to warrant it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools How can we satisfy editors enough to remove the remaining tag from the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section? What should be added and/or removed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_and_othe... I see no reason to keep this tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Introduce anarchism first so readers understand why most anarchists believe anti-capitalism to be integral to their ideology Remove Per Bylund (he's not notable) Remove most of the fifth paragraph, starting with "In short, while granting that certain non-coercive hierarchies will exist under an anarcho-capitalist system..." Combine the first sentence of the fifth paragraph (which would then stand alone) with the last paragraph Remove a lot of the parenthetical asides which are severely overused in the last paragraph — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] I was bold and edited the article according to my points above. I imagine it will be reverted, but if not, I think it's a huge step forward. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] The tag never should have been in the article in the first place. If those who wish there to be a government have a problem, it is theirs alone. The article was neutral before they started trying to take it over. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Economics The section Economics has two paragraphs and the second of them discuss only Rothbard's biography rather than explaining anything about anarcho-capitalist economic theory. What is the point of this section at all? - Alumnum (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] I would support eliminating the biography, and replacing it with a brief discussion of your cited analysis by Friedman, and economic analyses by other ancaps. JLMadrigal @ 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] Seems reasonable. - Alumnum (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 26 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Contents 1 Lead 2 initial paragraph 3 Lead 4 Origin of flag? 5 Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism 6 Reverts 7 my edits 7.1 edit 1 7.2 edit 2 7.3 edit 3 7.4 edit 4 7.5 edit 5 7.6 edit 6 7.7 edit 7 7.8 edit 8 7.9 edit 9 7.10 edit 10 7.11 edit 11 7.12 edit 12 7.13 edit 13 7.14 edit 14 7.15 edit 15, 16 8 Sources 8.1 how do we proceed? Lead Goethean, I agree with your edit here, as the material you removed was indeed editorializing. The edit summary was unfortunate, however. Editors shouldn't swear at each other in edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "anarcho referring to the lack of a state, and capitalism referring to the corresponding liberation of capital" is helpful to the reader, because it distinguishes anarcho-capitalism from other forms of "anarchism". Ancaps use "anarcho" strictly in the sense of the lack of the state, and "capitalism" to refer to the liberation of capital. This is in contrast to the use of the terms by leftists, who include market hierarchies among their enemies, and define capitalism differently than do ancaps. JLMadrigal @ 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] The lead already states clearly that anarcho-capitalism is distinct from standard anarchism right there in the bottom of the lead. Just like how anarcho-capitalism isn't minarchist libertarianism either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but it now clarifies the fundamental uniqueness of ancap among anarchists and capitalists. JLMadrigal @ 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] According to the wikipedia article on anarchism, "anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.". Seems pretty clear to me. Jp16103 (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Given how many anarchists like sports (which have heirarchies in the form of the referees/players), this is clearly wrong. And adding the editorial comments really smells of OR. So please don't do it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Historically anarchists have been against hierarchies. This is a FACT. What is OR? Also, I dont see why this is editorializing, anarcho in every other sense of the word means, anti-state and ant-hierarchy. Why should this be an exception? Jp16103 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] No, no they haven't. Anarcho- only means anti-state. No rulers, not no hierarchies. So tell me why this page should be the exception that it would be the only one with that comment, and not the other "anarcho-" pages? Are you going to be consistent and edit all the others that way, or is it just THIS one in particular? Because if it is this one in particular: you need some serious support to take it out-of-line with the rest of the "anarcho-" pages. Dazzle us with your argument for making this page an exception to the other "anarcho-" pages. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Why do we even include the definitions in the lead then? Also, anarchist with the exception of anarcho-capitalists support a society based on non-hierarchial free associations. Do some research on anarcho-syndicalism,communism,primitivism,etc. and you will quickly find out that this is true. The anarcho in "anarcho-capitalism" means something totally different than anarcho in any other "strain" of anarchist ideology.Jp16103 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Anarcho-capitalists claim their society would be non-hierarchical but that individuals could voluntarily join non-coercive hierarchies. TFD (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] If they do support non-hierarchical free associations, why then do some support sports where there are referees--WHICH CLEARLY CONSTITUTES A HIERARCHY! In other words: it doesn't require being against hierarchies, and you still haven't shown the reason that this page--among all of the "anarcho-" pages--should be out-of-line with the rest. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] From the an-com wiki page: "Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5][6] and communist anarchism[7][8]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[9] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[10][11] direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"." Ancaps are different in this regard because they do support hierarchy and a "vertical system" where there is a BOSS and EMPLOYEES. Anarchists support common ownership over property unlike "anarcho"-capitalists. Also, before you say this is only with anarcho-communism it should be noted that syndicalist, primivitist, mutualist, and individualist all share nearly identical beliefs regarding this. Anarcho-capitalism is an invention of the late 20th century and is contrary to anarchist ideology that has been established for centuries. For example, a primitivist, a syndicalist, a communist, and a mutualist would all agree on the basic principles of anarchism they would NOT agree with the anacp definition of anarcho. It should also be noted that anarchism in the US, means something totally different in the rest of the world. Jp16103 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ok, and? Still waiting for you to show reason that this page--among all of the "anarcho-" pages--should be out-of-line with the rest. Because that quote doesn't do it. Also: the fallacy of ad antiquitatem is still a fallacy. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] While anarcho-capitalists in general do not attempt to forcefully abolish natural hierarchies, they focus on compulsory hierarchy (i.e. the state). JLMadrigal @ 01:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I fixed the indents since it was bothering me. Jp16103 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] This isn't ad antiquitem because you cant just change the definition of something because you use it for your own political gain. Just because you call your philosophy anarchist because it has some anarchist elements it does not mean that it is anarchist. Anarcho is short for anarchist, yes? An anarchist is someone who: oppose authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system". It cannot get any clearer than that. Lets be honest here, the anarcho in anarcho-capitalism refers to opposition to the state NOT the opposition to hierarchy that EVERY SINGLE OTHER ANARCHIST IDEOLOGY IS OPPOSED TO. So lets give due weight here and clearly state that ancaps are anti state, not anti hierarchy. That is all that I am asking for in the lead. Also I don't know how much more you want. Do you want me to give you quotes from the first internationale from Bakunin explaining anarchist ideology because I will. Or would you rather I dive into Proudhon (the "founding father" of anarchism) and find his opinions on the topic? This page "should be out of line with the rest" because anarcho-capitalism is "out-of-line" with every other form of anarchism. We need to be fair here and explain why their definition of anarcho is not the same as an ancoms definition.Jp16103 (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] It is antiquitatem because the definition of anarchism only includes anti-state. What people like you try is no different from the people who try to say that atheism entails communism or wickedness: you add to the definition something which isn't truly there. So let's be fair and honest and not make this article out-of-line with the rest of the "anarcho-" articles. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, ancoms' and ancaps' definitions differ. That's the point - and why an early clarification of ancap definitions is helpful to the student of anarcho-capitalism. Of course, the biggest difference is that ancaps hold that natural property relationships guide civilization, and that anything approaching equality can only be achieved via competitive market relationships - not wealth redistribution or confiscation of property (which requires a state). JLMadrigal @ 11:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] If you truly think that anarchism is only anti-state then you clearly have no understanding of anarchist ideology. Anarchists have always until the rise of "anarcho" capitalism been against the state,property,and hierarchy. Ancaps have a different definition of anarcho, thats why in the lead we should state the differences in the definition of anarcho. Im not trying to add anything to the definition, because the definition of anarchism has been clearly defined since its inception! When Proudhon created the term anarchism, he described his philosophy as being against private property and vertical production! Ancaps were the groups who changed the definition of anarchism (and libertarian btw)! I don't see how i can make this anymore clear. Ancaps have their own distinct version of "anarchism" that is out of touch with every other anarchist philosophy! To say that the anarcho is anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism means the same things is WRONG. 'Yes, ancoms' and ancaps' definitions differ. That's the point - and why an early clarification of ancap definitions is helpful to the student of anarcho-capitalism. "This is exactly my point! Jp16103 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thinking that "anarcho-" also includes anti-hierarchy is just like thinking that atheism involves wickedness just because it used to be defined that way by theists. Or that anarchism is "chaos" because statists are terrified of anarchy. By the way: Proudhon didn't create the idea of anarchism (no matter how much you might want to scream that he did). Anarchists and anarchism were around before him, just as atheists and atheism were around long before the term arose. The wide definition of "anarchism" (including regular and philosophy dictionaries) simply use the idea of no rulers/anti-state. So please let's not editorialize. Let's not make this article out-of-line with the other "anarcho-" articles. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Seeing that this isnt going anywhere Im not going to fight for this anymore. You win, I wont try to change the obviously one-sided lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] initial paragraph I like this : Anarcho-capitalism, also known as free-market anarchism,[2] market anarchism,[3] private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism,[5] among others (see below), and "ancap" is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination the state and the privatization of government services. instead of this section of the first pargraph 'Anarcho-capitalism (anarcho referring to the lack of a state, and capitalism referring to the corresponding liberation of capital and markets, also known as free-market anarchism,[2] market anarchism,[3] private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism,[5] among others (see below), and the short term "ancap") is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of political government - which distorts market signals, breeds corruption, and institutionalizes monopoly - in favor of individual sovereignty, absence of invasive private property policies and open markets (laissez-faire capitalism).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.20.164 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Lead A new user made drastic changes to the lead here. I reverted it because the changes had not been discussed first, and any changes as radical as that ought to be discussed. However, I think the user does have a point. The lead is overly-complicated and something shorter would be better. Suggestions? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] The current opening sentence is needlessly convoluted and reader-unfriendly and certainly needs trimming. The lead also has problems in the sentences that follow, with loaded phrasing ("invasive private property policies", "liberation of capital" etc) and assertions stated as fact (eg that government "breeds corruption"). And of course it is, as argued about endlessly in the past, wholly misleading about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism. The problem is that it has mostly been edited recently by veto-wielding partisan supporters of the ideology, some of whom are quite open about the fact that they think this page should more or less advocate for anarcho-capitalism rather than be a sober, encyclopedic summary of it, based on objective third-party sources. N-HH talk/edits 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] And if anyone thought the lead couldn't get more convoluted, subjective and even inaccurate than it already was, they were dead wrong. What a confusing and misleading mess. N-HH talk/edits 07:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, this article is continually worsening, and the trend will not stop with JLMadrigal and Knight of BAAWA protecting the article. 63.227.163.5 (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'd support reverting the recent changes and going back to an August 2015 version. — goethean 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm not so sure. It seems pretty convoluted and full of loaded phrasing even back then. Ideally, I think it should be scrapped and started over by disinterested editors who know what they're talking about and who know how to express ideas with clarity and objectivity. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen on WP of course. N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Knight of BAAWA, please remember that you do not own this article. Tomboy Chan, myself, and I believe Goethean also, are in favour of removing all the excess synonyms for "Anarcho-capitalism" from the lead of this article. You are in absolutely no position to be reverting me when multiple editors disagree with your position. If you feel that those synonyms are valuable information, then please suggest a different and better way of including them in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] I take back my cynicism. Going back to this version – so long as it sticks of course – is a definite improvement. It leaves the lead far less cluttered and relatively clear as to what anarcho-capitalism is and where it comes from. I still have reservations about how the (fairly weak) link to anarchism proper is explained in the last paragraph, and the unqualified inclusion of the Anarchism template, but we know what the page warriors think about that, and at least it tries. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] Origin of flag? I came here to look up the origin of the ancap flag (black and gold). I know the symbolism ("anarchy" and "gold"). But what's its history? Who came up with it when? - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @David Gerard: Anarcho-capitalist symbolism#Yellow-black bisected flag -- Netoholic @ 13:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! I was wondering because of the other ANCAP, whose logo is also black and yellow ... clearly based on the black and yellow calibration markers used on crash test dummies, and I was wondering which came first - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism I removed this section, as it was an almost exact word-for-word copy of the article at Criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Doing so also removed the counter-arguments to that criticism added by JLMadrigal, which at the time I was not entirely aware of- sorry about that! I still think removing the section while the other article exists was the correct move. The counter-arguments could be placed at the other article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Criticism of anarcho-capitalism is a very short article. I think a case could be made that there is little point in preserving it as a separate article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I don't know why 'Criticisms...' is a separate article- I think it'd probably be better included in this article, but there's little point doing so until the separate article is deleted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I don't agree. If the content would improve this article, then it might just as well be added here now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done. Note that there is also a link to the criticism article within this article. JLMadrigal @ 15:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Criticisms need to be in the main article. Whether it needs to be a second article, I'll leave to others to decide. I'll also note that PeterTheFourth appears to be stalking me. He made edits to three articles I've edited in short succession. His history shows no interest in this topic or topics like it. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FreeKnowledgeCreator and SocialJusticeWarriors: Can we summarize the other article and add the relevant cites? The recent content dispute mentioned citations. I don't get why we couldn't just grab the citations from the editable link for the criticisms article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ya I think summarizing would be a good idea. That's what I originally did but it got reverted because I didn't include citations. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Criticism sections are always poor style and should not be used. Instead criticism should be incorporated into the relevant sections of the article. For example the contents in "Economics and property" subsection of "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism" should be included in "Property" and "Economics" subsections of "Philosophy." Furthermore, criticism should not be a random collection of negative comments by all and sundry but should be arranged according to their weight in reliable sources. For example, just how accepted is the view that rejection of positive rights is selfish? The U.S. Bill of Rights for example protects negative rights but not positive rights. TFD (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] In this case I think it should be it's own section. And should probably eventually be huge, like half the article or more. Because the most notable thing about anarcho-capitalism is how controversial it is and how idiotic and absurd many people find it as a political ideology. A very small number of people actually believe this stuff or take it seriously. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] The same could be said about Nazism, and it manages to explain the topic without a "Criticism" section. But articles are not supposed to explain to readers what ideologies they should accept. Readers want to know what it is about, not be lectured about what is wrong with it. Your approach is anyway counterproductive. Lecturing readers may have the opposite effect and would make them question the fairness of Wikipedia articles in general. TFD (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hmm. SocialJusticeWarriors, would it help to insert the most important or relevant critics within relevant sections of the article, as opposed to just dropping criticism like a big sack of potatoes in a separate section? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] That is the way criticism should be included, if at all. WP pages are meant, as noted, to explain what something is, as explained in reliable and authoritative third-party sources, not to advocate for or against it. As also noted, specific Criticism sections are poor style and should certainly not be built up from the random thoughts of WP editors or from observations randomly culled from any old source. The separate Criticisms page should probably be deleted. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] "WP pages are meant, as noted, to explain what something is, as explained in reliable and authoritative third-party sources" and what reliable third party sources say anarcho-capitalism is, is an absurd political theory that has very few supporters and has gotten tons of criticism. Bringing up other articles without a criticism section is WP:OSE. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Undone again. Please address the valid comments on this talk page rather than citing your personal opinion of being against the topic as justification for adding a laundry list of uncited objections. 