Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 9
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Anarcho-capitalism
Jump to navigation Jump to search
	This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents
of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old
one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 2005
and May 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.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive10. Thank
you. Saswann 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents

    1 Origin of the term anarcho-capitalism
    2 Individualist Anarchism and Capitalist Anarchism
    3 Criticism Section
    4 Definition
        4.1 Historical root of the term
        4.2 Kev: I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with
"market anarchism".
        4.3 Def. Revisited
            4.3.1 Improvement or not
    5 First sentence
    6 WTF?
    7 leftist anarchist versus anarcho-capitalist dispute in the Intro
    8 On determining which arguments are ludicrous and which are not =
    9 Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage
    10 Left anarchism
    11 Individual anarchists - private property - Kev deleting
    12 Article needs section on Individualist Anarchism influence on
the origin of Ancap
    13 Passage re-added
    14 Defense agencies and monopoly
    15 individualist anarchism and wage labor
    16 Not accurate or neutral
    17 Contemporary individualists

Origin of the term anarcho-capitalism

Considering the term was not used before 1950 or so, shouldn't a
section or statement be added by who coined the term and when? Then
any peculiarities of the person's meaning for the term could be stated
as well. Was Murray Rothbard the father of the term? Just a guess.
Someone else can research, please. Carltonh 17:22, 5 May 2005
(UTC)[reply]

Murray Rothbard obliquely claimed credit for inventing the term
"anarcho-capitalist" in the July 1988 edition of Liberty (page 53) in
an article titled What’s Wrong with Liberty Poll; or, How I Became a
Libertarian.

I've been unable to lay hands on the issue of Liberty but the relevant
portion is quoted in this periodical from the Mises Institute: The
Anarcho Capitalist Poltical Theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its
Historical and Intellectual Context(check out page 8 and footnote 38)

Quoting the above linked article, which itself quotes the article in Liberty:

    Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the
course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised
that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all
fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, “my
whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical
possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the
question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the
irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I
would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."

It seems likely that the terms "anarcho-capitalist" and
"anarcho-capitalism" evolved simultaneously.

On the other hand in this interview Samuel Konkin seems to believe the
term was invented much later by one Jarrett Wollstein.

    In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe
Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term
back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists

I think Rothbard has the better claim.--Matt Apple 00:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Individualist Anarchism and Capitalist Anarchism

I have put Wendy McElroy on the page a couple of times only have to it
taken down. I believe the objection is that it is self-advertising (it
couldn't be objected that it is factually incorrect), so I should
clarify that I am Randall McElroy and no relation to Wendy. If I
wanted to self-advertise I'd talk about Catallarchy. (I get asked
about this at conferences all the time, so I understand the
confusion.) This being the case, please tell me here what other
objection there could be. If there is none, I'll put that part back.

    Yep, that is why I asked who you were when you first started
editing. Anyway, I don't think McElroy is significant enough to list
on the page, but if she is going to be listed it definitely should not
be as an individualist anarchist. First, if she is really an
individualist anarchist, why are we listing her on the
anarcho-capitalist page at all? Second, though she considers herself
an individualist anarchist, she said some time ago that if the
individualists of the past were alive today they would all be
anarcho-capitalits. In other words, by her own logic, she is an
anarcho-capitalist. That she considers this compatible with
individualist anarchism is a side point really, since she would be
recognised first and foremost as an anarcho-capitalist both by the
anarchist individualists of today and by the anarchists collectivists.
Kev 09:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Kev, it's only a side issue to you because you apparently don't
consider anarcho-capitalism a subset of individualist anarchism.
That's exactly how the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists see
themselves, though -- as the culmination and most rigorous iteration
of individualist anarchism. Now, both you and those who disagree with
you have the right to see things through their own ideological prism.
Presumably, with regard to editorial calls about the page on
anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-capitalists ought to generally have their
say on the matter.
Criticism Section

Many elements of the "criticism" section are good, but they need to be
reworked. I think I'm going to start moving some of it to the
libertarianism article (as discussed above with some other sections)
if no one objects because they apply more broadly than just to
anarcho-capitalists Dave 19:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

    Right, because there is no reason to critic libertarianism again
in an anarchy article. --Alfrem 17:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition

I have an important point.

The Article tells us at first:

    Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarian political philosophy
which calls for a society without state government, and a form of free
market where private property exists (see capitalism).
Anarcho-capitalists favor voluntary relationships, which they see as
including property rights, rather than involuntary political
relationships, such as the territorial monopoly of states. The
difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is
largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to
reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike
anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions
that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the
military. -- version from 2005-04-08

I think this is a misleading description by factoid.
Anarcho-capitalism is an other word for Market-Anarchism. (It had come
up as a new word in approx. 1960. Not clear from whom for what.)
Market-Anarchists wish a free order for themselfs. But that doesn't
mean a pure libertarian system. Of course Market-Anarchists favor
Libertarianism as philosophy but this is no presupposition or result
for a free order in anarchy. In anarchy would also come into being
that some groups or individuals make their moral claims by violence
since they could enforce it. And this is for ancaps ok because it is a
result of competition of forces.

