grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:17:37 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 7
>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.

    1 Arguments for and against Anarcho-Capitalism
    2 Reversions
    3 Clean up vrs. reverts
    4 reclamation
    5 Link suggestions
    6 67.166. / Spencer
    7 Contradiction?

Arguments for and against Anarcho-Capitalism

Given that this entire article contains arguments for
anarcho-capitalism, with arguments against being restricted solely to
this section, I think it would be less misleading to simply label it
"criticisms of anarcho-capitalism". Yes, arguments for
anarcho-capitalism are still in this section, but that simply makes it
the same as the rest of the article. I'll make this change pending
comment. Kev 03:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    This is misleading. "This entire article" is an exposition of
anarcho-capitalism, and thus presents what it is ancaps believe, why,
and what their take on various issues is. Calling these "arguments for
anarcho-capitalism" makes it seem like a polemical piece when it
isn't. VeryVerily 05:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

        Sounds all lovely when you put it that way. Unfortunately, if
that were actually the case you wouldn't be spending so much of your
valuable personal time removing all attempts to provide exposition on
the politics and history surrounding anarcho-capitalism and calling it
"overstuffing with criticism". Since when is giving a fair and
balanced portrayal of both anarchism at large and anarchist
individualism in particular a means of criticising anarcho-capitalism?
Oh, right, when doing so happens to present a history that
anarcho-capitalists wouldn't want the readers to hear. BTW, I do
appreciate so much your return to the discussion page. Kev 09:09, 7
Dec 2004 (UTC)


VV, you will discuss this "one issue" you have with this compromise
and hash it out, not go on one man crusades to revert entire pages for
a few minor issues. Can we clean this page up? It's a little too long
here.--Che y Marijuana 10:25, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Clean up vrs. reverts

I'd like to clean up this article, and wouldn't mind help, but I'm not
going to be very happy if it all gets reverted due to some POV
foolishness. For example, no one editor can express what
"individualists" think, esp. not if that involvbes an opposition to
something as basic as "rent". Does that also rule out "work" and
"bills"? I never knew individualist = bum. ;)

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    Your bias couldn't be more clear, you won't even allow
historically accurate statements to stand. We are not merely talking
about "individualists" Sam, we are talking about anarchist
individualists. I'm sorry if you think these people are bums for
challenging the legitimacy of rent, but that is your own personal POV,
and you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to remove their views just because you
think they should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't like the
history of anarchism, feel free to move onto a page you can more
easily stomach. Kev 12:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

        And if you don't like NPOV and Factual accuracy, feel free to
move on to a blog ;) Seriously tho, you can't claim to express
individualist anarchist thought as some sort of homgeneous commodity,
anarchism is necessarilly diverse. If you have a leg to stand on, cite
it. Lets hear your sources. Otherwise I'll continue to think of you as
a 'means of production' of hot air ;). Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam
Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

            This is as inane as arguing that you can't make any claims
about anarcho-capitalism on this page or libertarian socialism on its
page. Individualist anarchists have a tradition, they have their own
page too if you want to see it, and the evidence that they (tucker,
spooner, stirner) oppose property entitlement and thus rent is RIGHT
IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES on the very pages of the individuals in question
right here on wikipedia. Not only is not my job to educate you when
you go off editing subjects you don't have the knowledge required to
even understand properly, but you have more than once demonstrated
your willful ignorance of the subject matter and your insincerity in
editing these articles, so I'm not going to waste a single moment
supplying evidence for undoing edits that you supply -no- evidence for
having made in the first place. Kev 13:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

                Your refual to supply references is noted. [[User:Sam
Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

                    You are the one asserting that individualist
anarchists do not oppose rent, yet I am the one who must provide
evidence? Back where I come from we have this funny tradition whereby
the person making the claim is required to provide the evidence, but
apparently you think my refusal to do your work for you will provide a
convienent cover for the fact that you have provided no evidence
yourself. Kev 13:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

                        My claim is that indivualists are diverse, and
that you might do better to cite a particular individual than a broad
spectrum. I have no interest in your head games. Please go have a cup
of tea. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:02, 7 Dec
2004 (UTC)

                            Great! Then please provide evidence for
this claim. How about a single anarchist individualist that advocates
property as entitlement a la the anarcho-capitalists rather than
property as possession a la Proudhon. This should be very easy
evidence for you to provide, yes? Kev 14:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

                                Have you considered writing a
Wikipedia article on possession (anarchism), to help others better
understand the disctinction above? - Nat Krause 05:05, 9 Dec 2004


"Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of
anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists repudiate all forms of state control —
including taxation, coercive regulation, aggressive war, and coercive
monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential
individual rights. They reject these forms of coercive control whether
they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they
oppose them on the grounds that they are violations of rights, not
necessarily because they are committed by governments."

