Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive_1
> ...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive_28

Contents

    1 We need different articles on AnCap summarised in a meta list
    2 Absence of coercion
    3 Regarding Konkin
    4 Justification for the statement: "The term "anarcho-capitalism"
is generally seen as fraudulent and an oxymoron by anarchists."
    5 Who cares about Julian Assange?

We need different articles on AnCap summarised in a meta list

Reading the discussions here makes it very clear, that on the one hand
side people who have an AnCap view want to write the article, while at
the same time people who clearly don't understand the AnCap pov, want
to write the article, too. For the actually neutral reader the former
appears as advertisement, while the latter appears a oppression.

That brings us nowhere and the actual article is a mix far away from
"neutrality", since there is simply *no* neutrality in a topic like
this. Politics/Economics is not like Physics or Mathematics. I
therefore think its much better to have a meta article on the topic
that just contains a list of articles like

    AnCap from an AnCaps POV

    AnCap from an Anarchist PoV

    ... all major views (ideally)

Listing articles for all major views on the topic.


This is necessary because every other solution will just degrade into
a battlefield of mutually exclusives views all pretending to be either
neutral or superior, which of course non of them is, because we are
all just humans. So for the reader its much more informative to read
the topic in separated articles classified by all major views on the
topic. I know if someone is fully emerged in one of many views on a
theme, they can not understand that others enjoy it more to read a
topic from all angles instead of reading a mess of opinion-corps from
a battle-of-views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by
2a02:8109:1bc0:13ac:24fc:e50d:f294:3dfb (talk)

    WP:POVFORK is the Wikipedia guideline against doing that. Leijurv
(talk) 21:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We should just simply write what sources state in an attributive
manner. The only point of view that needs to be used is neutral. BeŻet
(talk) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there is no neutral POV for many themes. This is almost
always true for political topics. Or in other words the only neutral
POV is a set of non neutral views. Also the question "what is the
AnCap POV of Ancap and what is an anarchist POV on AnCAp" are valid
and on this meta level neutral questions. — Preceding unsigned comment
added by 2a02:8109:1bc0:13ac:24fc:e50d:f294:3dfb (talk)

    I don't think you'll get far by calling WP:NPOV impossible.
Wikipedia has decided that that viewpoint is incorrect. NPOV is the
second fundamental pillar of the site, see WP:5P2, so you'll need a
better argument than just proclaiming it can't be done on this
article. Leijurv (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always possible to achieve a neutral point of view. You
simply have to describe the views that a specific group of people
holds, and attribute those beliefs to them. It might be difficult to
do with confusing ideologies like anarcho-capitalism, but it's not
impossible. For instance, anarcho-capitalists want a society where
people can make "property claims" on land, means of production and
personal possessions, irregardless of occupancy and use, and then
defend those claims using private defence agencies, instead of relying
on a state. Is this not neutral? If it's not, why? BeŻet (talk) 21:21,
19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeZet: You wrote: "It's always possible to achieve a neutral point of
view. You simply have to describe the views that a specific group of
people holds, and attribute those beliefs to them." That is exactly my
point, too. But then you wrote "confusing ideologies like
anarcho-capitalism" which disqualifies you from writing about AnCap
from the AnCap pov, as of course its not confusing to them.
"confusion" is a subjective not an objective state (Logical
inconsistencies can be found in every political theory). So I think
what you really want is to apply force and to color AnCap according to
YOUR believes. The problem is, that I think you are not fully aware of
that, or you do it maliciously to fight for your view and have an
aversion against AnCap. This is legit, but makes it impossible for you
to REALLY look on AnCap from THEIR pov, so you can not write that
part! The same btw, holds true for AnCap advocates when it comes to
criticism on AnCap. Much of what they write about other theories is
subject to the same felony. This is a general problem, which
highlights the fundamental difference between scientific (objective
truth) minded people and political minded people. Unfortunately, in
the end, this doesn't give us the neutrality, a non-emotionally
involved reader expects from a "neutral" article. But articles become
battle-fields of a fight we might call "the superiority of a view", or
enforced subjectivity.