Opposite views? --Alfrem 17:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    I agree with your basic point. However, I disagree that
anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism". First, the
referance to anarcho-capitalists as "market anarchists" is a
relatively recent phenomena, in comparison with the use of the term by
other ideologies. Individualists anarchists and mutualists were and
are market anarchists, they described a free market in their time and
are today described at times as market anarchists both by traditional
anarchists and by anarcho-capitalists. The free market system they
advocated rejected several institutions essential to capitalism as
antithetical to the free market, so their "market anarchism" was not
one and the same as the capitalist "market anarchism". If
anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all (and there is
controversy over this point alone), then it is a subset of market
anarchism, not the same thing as market anarchism. And I think the
origin of the word anarcho-capitalism is pretty obviously from Murray
Rothbard, at least I've never seen a cited source of a previous use of
the term. Kev 20:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

        Good critic. But I have new questions. Maybe I dent my head on terms.

Historical root of the term

        First to the root of "anarcho-capitalism": On anti-state.com
someone wrote: "Now if anyone knows who invented the term
"Anarcho-Capitalism" I would like to know. I've found a footnote where
Rothbard obliquely takes credit for it and I've found an interview of
SEK3 where he claims some other guy I've never heard of coined the
term. Both agree that it was coined in the late 50's or early 60's."
[1]
        --Alfrem 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

            And here is an other evidence from [2]

            "As John Kelley writes, Rothbard became an
anarcho-libertarian immediately after he began to attend von Mises s
seminars in 194934. Von Mises was not an anarcho-capitalist, indeed he
was convinced that the anarchists were basically ingenuous and that it
was necessary to have a monopoly over the exercise of force there will
always be individuals and groups of individuals whose intellect is so
limited that they are unable to understand the benefits of social
co-operation.35 But after von Mises had demonstrated that
laissez-faire policy leads to peace and higher standards of living for
all, while statism leads to conflict and lower living standards ,36
according to Rothbard, defence and enforcement could be supplied, like
all other services, by the free market 37. Rothbard himself relates
that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with
some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to
support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in
favour of a State police force, "my whole position was inconsistent
[...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or
anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a
socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the
case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an
anarcho-capitalist" 38.
            Rothbard developed his anarcho-capitalist theory during
the 1960s when American politics increasingly concentrated on the
increase in welfare and defence spending" [3]
            --Alfrem 11:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kev: I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism".

            In fact it is not clear to most users on anti-state.com
that there should be a difference between this terms. If you are right
anyhow and anarcho-capitalism is a subset of market anarchism then the
most content in this article must move to market anarchism. And here
in anarcho-capitalism is only needful to explain the additions of
anarcho-capitalism against market anarchism. --Alfrem 11:30, 8 Apr
2005 (UTC)

    I said "if anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism," and I
certainly don't think wikipedia is the place to make that
determination. Anyway, since when does anti-state.com get to erase
history and decide the meaning of words for people whose ideology they
openly revile? Kev 22:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Def. Revisited

Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarian

    This is not essantial. Maybe the most thinkers argue so in their
theory, but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian
meta-philosophy. It is no branch. Ancaps prefer merely the libertarian
view for their norm system.

political philosophy

    anti-political

which calls for a society without state government,

    not essaintial, too. Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or
"right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They
dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want
freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all.

and a form of free market where private property exists (see capitalism).

    This is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver
also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps
want. Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must
get defined. A government could do this in same way, and the ancap
would say: "well, that's what I need, fine work". This is rather
improbable. But the point is that ancaps reject the
one-side-decision-finding and not necessarily the result. Ancaps want
consent to get property norms. And these norms are not always unique.

Anarcho-capitalists favor voluntary relationships, which they see as
including property rights, rather than involuntary political
relationships, such as the territorial monopoly of states.

    force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than.

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is
largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to
reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike
anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions
that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the
military.

    ok --Alfrem 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I want to change the defintion:

Anarcho-capitalism or Market Anarchism is an anti-political attitude
("movement" would be overdone) of people who reject government. They
consider state as not better than a compelled service like a monopoly
of shoes. Anarcho-Capitalists respect that other people want a state
but they refuse by moral and econonic reasons that they have to take
part in state only due to this public demand.

Anarcho-capitalists often prefer arguments of the libertarian meta
philosophy and Austrian School.

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is
largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to
reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike
anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions
that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the
military.

--Alfrem 15:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I've already explained, many times, why the "or market anarchism"
bit isn't going to fly. Anarcho-capitalism is not synonymous with the
free market or with market anarchism, no matter how many
anarcho-capitalists want to change reality to make it so. Further,
"people who reject government" is imprecise, it implies that
anarcho-capitalists reject government in all forms, when in fact they
reject specifically the state. The rest is fine, though your referance
to a monopoly of shoes sure sounds odd. Kev 22:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            I agree that market anarchism is a little misleading
because the classic understanding comes from some other people.
Therefore it shouldn't mentioned in this first section. Anyway it is
fact that it is in plenty use of ancaps to describe what they mean and
this is a valid additional term today. OK? --Alfrem 10:23, 11 Apr 2005
(UTC)
            "monopoly of shoes sure sounds odd" is true. We should
this put on hold because it is only wording. --Alfrem 10:59, 11 Apr
2005 (UTC)

