grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:18:42 PDT 2022

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.


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.)


    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 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 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

                    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
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. 23:20, 16 Feb 2005

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 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'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

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

                                    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 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" 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'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 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)


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)

"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'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)


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)


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

            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

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)

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, a self-described anarcho-capitalist, refers
to mutualism as a form of free market anarchism. Its why the
mutualists at 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?, 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: ( 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

                        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

                                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)


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)


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

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

        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

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

—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. 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 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 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

                                Re: "double standard:" Good point. I
wasn't thinking. I'm sorry. I feel dumb now. Dave 07:58, Mar 25, 2005
                                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)

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list