So my basic critique is that there are articles like "Vector space"
that have pure external/objective definitions/truth and articles about
terms like "Fairness" or in this case "AnCap" that don't have a single
objective truth, but a set of subjectives views.

Fairness is the best example as left-wing and right-wing minded people
more or less completely disagree about the meaning of this term. And
deciding that one view is superior over other is the core problem,
since it is objectively impossible. You can do it subjectively but not
objectively. And I think that is what politically opinionated people
don't understand.

Now to write about those categories, authors must have the ability to
change views in their head objectively, which means they must be able
to write from that particular angle (and not color it from their own
angle). Everything else is a distortion. And personally I think this
distortion is best summarised as a battle-of-views or the desire to
force a subjective view to be an objective truth. Which it can never
be. But in an attempt to do it, it degrades the articles quality for
the uninvolved readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by
2a02:8109:1bc0:13ac:24fc:e50d:f294:3dfb (talk)

    Like I said, we shouldn't write about anarcho-capitalism from the
point of anarcho-capitalists (because it will be confusing) or from
"my" or other people's point of view (because it will also be
confusing and also violate neutrality). All we have to do is state
what the sources are saying. The main issue here is that a lot of the
sources used in the article are primary sources; for instance, we use
a lot of works by Rothbard himself, while what is preferred is to use
secondary sources. The problem here is more pronounced because
anarcho-capitalists have a large number of their own interpretations
of commonly used terminology. If you can help with providing high
quality secondary sources discussing anarcho-capitalism, then that
would be great and would help to improve the article. All articles
need to be written from a neutral point of view, not from somebody's
point of view. If you see some neutrality problems in the article,
highlight them here so we can see how to improve the situation. BeŻet
(talk) 12:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:DTTC. You're worrying about how best to approach something
that shouldn't be done at all (writing from the pov of an ancap, or
really anyone). Leijurv (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of coercion

@PBZE: Hi, just wanted to discuss the phrase "capitalism is absence of
coercion". While it might make sense to ancaps, I just think it's a
strange sentence on its own. Capitalism is an economic system, so what
ancaps are saying here is that they believe there is no coercion under
capitalism, and not that capitalism is the synonym of "absence of
coercion". I think without changing it, it will simply be confusing to
readers who are not ancaps. BeŻet (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2021
(UTC)[reply]

    BeŻet What anarcho-capitalists believe is that without coercion, a
free-market capitalist system will automatically form as the natural
form of organization, and that anything deviating from it requires
coercion to achieve, which is what I was trying to communicate. I also
stole the phrasing from the article Anarchism and capitalism. It makes
sense to me, and I’m not an ancap, although it’s possible that I’m
more familiar with the ideology than most. PBZE (talk) 21:03, 12
December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        @PBZE: Thanks. I understand their position, but nonetheless I
still think it should be rephrased: either to "capitalism is the
result of absence of coercion", or to "there is no coercion under
capitalism". BeŻet (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

            @BeŻet: Ok. That’s fine to me. PBZE (talk) 15:32, 13
December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                @PBZE: Do you have a preference between the two? BeŻet
(talk) 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                    @BeŻet: That’s a tough choice. The first one is a
little more wordy but gets the main point across explicitly, and the
second one sounds better but only implies the point. I guess I’d
slightly prefer the second one. PBZE (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2021
(UTC)[reply]
                    @BeŻet: After doing some more thinking, I realize
I may have missed a subtle detail in my earlier description.
Anarcho-capitalists believe in the non-aggression principle, which
defines the concept of coercion as any interference with a person or
their property (including the capitalist conception of private
property), unless used to defend those things. So what they claim is
that anything deviating from capitalism is coercion by definition, and
that any action, aggressive or not, that is used to defend capitalism,
is not coercive by definition. So under anarcho-capitalist ideology,
"absence of coercion" and "capitalism" is literally the same thing,
and my original edit to the article is accurate. That ancaps use a
distinct definition of "coercion" is a subtle point, but may be
important nonetheless, since things that would commonly be considered
coercion, such as denying access to food or shelter, would not be
under the ancap definition. I still think it's possible that the
sentence "capitalism is the absence of coercion" may still be
confusing to non-ancaps and therefore not appropriate regardless, but
what are your thoughts on this? PBZE (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2021
(UTC)[reply]