Improvement or not

Alfrem, I'm afraid I have some qualms about your proposed definition.
Let's address the points 1 by 1. You say, "but there are also Ancaps
who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy." Can you give an
example of what you're thinking of? It seems to me that all ancap
thinkers I am aware of are libertarians of some sort, whether
moralists, consequentialists, Randian egoists, or Stirneroid egoists.
You say its "anti-political", which is true, but it seems to me that a
"political philosophy" is a philosophy about politics, not necessarily
in favor of it, and it's clearer to describe it as such. You say
opposing the state is inessential "Most ancaps argue in "dont threat
on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without
me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism.
They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all." It
seems to me that opposing the state is the sine qua non of AC. If you
are really looking only for freedom for yourself, then you are not
really a political philosopher, just a rebel (which is not a bad
thing). Any group of people without a state is a stateless society.
You write: "[a form of free market where private property exists] is
inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also
capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want." I
would say that the above is a necessary but not sufficient condition;
a limited government could provide it, but AC by definition requires
both "a form of free market where private property exists" and
statelessness. You continue "Furthermore the case of "property" is not
so easy. Property must get defined." Yes, but not in the intro,
please. Lastly, you comment, "force monopoly is a ko-criteria for
ancaps, they dont favor rather than," and I'm afraid I don't know what
that means. Therefore, I cannot see your proposed new def as an
improvement. - Nat Krause 09:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, at first you criticize my arguments, and not my new defintion.
Therefore I make it short.

    You say, "but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian
meta-philosophy." Can you give an example of what you're thinking of?
It seems to me that all ancap thinkers I am aware of are libertarians
of some sort, whether moralists, consequentialists, Randian egoists,
or Stirneroid egoists.

    Not all are libertarians. It is a point of view who you want to
consider as "libertarian". David Friedman for example don't call
himself as libertarian. He likes this philosphy, but that doesn't
mean, that one must pigeonhole evrybody. Also Friedman is no Austrian.
He is a purely economist. Also you find on anti-state.com people which
speak from the Non-Aggression-Principle as a doctrin of
hard-core-libertarians. Further it is thoughtable that you are a very
good bank-robbery and think that anarchy delivers a good economy also
for bank robberies. Also in Stirner is no hint that he deny basically
crime. And I do also because I know that libertarainism is only an
ideal theory and nothing what can be copied to reality.

    You say its "anti-political", which is true, but it seems to me
that a "political philosophy" is a philosophy about politics, not
necessarily in favor of it, and it's clearer to describe it as such.

    I am not clear what you mean as "political". It is a point of view
again. Of course, there is a lot of ideology critic and there it deal
with politic. But what is political? It means for me to do so in
public affairs. Even Rothbard did it sometimes. But most ancaps
disavow things like Libertarian Party and Freestate Project.

    You say opposing the state is inessential "Most ancaps argue in
"dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the
state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or
"society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why,
and that's all." It seems to me that opposing the state is the sine
qua non of AC. If you are really looking only for freedom for
yourself, then you are not really a political philosopher, just a
rebel (which is not a bad thing).

    Again, what is political? Is reading Rothbard's books political?
Is thinking about political? I don't think so. Of course ancaps have
minds and this minds come to public. But who is political? Ancaps
reject state for themself. Statists demand state for all. This problem
is not resolvable. Ancaps know that. Statists know what would be the
consequence of ancapism and ignore it. So "opposing the state" is
point of view. "opposing anarchy" would be the same.

    Any group of people without a state is a stateless society. You
write: "[a form of free market where private property exists] is
inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also
capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want." I
would say that the above is a necessary but not sufficient condition;
a limited government could provide it, but AC by definition requires
both "a form of free market where private property exists" and
statelessness. You continue "Furthermore the case of "property" is not
so easy. Property must get defined." Yes, but not in the intro,
please.

    What is a "form of free market"? What is "property"? You use
popular terms with unclear contents to muddle up cause and effect.
Stateless society means there is no potent force monopoly. What then
comes up is called free market and what there comes up is called
property norms and people define property or reject it so long as they
want it.

    Lastly, you comment, "force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps,
they dont favor rather than," and I'm afraid I don't know what that
means. Therefore, I cannot see your proposed new def as an
improvement. - Nat Krause 09:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    with my remarks above it should be a little clearer. Sorry for my
bad English. --Alfrem 12:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

I've now reverted two different editors' versions of the first
sentence today, so I feel an explaination is warranted. In the first
case, Nat's version implied that anarcho-capitalists reject all forms
of government, and that they accepted "the" free market as if there is
only one conception of what a free market is. I repaired both of these
errors only to find myself reverted because, according to Nat, the
first sentence is not the place to explain this. I reverted it back
due to the fact that no explaination was occurring, rather I was
simply leaving the language open for the possibility of such an
explaination, given that in Nat's version any such explaination was
already ruled out.

This, my first revert, was then changed by RJ. He left the government
part alone but tied in the affirmation of property to the free market,
which I think unnecessarily clouds the issue, and then also inserted
the description of AC affirmation of the free market as the "common"
one. This attribution of the "common" use of the term free market is
nothing more than an attempt to load the sentence toward the bias that
the market prefered by capitalists is in fact free. As such, I
reverted for the second time back to my original change of Nat's edit.
Kev 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Can you explain what this other kind of "free market" is, which
the normal conception seems to differ from? RJII 02:52, 5 Apr 2005
(UTC)

        No, because your idea of the "normal" conception of a free
market is not in fact the "normal" conception of a free market, but
rather a particular conception based on your own ideology. There are a
number of different variations on market economics commonly refered to
as "free markets" and your attempt to conflate them all into one and
call it "common" while drawing a false comparison to a single other
conception by calling it "obscure" isn't helping anything. Indeed, I
doubt I can explain much of anything to you RJ, your POV warrior
attitude would block any attempt. Kev 04:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Wow, what an attitude. Given your defensiveness I suspect
you aren't able to answer the question. If you want the sentence to
distinguish the free market that anarcho-capitalists believe in from
others, then you should be able to explain what other conception of a
free market there is. Otherwise, the rest of us are left to wonder
just what the hell your point is. RJII 04:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                The problem with saying "state government" out of
context is that it will lead readers in the US and those familiar with
US politics to believe that anarcho-capitalism is focused on
abolishing those things we have instead of provinces. As for the free
market, I'm not sure what Kev has in mind as far as free markets which
have property but which are opposed by A-Cs. - Nat Krause 04:59, 5 Apr
2005 (UTC)