216.9.184.69 (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] This page has suffered for ages from being owned by people who appear to be devoted partisans of anarcho-capitalism and want the page to reflect that; having people who appear to hate it joining the party is probably going to compound the problems with the page, not solve them. Anyway, as I am sure you noted, OSE is an essay and so does not trump WP:CRITICISM, which explicitly deprecates criticism sections. Plus OSE in fact acknowledges that of course precedent and wider practice are valid arguments re content and presentation. And, beyond that, perhaps the WP:SOAPBOX section of the policy page WP:What Wikipedia is not is the best place to look at to help clarify the underlying point. As for what serious third-party sources say, I am not sure they are quite as polemical and hostile as you suggest. And to the extent that there is significant and substantive criticism within such coverage, no one is saying it has to be excluded, just that it has to be presented, if at all, in an encyclopedic and balanced fashion (without descending into ever-expanding "he said, she said" argument/counterargument). N-HH talk/edits 12:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] It was posted on reddit.com/r/anarcho_capitalism a few months ago. I warned the admins but they refused to protect the page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Reverts Do you like apples, I would advise you to try to separate your minor edits to this article from the more drastic changes. You have more chance of getting them accepted into the article that way. If you insist on combining minor and uncontroversial edits with drastic, and controversial, changes to the article then it is likely that everything will be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I have already done that. I made more than a dozen edits. You are just blindly rolling them all back. Do you like apples (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You were already reverted once by another user. You should have taken the issue to the talk page immediately instead of simply restoring your edits. As it now stands, you are edit warring against multiple users, and have probably violated WP:3RR. Any attempt you make to justify yourself while behaving this way is going to fall on deaf ears. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] As I said, I made many separate edits to the article. If you have a problem with individual edits, revert those and then state your problem here and we'll attempt to work it out. Those you don't have a reason for contesting, don't revert. Blindly reverting all of my good faith edits is not constructive. Do you like apples (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Your disruptive behavior - edit warring against multiple users - is objectionable in and of itself. It gives other users a perfectly good reason to roll back your edits. Since you are apparently a new user, you are perhaps not familiar with policies such as WP:3RR, but that does not provide you with immunity against being blocked for violating them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Please stop making this personal and attacking me. We disagree about the content of this article. That should be the focus here. I have already addressed that twice and you've yet to respond. Do you like apples (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I am not attacking you by pointing out that your behavior is disruptive. I am pointing out the obvious. If you want to persuade other editors that you are editing in good faith, then you should revert your most recent changes, as they involve a WP:3RR violation. Have you read the policy yet? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Please stop trying to make this about me. We disagree on content. I am asking you for about the 5th or 6th time to focus on the content. Which of my edits did you disagree with and why? Do you like apples (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'll continue pointing out that your behaviour is problematic for as long as it continues being problematic. You will likely not be able to continue editing at all if you persist in behaving as you have thus far. To address your changes: they involve major and unexplained changes of meaning, and many do not seem to be improvements. For example, you altered the definition of anarcho-capitalism, changing it from advocating elimination of the state to advocating elimination of government. Government and the state are not the same thing, and I don't believe your change is correct. It should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] If you'd like to change the definition back to how it was before, I wont revert you. Do you like apples (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] How nice of you. If I revert any of your other changes, would you revert me then? Do you accept that revert warring is not an acceptable way to try to improve articles? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Any individual change you disagree with, I'm fine with you reverting, if you state here why you reverted it, so we can discuss it. Do you like apples (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Forcing your changes into an article through revert warring is unacceptable regardless of whether or not other users discuss each and every one of your changes. I will take a look through your changes and consider which of them may be improvements, but any changes that don't seem to benefit the article will certainly be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I ask you for about the 8th time to focus on the content and stop trying to make this personal. At this stage I feel this must be your strategy to contest my edits. There is no other reason you would keep repeatedly criticizing me. Do you like apples (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You have now reverted yet another user, despite being told that edit warring against multiple users is unacceptable, and despite being warned about WP:3RR. At this stage, you deserve a block. Keep behaving the way you have been behaving, and you will likely be indefinitely blocked. There is no point in discussing content until you accept that you cannot continue behaving in this fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "There is no point in discussing content" just as I suspected. Making this personal is your strategy for contesting my edits. Do you like apples (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You said you were going to individually revert edits you disagreed with. If you would do as you said, this would not be an issue. I should not have all of my edits blindly reverted because people are too lazy to review them individually. Do you like apples (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |} Collapse discussion thread started by sockpuppet of blocked editor The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. my edits People are rolling back all of my edits, rather than reviewing them individually. I'll list and explain them. Please note which you disagree with and why. edit 1 changed "advocates the elimination of the state" to "advocates the elimination of government" 'government' is the widely used and neutral term. 'state' is a term anarcho-capitalists have co-opted and use as a rallying cry, making it's usage not encyclopedic. in articles about North Korea or Nazi Germany, we don't use the propaganda terms of those regimes, we use encyclopedic terms. we should do the same here. The "state" or "Etat" is the common word to define the ruling construct in its entirety (i.e. a state is more then a government, but also related customs, respect, ext.), very common in socialist literature as well. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 2 changed "security services would be operated by privately funded competitors" to "security services would be operated by private companies" change to neutral and encyclopedia phrasing, from the anarcho-capitalist preferred characterization. the idea that there would even be competitors is theoretical. This states what anarcho-capitalist claim, you might not even agree that private companies by themselves are possible, it doesn't matter this is not stated as a historical fact. You seem to have a big misunderstanding regarding how to NPOV. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 3 Changed "would be privately and competitively provided in an open market" to "would also be provided by private companies." Means the same thing, without the anarcho-capitalism preferred phrasing (propaganda). See above. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 4 Changed "Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations]under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies" to "Personal and economic activities would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment by governments." More encyclopedic and neutral and removes the propaganda phrasing. edit 5 Changed "would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment by governments." to "would be regulated by dispute resolution organizations rather than by governments." More encyclopedic and neutral and removes the propaganda phrasing. edit 6 Moved the section of the lede that explains how the name anarcho-capitalism came about, to it's own section at the top of the body of the article. Moved 'history' section up to just below this section. Lede was too big and this looks better. Style is also to have history at the top of an article like this. edit 7 Removed "Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism" section. These are not similar to anarcho-capitalism and only serve to lend credibility to the ideas. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool. They are heavily referenced in anarcho capitalist literature. Removal, instead of using better wording, is just not good faith edits. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 8 Removed a lot of promotional external links that are not appropriate. edit 9 Removed 'further reading' list of pro-anarcho capitalism books and publications. If these are notable they can be used as references. edit 10 Removed flag as the source is not credible, it's some random website. The flag is correct, easily sourced from anywhere. This removal borders on non good faith edits. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 11 Changed 'statism' to 'government'. See edit 1: 'statism' is propaganda and not encyclopedic. Nope, it's just the correct word. Etatism in french is also common. Your change of government to state is also misguided. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 12 Removed unsourced paragraph at the top of 'Classical liberalism' section. I'm stopping reviewing your changes with this blatant vandalism. All you edits should be first removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] edit 13 Changed 'led the attack against' to 'criticized' as this is more encyclopedic. edit 14 Removed non-encyclopedic words 'One notable was' and 'who' edit 15, 16 Change 'the state' to 'government'. See edit 1. Changed many more instances of 'state' to 'government'. Do you like apples (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "State" is the correct term. "Statism" as a term is NOT propaganda, and that you call it such means you are not editing in good faith. As such: you're not going to get anywhere with your obvious POV-pushing. If you would have made some suggestions FIRST and not just demanded that we kowtow to your POV, you might have gotten somewhere. But you didn't. You're going to have a really tough go of it now. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] FWIW many of the edits look fine to me: some of the more minor ones are simple copyediting (eg edit 14), and I concur with the removal of many of the entries under further reading etc (eg edits 8 and 9), which seem to be simply promotion of fairly obscure essays and websites for the most part. Others, such as edits 2 and 3 which remove the stress on competition, and 1 re "state" vs "government", are more moot, since they are minor changes, with pretty much interchangeable phrasing/terms in the context. The attempted edits are certainly not clear evidence of blatant "POV" though (I think there's a saying about motes and eyes). Indeed, edits 11 and 13, which together rephrased talk about people "leading the attack against statism" in WP's voice are rather clearly de-POVing the text, one would have thought. I'd disagree with edit 6, which removes arguably relevant historical background out of the lead, but would agree that a lot of the material removed outright in edit 7 is speculative and/or too reliant on blog sources in part. N-HH talk/edits 19:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Some of the edits may be OK, but the edit warring user was trying to change the article in an inappropriate way. The removal of large parts of the article obviously needed to be discussed first. The change from "state" to "government" is not a minor change at all. It is a major change, and it is incorrect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure the distinction is as significant as that. They are not of course synonymous, but the terms "government" and "state" are often used pretty much interchangeably when discussing anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and in political discourse more generally. Indeed the dictionary I just looked at prefers "government" when defining what anarchism is against, as does Peter Marshall's history of anarchism. As for anarcho-capitalism itself, Rothbard for example seems to happily talk about "government" when talking about what he is against. The switch certainly doesn't flip the meaning of what's being said on its head. N-HH talk/edits 19:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Well, do you want the article to be accurate or not? There is a technical distinction between state and government and it is relevant to understanding anarcho-capitalism, so one term should not simply replace the other. What one dictionary says about "anarchism" generally is not relevant, as the article is about anarcho-capitalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Of course I want the article to be accurate, hence why I cited some evidence as to usage; the point is that I think this is splitting hairs. My comment acknowledged of course that the terms are not universally synonymous – and also that there is a distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism – but we just happen to disagree about how significant the difference between the two terms is in this context. It's not that you want the page to be accurate and I don't. Since I'm not favouring one term over the other anyway, further debate on the point is fairly redundant twice over. N-HH talk/edits 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] From the opening paragraph of the Anarchism article: "While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system." Clearly--and I don't think you have an issue with it--statism as used by anarchists isn't propagandist in the least. Yet if we turn to one of the edit summaries of the edits-in-question, we find this "replaced 'state' with 'government' in most cases. government is the accepted term. 'state' is used as anarcho-capitalist propaganda." That's just one of the issues with this person. And then there's the question of removing a swath of the article without so much as discussing it here first! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] It is my position that all these edits should first be reverted as so many of them (though not all) are unencyclopedic. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] They already have been. The user who made them posted on the talk page after they were (several times), trying to seek approval to have them reinstated. As suggested above, some of the reaction to the substance of the edits (as opposed to the edit-warring – and plenty of people have edit-warred over this page) is a little OTT. Most of them are not egregiously unencyclopedic or POV or whatever. Several of them have merit; others are of marginal import. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Sources "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered." WP:THIRDPARTY The only source in this article that meets that criteria seems to be Playboy Magazine. All the rest are primary and secondary sources that are unsuitable as references. That is, Anarcho-Capitalists writing about their own ideas or about topics they are not independent from. I suggest this article be deleted as 95% of the information in it is not properly sourced. A new article can be written, conforming to policy. EoT State (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] In other words, this is article is not encyclopedic. It is Anarcho Capitalism, as defined and explained by Anarcho Capitalists. A violation of WP:NPOV. It needs instead to be Anarcho Capitalism, as defined and explained by neutral and reliable third parties. EoT State (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Note EoT State has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of DegenFarang [1]. --TFD (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) (UTC)[reply] Mostly agree. However being independent does not mean not sharing the same ideas, it means having a financial interest. The sources nonetheless fail rs as secondary sources. Look forward to you re-writing the article with reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] To be fair, there are a few more legitimate third-party sources than that currently being used. Plus primary sources are not barred altogether, it's just that you have to be wary of overinterpreting them. Rothbard's work can be cited and quoted directly, for example, as evidence of what his positions were. But the direction of the page is very much evangelical. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] It's interesting that we have a brand new account proposing to remove most of the article's content starting up immediately after an older account was blocked for attempting something very similar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] The following are some independent, reliable sources that can be used in the article. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. For example, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the source of the first, seventh and eighth references listed below, is quite reliable. North America1000 03:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] References "Contra Anarcho-capitalism" "Crypto Anarchy". "Political Ideology Today". "The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism". "Alternative Vegan". "Chaos Theory". "An American Experiment in AnarchoCapitalism: The -Not So Wild, Wild West" "Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism". What leads you to believe these sources are reliable, with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? An Anarcho-Capitalist writing a book does not seem to meet that requirement. #7, from a University, may work. But #3, for example, clearly would not. I can write a book that says I'm Santa Claus. That doesn't mean I am or that Wikipedia should say in its voice that I am. EoT State (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Below is a partial summary about source #3 above, Political Ideology Today, from this source. The book is published by Manchester University Press, which is the university press of the University of Manchester, England and an academic publisher of academic books and journals. It is clearly an integral and reliable source. The book was written by Ian Adams. You assume that Adams is an anarcho-capitalist, but provide no qualification for your assumption. Are you sure about that? North America1000 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Political Ideology Today – This second edition of an established textbook on political ideology provides a comprehensive, up-to-date introduction to the powerful and persuasive ideas which have motivated the actions of both political leaders and the electorate. I'm not sure there is a lot of point explaining reliable sources to someone who does not want to be convinced. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You are the one pushing a clear POV. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. STOP ASSUMING BAD FAITH. EoT State (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] It would be easier than it is to assume good faith if you could have provided a convincing answer to the question I put to you on your talk page; as it is, you are quite likely to be blocked for disruption. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I said I have no idea who that is. I'd like to improve this article. I'd appreciate it if you could either help or leave me alone. Your emotional drama does not interest me. 04:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC) I think that your most recent edits are not helpful, and should be reverted. I will probably revert them myself soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I know you think the purpose of talk pages is to harass people, but actually they are intended to discuss disagreements with content. If you have an opinion on the sources in the article and why they are from reliable, independent third party sources known for fact checking and accuracy, this would be the place to share your views. Unilaterally declaring good faith edits "not helpful" is itself, not helpful. EoT State (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] OK then, your edits seem unhelpful because they remove content based on what is apparently nothing more than ideological disagreement with the sources used. Thus, they should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @EoT State: I'm concerned about your analysis methods of what constitutes a reliable source, per discussion about source #3 listed above (Political Ideology Today). You state above that it is clearly not reliable, but my research and commentary above indicates that it is clearly entirely reliable. You also deemed the author to be an anarcho-capitalist, but provide absolutely no qualification to back up your opinion. You seem to base source reliability upon a preconception that supports your view about virtually none of the sources being reliable except for the Playboy Magazine source, per your statement above and at your nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-capitalism, which comes across as confirmation bias. So, it's understandable that people are questioning your removal of content from the article per your statements that the sources are not reliable, because per the above, it's unclear if you're familiar with identifying reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 06:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You made a reasonable argument that #3 is an RS, noting things I hadn't seen. After looking closer at sources in the article, some of them do appear more reliable than my first impression indicated. There are still many sources in the article I do not think meet the requirements of a reliable source. Self published pro-Anarcho Capitalism material, for example. The article relies far too heavily on content from Anarcho Capitalists, in general. The result is a non-neutral article. We need to trim down the pro-Anarcho Capitalism sources and add neutral third party sources. EoT State (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Some of the examples cited above are clearly fine, but no 2 has rather obviously lifted the excerpt linked to from this very page. Much of the recent activity on the page has not been helpful, and has exaggerated the paucity of sources, but it has nonetheless highlighted the unsuitability of many of the sources currently used and hence of the material derived from them. Content should not be sourced to blogs or overreliant on anarcho-capitalist writings, which are arguably, in effect, primary sources and have an obvious bias – as noted above, that does not bar them, but it means they need to be used with caution and greater reliance placed on third-party analysis, esepcially academic writings on the topic (which do exist). If editors could assess each source and the derived content on its own terms, rather than reacting based on their views of other editors' activities and/or their own views on anarcho-capitalism, that would help, but it seems rather unlikely to happen. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Political Ideology Today is a tertiary source, an introductory politics textbook, and therefore not an ideal source either. There are no footnotes so if there are any disputes about what it says, there is no way to resolve it. @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, if you suspect another editor of sockpuppetry, you should take it to SPI instead of discussing it here. TFD (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] how do we proceed? My edits to the article keep getting reverted, yet those reverting me are not participating in discussion here. How do we proceed? There appears to be consensus for removing at least some sources. It's not helping matters that the blatant POV pushers seem to think they are above consensus building and are content to simply tag-team revert any changes to the article. EoT State (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] First, I'd suggest you stop edit-warring over the content (as should others). Even if you are "right" or have a plausible case, it rarely gets you anywhere, not least because others will, as you have noticed, start knee-jerk reverting on the assumption you are up to no good, whether justified or not. Secondly, you should take on board that sources do not have to be "neutral". Equally, Self-published and primary sources are both acceptable, with some limitations and qualifications. The writings of Murray Rothbard and other notable anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-capitalist sympathisers for example can be cited, directly if necessary. That said, I can't quite believe that people are repeatedly reverting this content back in for example, sourced to another wiki and a dead site of unclear repute respectively. But then we're back to the point about self-defeating actions. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Talk:Anarcho-capitalism Jump to navigation Jump to search This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 28 this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Misuse of terms in natural law When I read the page I read “author X believes natural law would be enforced... author Z believes natural law would be enforced...” there is a difference from positive law and negative law (natural law) while positive law requires rights to be enforced, it is impossible to “enforce” a natural right, natural rights can only be protected or harmed, but never enforced I suggest changing all the occurrences of “author X believes natural law would be enforced by...” to “author X believe natural law would be protected by...” Iron Capitalist (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Iron Capitalist: I tried looking for examples of phrases that say natural law would be enforced but can't find any, could you point at the sentences you have in mind? Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] here are the ones I found “Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of a system of private property enforced by private agencies” “In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies” “The latter advocate a night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals from aggression and enforcing private property.[14] “ “Kosanke believes that in the absence of statutory law the non-aggression principle is "naturally" enforced because individuals are automatically held accountable for their actions via tort and contract law.” “The system relies on contracts between individuals as the legal framework which would be enforced by private police and security forces as well as private arbitrations.” Iron Capitalist (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] But this doesn't talk about "natural law", it talks about the system of private property, contract law etc.. BeŻet (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] yes, these systems from the natural law are not enforceable, they are only able to be protected or harmed the notion of “enforcement” would require action from the state to grant a right to someone, natural rights are rights that requires no action from individuals (right to property translates to “right to you not take the action of taking my stuff”, same with slavery “do not take action of forcing me to work”, rape and murder) even though the sections don’t talk about the terms specifically, it is misleading to use them in such way I suggest we change the occurrences of “enforcement” when talking about natural law to “protection” Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Law is something that is enforced, not protected. Likewise, the system of private property is also something that is enforced - private ownership of land isn't anything that's "natural" and is only a relatively recent development that has appeared during the rise of feudalism. I agree that for this to work you need a state or a quasi-state (e.g. a private security force) to "grant" ownership to someone, and that's why we talk about enforcement rather than protection. The system of private property only existed for a few hundred years, while humans had their lives, bodies and personal possessions for as long as we remember. Slavery may have seemed "natural" at the time to people, just like "owning" a piece of land or a building that you don't live or work in may seem "natural" to some people today. BeŻet (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @BeŻet:, “law is something that is enforced”, that’s the positive law, yes, negative laws cannot be enforced because of their own nature of requiring others to not act, that’s why they are called “negative” rights take property like the example you used, we say “right to property”, but in fact the proper structure of the natural right is “right to not be robbed”, so this right requires you and me to “not take action” to rob someone and when we take that action, someone can take forceful action against the robbery to prevent it from happening, so protecting the owner of that property another way to think about it is this: will you have that right even is humanity stood still? if humanity stands still, no one is robbing you, so right to property (same with no one is raping you, no one is murdering you, no one is enslaving you) actual positive rights, like “right to healthcare”, do need to be enforced like you pointed out if we try to input “right to healthcare” in the stand still logic, we would have this: will you have healthcare if humanity stands still? if humanity