                        @PBZE: Personally, I think that saying "there
is no coercion under capitalism" covers this, but we could perhaps
expand it so it says two things: "there is no coercion under
capitalism, and that capitalism results in a lack of coercion". BeŻet
(talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, the term "anarcho-capitalism" is badly named, but that's not a
critique of the concept itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by
2601:844:4302:40A0:0:0:0:E853 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022
(UTC)[reply]

Well there needs to be made a distinction between capitalism as it
exists today, and the kind of capitalism that ancaps advocate for. The
kind that exists today is quite different from the kind that ancaps
advocate for. In its present form, there is much coersion within the
capitalist system. However ancaps believe that once an anarchist
position is achieved, the coercive "socialist" aspects of capitalism
would be removed from it, leaving true non non coersive capitalism in
its place that would be totally lacking in coersion and would be built
on entirely voluntary relations. Gd123lbp (talk) 10:47, 24 January
2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that this is all quite confusing to a regular
reader. If you talk about e.g. "socialist aspects of capitalism" etc.,
this may make sense to an ancap, but not to a regular person. It would
be good to get some quality secondary sources talking about this in
order to include this in the article, as it will use less ideological
language. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Konkin

Within Anarcho-Capitalist Communities Agorism is widely considered a
Sect of the ideology such as Hoppeanism or Voluntaryism with the
differences between the ideologies being miniscule, Further more i'd
like to say that if were allowed to reference Hans-Hermann Hoppe or
Larken Rose we should be allowed to reference Konkin, i'd also like to
make the case that Agorism should be grouped by that of the 12 Agorist
Wikipedians about 8 of them also have Anarcho-Capitalist Userboxes
rather than leaving the Userbox alone or with a Anarcho-Communist
Userbox SirColdcrown (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Konkin never considered himself to be an anarchocapitalist; in
fact, he said that while similar on paper, there are some key
differences between the ideologies. Meanwhile, if I'm not mistaken,
Hoppe self-identifies as an ancap, and often talked about what his
ideal ancap society would look like. People are free to identify as
whatever they want: if someone identifies both as an ancap and
agorist, so be it. However userboxes shouldn't dictate what is written
in articles, only reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 12:14, 22 January
2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that for the most part Anarcho-Capitalism is
a very Community Developed ideology, almost every Structure beyond the
NAP and the Name has been widely peer developed, with online or
in-person fourms coming up with most "Solutions" and "Structures"
while people like Rothbard merely gave reasons as to why the state
needed to be abolished and what to do from there, this is why despite
people like Hoppe self identifying as AnCap him and Konkin not
identifying as AnCap but writing several nutorious AnCap concepts,
Hoppe and his followers are shunned from most AnCap communities while
Konkin's Followers are welcomed with open arms. a Rookie editor of
This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2022
(UTC)[reply]

    Almost every political ideology is "community developed" in the
same way. We however need reliable sources in order to include
information in the article. If we want to include anything regarding
Konkin, we require a reliable source saying that ancaps agree with
some points that Konkin has expressed - we can't just include Konkin's
opinions without context, since he wasn't an ancap. Internet forums
and blogs are also not quality sources, so we would need, say, a
peer-reviewed analysis of the viewpoints expressed on such forums.
BeŻet (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justification for the statement: "The term "anarcho-capitalism" is
generally seen as fraudulent and an oxymoron by anarchists."

I think this statement is under-justified. A list of anarchists who
might support this claim does not justify the (weasel word) statement
that anarcho-capitalism is "generally seen" a certain way "by
anarchists." I believe this sentence should be deleted.

    "Fraudulent" is probably not the right word. This is a minor
problem, though, in comparison with the rest of the article, which is
shockingly bad.  Tewdar  22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about Julian Assange?

Hi! In the context of this “ancap” article, I simply don't see why
WikiLeaker journalist Julian Assange is cited for his opinion about
the political ideology. It doesn't make sense. He might have
authority. However, what he is cited for lacks substance and actual
arguments. Merely opinions. I suggest deletion but that's just me.
ToniTurunen (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, Assange's opinions are totally UNDUE, so I erased it. 😁👍
 Tewdar  08:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]