                    Well saying that anarcho-capitalists oppose the
state could also lead to such confusion, yet the article says that in
several places. Maybe a section should be created to clear up any
confusion between "the state" as a form of government and "states" as
a mode of government. I will try to think of another wording to
account for this possible confusion. As to ideologies that believe in
the free market and property but are opposed by A-Cs, that would be
the vast majority of modern day capitalists, who consider forms of
monopoly allowed by AC to interfere with the proper functioning of the
"free market". They believe that the "free market" requires government
intervention at some level, because a "free market" requires "free
competition" and they define such to not include forms of monopoly
that ACs do include. The attempt by some AC sympathizers to redefine
the "free market" as the absence of state intervention is insincere,
and it flies in the face of how the term is defined and how it is used
not only by state capitalists, but even by many minarchist
libertarians who believe that certain state interferance allows a
"free market" to exist in the first place. Kev 05:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                        What does "free competition" mean? It means
freedom to compete, doesn't it? A monopoly is defined as a situation
where one firm is the only provider of a particular kind of good or
service. Just the fact that this state of affairs exists doesn't mean
that the freedom to compete is not there. It could just be that no one
has gotten around to offer a competing product yet. That's why there
is a term called "coercive monopoly" which is one that is prohibiting
other firms from competing by using coercion, either on its own or
though government action. Both anarcho-capitalists and minarchist
libertarians are against anti-trust. They don't believe government
should interfere with monopolies unless they engage in coercion (
physical force, the threat of it, or fraud) to prevent others from
competing. There is no difference in their conception of a free
market. A free market is one where no coercion exists. RJII 05:38, 5
Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                I'm not here to argue the point with
you RJ. The fact that there are other conceptions of the free market
remains regardless of your view of the merit of the position. The fact
that some libertarians argue that a market with a monopoly is not a
freely functioning market is not changed by the fact that you
disagree. Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                    I don't know of any libertarians
who have a problem with monopolies unless they're coercive monopolies.
Libertarians like free market monopolies. RJII 16:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                        Heh, then you obviously don't
know very many libertarians. Oh well, are you ever going to actually
educate yourself on these subjects RJ, or do you just enjoy torturing
others by spewing out ignorant statements like this? I know! Why don't
you try reading this article to see if no libertarians have a problem
with so-called "non-coercive" monopolies. Kev 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                            I'm afraid I really don't understand Kev's
critique here. The article states that A-Cs are against the state and
for free-markets-with-property. Certainly, there are lots of people
who only believe in one but not the other, and those people are not
A-Cs. - Nat Krause 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                My only concern is that it be clear
that "free market" is not necessarily a market with property, and that
the "free market" embraced by capitalism is not "the" free market but
"a" free market. What is so hard to understand about this basic NPOV?
Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                            My version of the intro says that the A-Cs
support property and the free market. It does not say that one
requires the other, and, in fact, it would be redundant if it did.
"The free market" is the normal phrase when talking about a general
system; "a free market" is okay, but accomplishes no other purpose
than to make the sentence less euphonious. Incidentally, the claim
that capitalism is not "the" free market is itself a POV. - Nat Krause
11:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                Well it does have one slight result
other than making the sentence less "euphonious", it also makes it
NPOV. You know, if you care about little things like that. And yes
Nat, the claim that capitalism is not the free market is a POV, which
is precisely why I have included no such claim in the article, even
while the language you have used implicitly includes a claim that
anarcho-capitalists do support "the" free market. Kev 18:02, 5 Apr
2005 (UTC)

                            In my opinion, "the free market" and "a
free market" are synonyms. The only difference is that the former is
what is usually used in this sort of context. - Nat Krause 05:09, 6
Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you buy and sell in a free market if there is no private
property? It doesn't make sense. What are you talking about? Without
trade there is no market.RJII 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not here to educate you RJ. I've already refered you to all
the sources you need to educate yourself properly on this subject. I
did so in this very talk page, with direct links to online books you
can actually *shudder* read to inform yourself on this topic. That you
are asking this kind of question months later can only indicate that
you have decided to continue to edit articles on the subject of
anarchism while knowing next to about it. Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

        Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. It looks
to me like you just don't know. RJII 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Yeah, that must be it. I mean, not like I ever gave you
any links to Proudhon or Tucker. Not like Proudhon ever made explicit
the difference between property and possession and why one was
coercive while the other was not. No, nothing like that, after all, RJ
is knowledgable on anarchism, right? So, are you ready to admit that
you are nothing more than a troll? Kev 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                That's what I thought. You can't offer a simple
explanation of what this alleged other conception of "free market"
there is. RJII 19:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                    Don't you remember how you had to eat your words
the last time you said that? Kev 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                        No, I don't. Refresh my memory ..that is, if
it's relevant to "free market." RJII 02:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                            Okay, let me put it in economic terms. My
explaining all of this to you, that is an investment for me. Now,
whether or not that investment is worth the opportunity costs
associated with it depends on the outcome. What do I get out of taking
my time to explain the fundamentals of anarchism to you one by one?
Certainly it won't be that you will stop making bad edits, nor that
you will stop making biased edits, so what is the positive outcome
that will make this worth my while? Kev 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                You'll give me more things to dispute.
But, all I'm asking for is what other kind of free market there is.
You're stalling. Go do your research then get back with an
explanation. RJII 02:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                    My research? lol, if you question
my knowledge of the subject matter you need only look at the archive
of this very talk page, where I have already laid out in full
explaination for more than one person the answer to the exact question
you are asking, and yet you said that -I- need to do research? You are
no longer worth my time troll, I will simply revert you whenever I
feel there is a need. Kev 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                        It's more evident than ever
that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. I
have no problem explaining basic concepts. All you can do is dodge and
stall on this issue. RJII 03:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


WTF?