stands still, means no physician is providing you with healthcare, and if no one is provinding you healthcare, the state must force someone to provide healthcare, hence the en-force-ment of the positive law also, natural rights do not come from what “seems natural”, they come from reasoning and are above states, they are permanent and cannot be changed a state cannot write in a paper that it has the right to kill millions of people because of their race without infringing the natural law Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] ""negative laws cannot be enforced because of their own nature of requiring others to not act"" - if you say that the land between the river Ouse and river Aire "belongs" to you, and if someone trespasses they will be faced with violence, you are enforcing your "ownership". If you tell someone that they can't collect rainwater, because rain "belongs" to you: again, you are enforcing things, even though you are "requiring others to not act". It seems strange to think of something as "natural" if it requires large scale violence to "protect" - an individual can, on their own, protect their life, the dwelling they live in, the clothes they wear, the tools they use, a small plot of land they cultivate etc.. This more or less can seem "natural", or at least reasonable. But when you're talking about massive swathes of land "belonging" to an individual, or large buildings like factories, or simply any place they don't live or work at, it becomes a lot less "natural" or "reasonable". Ownership only makes sense if it is self-evident. Moreover, I think you're confusing "negative laws" with "negative rights" (the former is not a real term). In terms of "having rights if humanity stood still", it's not very clear what you mean by that. If someone's a prisoner, or a slave, and humanity "stood still", surely they would remain a prisoner or slave? If not, why would land remain privately owned then? Finally, please remember that the concept of natural law is just that, a concept that some, but not all, believe in, and even fewer people include private property within them. Therefore, the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and not that of an anarchocapitalist. Anyway, this is turning into a forum discussion, so we should focus more on the article itself. BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] @BeŻet: sorry for taking a while to answer “ if you say that the land between the river Ouse and river Aire "belongs" to you, and if someone trespasses they will be faced with violence, you are enforcing your "ownership".” That’s not how it works, but even if we assume it is, if humanity stands still, no one is trespassing the property, that’s why right to property is a natural right ownership is not given by “claiming”, labor needs to be mixed with it, hence why you cannot claim that “someone cannot collect rain water” also, we need to talk about the word “violence”, not all usages of force are violences, self-defense is a type of usage of force that is not violence, you seem to confuse both “ it becomes a lot less "natural" or "reasonable".” well, “natural” in “natural rights” doesn’t come from “what makes sense”, it comes from the notion that humans did not intervene for it to happen, not “what makes sense “negative law is not a real term” you are 100% correct, I only use the term to stress the contrast natural law has to the positive law (since the opposite of positive would be, well, negative) “surely they would remain a prisoner or slave?” if humanity is standing still, there is no one pointing holding a slave to be free, if you stand still, you are not trespassing land (because it requires action) “natural law is just a concept” yes, and that’s included in the concept, they are rights that all humans and cannot be revoked even if a bunch of politicians wrote on a paper that they revoked it “the article should be neutral, not from ancap point of view” yes, that’s a neutral point of view because of what natural rights are, rights that cannot be enforced, only protected “we need to focus on the article” well yes I agree but we will end up having different understandings of what the content of the page is and what to include or exclude from it like we had o the “why socialism is when gov” section, so I believe a little of theoretical discussion between us would be healthy for the article and for ourselves as well, but just a little, like you said, focusing on the page as a final thought, I still believe we should change the occurrences of “enforcement” to “protection” because that’s what the natural law itself is, not what ancap’s point of view of it is Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] A quick point "we need to talk about the word “violence”, not all usages of force are violences, self-defense is a type of usage of force that is not violence, you seem to confuse both" Well, what if I disagree about what's self-defense? Defending / protecting my property isn't violence? Well then what is or isn't violence depends on how property is defined. Speaking practically about the world as it exists, property is a convenient concept that is enforced by other people, the police. Is it still not violence for the police to injure people who are trespassing on my private property? I think that including "defense of property" in the nonviolent umbrella of "self defense" is not neutral, and it's in fact a highly capitalist perspective. Leijurv (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] "ownership is not given by “claiming”, labor needs to be mixed with it" - but who defines how much labor, and what form of it is required? Who decides this, who defines this? Also, Rothbard believes that land would belong to you forever, and that you could "give" it to someone else, so it would suddenly "belong" to someone who didn't mix their labor with it. At that point everything is just based on a claim. "if humanity is standing still, there is no one pointing holding a slave to be free, if you stand still, you are not trespassing land (because it requires action)" - in that case any status quo can be justified. If humanity stood still, if you are in a prison cell, you are still a prisoner because breaking out of the prison cell requires action. If humanity stood still, and a king "owns" a whole kingdom, they keep "owning" the whole kingdom because any negation of the status quo would require action. But now look at this way: if you are renting a house from a landlord and live in it, if humanity stood still, wouldn't the house belong to you because you wouldn't be paying rent and any attempt to evict you would require an action? Likewise if you have bunch of workers working at a factory and humanity stood still, wouldn't the factory belong to the workers working there, because any attempt to force them out would require an action? "I still believe we should change the occurrences of “enforcement” to “protection” because that’s what the natural law itself is" - but most people don't believe natural law exists at all, or that private property is part of natural law etc.. It's like saying we should write in every article about animals that they were "created to do" something, not "evolved to do" something, because of the belief that God created all animals. Natural law isn't a universally accepted concept, just as the belief that God created the universe and everything living in it. As mentioned by Leijurv, describing enforcing land ownership and territorial claims as "self-defence" is a very right-libertarian way of phrasing things. BeŻet (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]