The last sentence is not really good. Some ancaps are pure economists.
They would be thieves as it would be their prefered profession. So it
is too pathetic to say: "They reject these forms of coercive control
... by private agents." All they love is their economic view. Or they
think private coercive control is better than government, because of
economic advantages and responsibility. And I think so because I don't
make moral claims to top reality.
Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link
suggestions for the Anarcho-capitalism article, and they have been
placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on
this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add
{{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anarcho-capitalism}} to this page. —
LinkBot 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
67.166. / Spencer

Please tell me why Spencer is not an individualist in his essay "The
Right to Ignore the State"

And before is written: "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, ..." ?!?!

--Alfrem 18:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    There is no evidence in this article that it is specifically an
individualist anarchist one.

        What shall mean that? It is by definition an individualist
anarchist one. (right to ignore or withdraw from it) What do you need
more? Must Spencer claim before: "Heh guys, I am individualist now
when I write this!" --Alfrem 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

            Declaring the right to ignore or withdraw from the state
does not an individualist anarchist make. If it did, then all
anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, primitivists, and egoists
would necessarily be anarcho-individualists. Being an
anarcho-individualist means more than simply being against the state,
and even more than being against the state because one has a right to
withdraw from it. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    It is certainly anti-state, that much is clear. But its relation
to individualist anarchism cannot be determined if we only view this
one article without relying on his other works (as you seem to be
implying we should).

        That is irrelevant because Spencer is not the topic but
individualsist anarchsim is it. You disturb yourself at the person of
"Mr. Spencer" and not to the point.

            Yes, individualist anarchism is the topic, and the source
is neither an individualist anarchist nor necessarily giving
individualist anarchist arguments, which makes the source you are
giving only tangetially relevant to the topic. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005

    In itself, this article gives no evidence on Spencer's position in
regards to possession, wage, or usury. Taken together with his
collected works, there is good reason to believe that Spencer was not
himself an individualist anarchist, and thus that the arguments given
in this essay are not appropriately labeled "individualist anarchist"
when they do not present themselves as such explicitly.

        Yes, that is possible. One can deliberate about it. But that
doesn't change anything that Spencer's topic must be an individualist
one. I can't help it that just Spencer ist the author. That is not the
mistake which you may revert.

    It is, futhermore, rather important that Spencer was more than
just an individualist anarchist "in [this] essay" if we are to make
valid this example as part of general "individualist critiques of the
State". Kev 07:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

        No. That is only important on Herbert Spencer and the point
here is not "individualist" but "individualistic". --Alfrem 23:26, 24
Jan 2005 (UTC)

            Um, no. The passage is specifically trying to state that
anarcho-capitalism is drawing from anarcho-individualist sources. In
order to do that you have to actually list anarcho-individualist
sources that it has drawn from, not sources which may or may not be
anarcho-individualist, not sources which are merely anti-state, not
sources which are merely generally individualistic, but sources which
are specifically anarcho-individualist. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


In the Libertarian Socialism article, Sam Spade led a laughably biased
crusade to get the article trashed or severely edited, claiming that
the term was a contradiction, citing the modern right-wing American
definition of libertarianism.

The vast majority of anarchists consider anarcho-capitalism to be a
contradiction, as anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. While I'm
not suggesting or implying that the article be scrapped/overhauled, as
such a proposition is as stupid and juvenile here as it was in the
Libsoc article, would anyone be willing to write a section stating
that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, the black sheep of the anarchist
tradition, at worst, simply the American right-wing form of
libertarianism in disguise, and that most anarchists do not consider
such anarchists to be anarchists at all? ~ Bloodsorr0w, Jan 23, 2005

The Sam Spade crusade was like a year ago. Why are you bringing it up
now? Anyway, this article currently states: "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 most anarchists, who believe that capitalist economic
relations constitute a form of social domination, and thus contradict
the fundamental anarchist belief in freedom." That seems entirely
sufficient. - Nat Krause 20:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

            The Sam Spade crusade continues today. He has simply
shifted gears from completely wiping out all information on anarchism
to portraying it as only being correctly viewed when it is considered
chaos and rioting in the streets. He has even said as much on the
anarchism discussion page. Kev 17:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

                Heh, well, yeah, I guess that's a different crusade. -
Nat Krause 00:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list