"anarchism (dismabiguation)." does not exist. What the fuck is
"dismabiguation"? Deleted. - Virgin Molotov Cocktail
leftist anarchist versus anarcho-capitalist dispute in the Intro

Why is there a second paragraph in the intro that just consists of
arguing about whether anarcho-capitalists are true anarchists? Why is
that even there? Shouldn't that be somewhere in the body of the
article in a criticism section? RJII 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Nah, I think it belongs there. We might want to rephrase it, but
it's important to differentiate ancap from leftist anarchism from the
outset. Philwelch 02:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

        I'd like to see it moved. It's a long rambling paragraph that
sounds like two kids arguing over who is the real anarchist and who is
the poseur. That kind of thing doesn't belong in the intro of an
encyclopedia article. RJII 03:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The answers to following questions seem to be variable based upon one's POV:

    Are anarcho-capitalists anarchist?
    Are anarcho-socialists anarchist?

As such, I think pseudo-factual references to any individuals or
groups as "anarchist" should be replaced with more specific references
to which of the varying opposed schools of anarchism is being talked
about for purposes of NPOV. Philwelch 03:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing is, this opposition to anarcho-capitalists calling
themselves anarchists is coming from the "true anarchists" who are
supposed to be against people imposing themselves on others. It seems
to me that real anarchists would allow an anarcho-capitalist article
to say that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. Sounds "hierarchical"
to me. Just a thought. RJII 04:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See, it's that messed up definition of anarchism that gets us here in
the first place. You don't think the Spanish anarchists were imposing
when they blew up the churches? Or when they took the factories?--
Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

    Phil, in regard to your statement above, my opinion is that
anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists are both anarchist, but in
different senses of the word "anarchist". That's why the solution is
disambiguation. However, this is just another POV. You're right that
it would be ideal to use more specific terms when there might be
confusion. - Nat Krause 05:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

        A disambiguation thing might be good. RJII 05:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Disambiguation in this case is simply catering to a
minority fringe that seeks to subvert anarchism. But be that as it
may, if disambiguation is to occur it will at least not be in the form
selected specifically by ancaps to put their philosophy in the best
possible light while minimizing the overwhelming roll of those who
actually challenge authority rather than simply prefering one form
over another. Kev 07:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                I think this article is written in a pretty NPOV way.
If you think this article puts anarcho-capitalism in "the best
possible light" maybe it's just that you find the philosophy
attractive. Maybe you think that exposing it in full is going to turn
up something ugly or sinister that's just not there. RJII 16:36, 8 Apr
2005 (UTC)

                    There will be no more pandering,
anarcho-capitalism and "left anarchism" are not equally legitimate as
anarchist ideologies unless you ignore historical facts. The reality
is, all the original anarchists were anti-capitalist. All the
historical anarchist successes and movements have been
anti-capitalist. It is just straight fact that anarchism is
anti-capitalist.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 17:50, Apr 8,
2005 (UTC)

                            Your reasoning is kind of strange. Because
the "original anarchists" were anti-capitalist, it logically follows
that some modern anarchists can't be pro-capitalist? Looks like a
non-sequitur to me. And, that since "historical anarchist" movements
have been anti-capitalists that some modern ones can't be
pro-capitalist? Looks like another non-sequitur. Usage of words
evolves, and it looks to me like usage of the word "anarchism" has
been the process of evolving.. It seems like you're trying to hold on
to a strict historical usage that may no longer hold, or is in the
process of no longer holding. The quest to retain exclusive ownership
of it seems futile to me. Personally, I don't know why
anarcho-capitalists would care one way or the other whether it's
proper to label themselves "anarchists" ..it's just semantics. To me,
the argument doesn't seem significant enough to even discuss in an
encyclopedia entry.

                                Maybe because that isn't his
reasoning, but only a straw-man you've attributed to him? First,
people have been saying "original" anarchist because we already gave
too much ground to anarcho-capitalists by refering to them as
anarchists in the first place, simply because they insisted on the
title. Second, it is not the fact that the original anarchists were
anti-capitalist that makes modern anarchists anti-capitalists, it is
the fact that the original anarchists helped define a movement that
stood for more than just preferance of one form of domination over
others, that stood for freedom for all human beings, and such a
movement cannot be erased in the blink of an eye just because a few
capitalist apologists begin misusing the word in an attempt to co-opt
anarchism. This is not "a quest to retain exclusive ownership", that
is a stupid argument that only a capitalist mentality could even
concieve, how could anyone possibly own a word? This is an attempt to
ensure that the word "anarchism" does not become totally meaningless
by using it to refer to the very ideologies it most blatantly stands
against. It would be just as legitimate as challenging attempts by
individuals to refer to slavery as freedom in the same kind of
Orwellian process that anarcho-capitalists are engaged in on several
front in their attempt to import some small degree of moral legitimacy
to an abhorrent ideology. Kev 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                    You know, anarcho-capitalists
certainly believe that they too "stand for freedom for all human
beings", and many of them find socialism to be an "abhorrent ideology"
that substitutes "one form of domination for another". *Dan* 12:46, 11
Apr 2005 (UTC)

                                        Then it appears to me that
they have two choices. First, they can call themselves something other
than anarchists, since anarchists have always been socialists. Second,
they can decry any domination when it arises in both socialism and
capitalism, rather than prefering one form to the other, as they in
fact do. Kev 13:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) Opps! I forgot a third choice.
Attempt to subvert a pre-existing political movement and redefine its
terms in a crass attempt to co-opt a small part of its message while
at the same time mostly just supporting the status quo. Odd that I
would forget the choice that most anacho-capitalists go with. Kev
13:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of this bickering and re-edits over the usage of the terms
"anarchist" and "anarchism" by both camps are not getting us anywhere,
and it is wasting a great deal of time for all parties involved. Can
we not agree to just call anarcho-capitalists "anarchists", since that
is what they wish to be called, as long as we include a healthy caveat
that anarchists traditionally have not considered themselves such? I
realize that anarchists bridle at the usage of "their" term by the
ancaps, but they must realize that it is a looser definition of the
term and has little to do with the anarchist movement of Proudhon and
Tucker from the 19th century. It has far more to do with the American
tradition of anarchism as espoused by people like Thoreau - in which
anarchism simply means "no government" rather than the more involved
definition with elimination of all hierarchies. I am certain that
classical liberals would be just as irritated at American Leftists
co-opting their term to mean something almost entirely different, but
the fact is that words can have multiple definitions and uses. At
least in this article, can we simply use the terms like "socialist
anarchists" or "traditional anarchists" when referring to the one
kind, and "anarcho-capitalists" or "free market anarchists" to refer
to the other, as long as we keep the anarchist critiques in the
"Critiques" section? Or is this really just too simple of a solution,
that you'd all rather keep editing and re-editing each others' edits
till Judgement Day? Academician 18:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    It is interesting that you cite Thoreau as an example, given that
he was also a contemporary of the 19th century like Proudhon and
Tucker, yet he never called himself an anarchist and did not consider
himself to be one. The reason is fairly simple, anarchism is and has
always meant more than mere anti-statism, until the day that Rothbard
decided it didn't about 50 years ago. The fact that
anarcho-capitalists consider themselves anarchists is fine support for
indicating that they consider themselves anarchists on wikipedia, it
is not sufficient to actually refer to them as anarchists on wikipedia
however, as that would be a violation of NPOV. Anyway, I am personally
happy to refer to one camp as "traditional anarchists" and the other
as "anarcho-capitalists," in fact that is what I've been doing all
along because each is based in fact. However, "socialist anarchist"
and "free-market anarchist" are both unacceptable, for reasons I've
repeated many times on this talk page. Refering to one group as
"socialist anarchists" heavily implies that there is a type of
anarchist that is not socialist, which may or may not be true.
"Free-market anarchist" not only implies that anarcho-capitalists are
the only anarchists who believe in a free market, which is not true,
but also that anarcho-capitalists actually believe in a free market,
which is a point of contention with individualists. Kev 23:18, 9 Apr
2005 (UTC)


        I am aware that Thoreau did not call himself an anarchist.
However - that is how he is referred to in a great deal of published
literature, and he was an influence of many anarchists, of both the
socialist and capitalist varieties, even though he was not a
socialist. And I think you give far too much credit to Rothbard for
the definition of "anarchism" as meaning "anti-government" - in lay
circles, this is what it has meant for a great deal of time. Before I
read anything about either anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, I thought
that "anarchism" simply meant "anti-government" - and, indeed, the
dictionary backs that up (and shouldn't a dictionary definition
usually be a good example of NPOV?). At the very least, the brunt of
the connotation (AND denotation) of the term is the focus on the
abolition of the state; the abolition of capitalism is, at best, a
secondary or tertiary implication. This is why I do not believe it is
so great of a deal that Rothbard and the anarcho-capitalists
"co-opted" the term, and why this whole debate seems so childish to
me. Obviously, there is a type of "anarchist" that is not socialist -
that type where "anarchist" merely indicates "anti-state" or
"anti-authority", and does not consider property a form of authority.
This definition pervades the public consciousness, and it is only
inside the limited circles that traditional anarchists frequent that
it has this other, much more precise definition. As far as most people
- and the dictionary - are concerned, it is NPOV.

        Not that it matters, of course, but I am neither an anarchist
or an anarcho-capitalist - but I've done my homework and find the
arguments on the part of anarchists here more propagandist than
substantial. You do not like that someone else uses "your" term in a
way that you did not authorize, and hence you seek to essentially
exert a claim of intellectual property over them on behalf of the 19th
century anarchis movement. That hardly seems anarchist to me. That
said, I also think that a lot of the anarchi-capitalists' edits have
been unfairly NPOV as well, so at least you are even. But how about
one of you be the bigger persons? Academician 00:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Incidentally, Acamedician, I can't speak for anyone else
on my "side", but I have for some time seen this exclusively as an
issue of different uses of the same word, meaning that I quite agree
with your points. The only question should be how to make the
distinction as clearly and effectively as possible. I believe Kev has
said he agrees with this in principle, although he thinks my past
efforts to disambiguate had a pro-capitalist skew, while I think his
had the opposite problem. Thank you for your attenion, Acamedician. -
Nat Krause 04:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

        You definitely are importing some kind of biased perspective
if you think the dictionary definition you cited backs up the idea
that anarchism is mere anti-state. It says, quite explicitly, that
anarchism rejects -all- forms of government. Prisons, judges,
military, all of these things are forms of government by any standard
conception, yet they are all accepted by one or another
anarcho-capitalist as legitimate. Anarchism decries all forms of
government, not merely the state. The fact that you thought of
anarchism as merely anti-government (and somehow conflate that with
anti-state), means nothing at all to me as far as evidence for common
meaning. You are a single individual, I don't even know how old or how
well read you are, so you certainly are not a case study in and of
yourself. Why is it so obvious that there is a type of anarchist that
is not a socialist, because you say so? If by socialist you mean
"endorsing everything Marx ever said, we love communes a la
Silverback's description of them", then hey, yeah, I agree. But for
Tucker socialist meant little more than "not capitalist", and from
what I can tell there has never been an anarchist that was a
capitalist, in no small part because anti-capitalism is integral to
any basic understanding of anarchism. That you don't recognise this is
not evidence, to me, that anti-capitalism is not integral to
anarchism, only evidence that your understanding of anarchism is
either lacking or biased. Anyway, you go ahead and insist that the
dictionary definition is both NPOV and most common (of course I doubt
you would insist this with all terms, but hey whatever), cause it just
so happens that the dictionary definition doesn't meet your claims. As
for trying to excert some kind of property claim to the word
anarchist, that is a tired, old, and ridiculous argument. That I don't
accept it when someone tells me yes means no or that 1 equals 0 do not
mean that I am trying to "own" the words or even the concepts, it
merely means that I recognise that when we lose common groun in
recognizing that 1 does not equal 0 it soon becomes impossible to
communicate. The anarcho-capitalists will stretch the words related to
anarchism (anarchist, freedom, government, etc) to no end in order to
maintain their claim to the tradition, even going so far as to insist
that when Tucker said he opposed capitalism he "didn't mean the same
thing we mean when we say capitalism" and that when Proudhon asserted
that property was both theft and freedom he was somehow upholding a
propertarian ideal. Unfortunately, I can't just stand by and watch
this twisting of logic, because it happens to be doing real harm to a
philosophy and tradition that is much older and much more meaningful
than anarcho-capitalism ever will be. Kev 09:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Kev, you write "Prisons, judges, military, all of these
things are forms of government by any standard conception," This is an
important point. What leads you to believe this? I suspect that, for
most people, these articles of "government" as you term it, are things
that derive exclusively from the action of the state. It's hard to
believe that most people draw any clear conceptual distinction between
them. Surely you have noticed that, with a lot of people, once you
start trying to explain the benefits of anarchy to them, the first
they worry about is, "But where will all the prisons, judges, and
militaries come from?" I could be wrong, but I suspect that most
people, reading "all forms of government" would think "all forms of
government, like monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc." Thus, the
dictionary definition, depending on how you take the word "government"
can mean two different things, the same as "anarchism" can mean two
different things. Personally (although, as you say, this is highly
anecdotal), long ago before I knew anything about politics, I always
thought "government" meant "state" and "state" meant, well,
"province".

            And by the way, what do you think most people would make
of an anarcho-syndicalist syndicate? - Nat Krause 09:55, 10 Apr 2005
(UTC)

                Nat, again you seem to be speculating a great deal
about what people commonly think of. Nothing wrong with this
speculation, but I don't see any hard evidence anywhere to base claims
made in these articles on. Do people think that judges govern because
they "just happen" to be integrated into institutions of government
today, or because judiciary in itself is a form of government? I don't
really know, and you can I can speculate, but I don't think you know
either, and at some point all we are doing is splitting hairs and
talking semantics. It is hard to deny that a judiciary is considered
by most people to be a governing insitution, I think we both agree on
that, but I'm sure if we try hard enough we can come up with some
element of one definition or other than is easier to deny. Like, for
example, to deny that most people think "all forms of government"
means literally what it says rather than "all modes of government" or
"all types of government representation". That one is easier to deny,
because it is harder to know, I frankly have not the first clue what
most people interpret that as, and again, I doubt you do either.
However, all of this is a tangent, my only point here is not to make
some call to universal knowledge and indicate that Acamed is wrong and
I'm right, but rather to give some indication that the "oh so obvious"
evidence he is citing is far from obvious indeed. It is not at all
obvious that the dictionary supports the anarcho-capitalist
interpretation of anarchism, anymore than it is obvious (imho) that
dictionaries are a good example of NPOV. Further, the interested third
party and therefore closer to NPOV position he is trying to imply he
holds is no such thing, and I would think this would be obvious enough
that he wouldn't try to claim it. Regardless, we all have POVs, we all
have an axes to grind, and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can
try to come up with language that allows for multiple POVs, which is
the only hope NPOV has on wikipedia.

                As to what people would think of an
anarcho-syndicalist syndicate, I suppose it depends. I have seen a few
functioning examples that I would never imagine would be thought of as
government, whereas I've heard of a few examples that I would
personally say were a form of government themselves. My response to
the latter is simple, they were not anarchist, and their examples are
one of the reasons I've always been wary of syndicalism myself. But
being wary of syndicalism doesn't mean I need to alter the facts and
pretend that anarcho-capitalism is a part of the anarchist tradition
or that socialism is incompatible with anarchism.

                Along these lines, it is the hesitation of most
anarcho-capitalists to admit the same of many insitutions they
champion that makes me wonder if in the end anarchism really means
anything to them at all, if it is anything more than an attempt to
claim moral legitimacy to institutions they know are abhorrent.
Anarchism is an ideal that humans can attempt and fail to attain, that
I will readily accept. Anarchism is an ideal that some can claim to
attempt while actually trying to do something else, that much seems
obvious and unavoidable. But it frankly disgusts me when "anarchism"
becomes nothing more than a slogan used to gloss over the aspects of a
given political/economic system that we don't like to think about.
When it is attached to capitalism, it becomes exactly that, imho, in
the same way that neo-nazi's and state communists try to cover up
their less palatable ideals by latching onto anarchism. Kev 11:48, 10
Apr 2005 (UTC)

For both Kev and NatKrause: Privately funded defensive forces are not
governing anyone but protecting people from being governed by those
who initiate coercion. Now, if these things are funded through
taxation, then that's when they start taking the character of a
government since the act of taxation is coercive. Private defense
forces amount to the same thing as you defending yourself against
another individual that is coercing you --does that make you a
government? Of course not. It's you defending yourself from being
governed. It's the opposite of government. THe essence of government
is that it initiates force. Now if privately-funded courts, and
police, etc stepped over the line and began initiating force then they
would take the character of a government. But, they need not. RJII
14:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On determining which arguments are ludicrous and which are not =

In removing content from this page in the form of an example Aca said
the following: "This is a ludicrous and unworthy straw-man. The
description as-is states the argument sufficiently."

Unforunately, while I can agree that the idea is ludicrous and
unworthy, it is not a straw-man. Not only is the argument that one
could attempt to claim ownership of the air in a particular locale
completely in keeping with the criticism that definitions of property
may be molded in order to justify any kind of claim, but it also has
precedents with several other necessities of life already claimed as
owned by propertarians. What is more, this page lists as an example of
an anarcho-capitalist society the one depicted in the book "The Moon
is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. It just so happens that in
that society, which is described on this very page as
anarcho-capitalist, the oxygen is owned and individuals must pay to
breathe it. Horrible isn't it, all the more so because it is true. As
such, I'm putting the sentence back in, even if you find it hard to
look at. Kev 09:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opps, in the time since I last waded through this entire monster
someone has taken out the literature section and moved it to another
article. Anyway, it is still linked to from this article and still
contains the relevant evidence. Kev 09:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage

Fact: The traditional "anarchist" movement that overwhelmingly claims
the title is an anti-capitalist movement separate from
anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is
anarchist. "Traditional" anarchist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is not
anarchist.

Those are the facts and those are the points of view presented. In
order to preserve NPOV, Wikipedia must not pass judgment on whether
anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. In order to preserve factuality,
Wikipedia must make the factual distinction I noted above. In the
latest versions of the articles anarcho-capitalism and anarchism this
is the case. Since "anarchist" is the best (only) term to describe the
anti-capitalist anarchists ("left-anarchist" would be a neologism and
Wikipedia can't make up neologisms), I now have no problem with
leaving "anarchism" as it is and disambiguating. Similarly,
libertarianism disambiguates between the originally and predominantly
American ideology of "libertarianism" and libertarian socialism. I
offer this as a resolution to the POV dispute of the past few days.

Philwelch 10:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Left anarchism

I noted that "traditional anarchistm" is called "left anarchism" in
the Intro, especially by pro-capitalists. This is a true statement. Do
not delete it. Just noting this to preempt what I think will
inevitably be objected to if I don't. RJII 17:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Individual anarchists - private property - Kev deleting

Spooner believed in private property and business. I put more details
in individualist anarchism. Kev is reverting documented research there
as well. RJII 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    So, out of curiosity, since Spooner was reportedly opposed to wage
labor, how exactly did he operate his businesses such as the American
Letter Mail Company? Did he personally deliver all the letters by
hand, himself, or did he violate his own professed principles by
hiring workers to do it? *Dan* 20:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All individualists believed in business, that doesn't make them
capitalists. Spooner did not believe in private property as
entitlement as capitalists do, he upheld possession, again as all
individualists did. But I will make both of you a deal, you guys
actually do some friggen research for once in your lives and back up
your claims with quotes from Spooner himself, and I will properly put
them in context and demonstrate that none of your supposed evidence
means what you interpret it to mean. Kev 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Nobody is claiming that he was a capitalist or supported
everything about capitalism. I put in quotes from Spooner and other
research in individualist anarchism with you deleted because it
conflicted with your previous understanding of individualist
anarchists. RJII 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

        Spooner's support of the free market is a rejection of
capitalism, not support of aspects of it. The only way to claim that
is to call individualist economics capitalist after the fact, to
define something like say, owning a business, as capitalist even
though the individualists explicitly rejected capitalism while
advocating business ownership. And no RJ, unlike you I've actually
read Tucker, so you have yet to present anything new to my
understanding of individualist anarchists. In fact, you have yet to
present anything I haven't heard from anarcho-capitalists before,
perhaps because you are only using their old recycled arguments. If
you doubt this, please feel free to look at the archives of this very
talk page, or the archives of flag.blackened.net, or the a-list. You
could also check the archives of the ifeminist page and anarchism.net,
except they didn't keep archives. Kev 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

            Again, nobody is calling Spooner a supporter of capitalism
--capitalism is not one idea, it's a combination of conditions. By the
way, this is about Spooner, not Tucker. RJII 21:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            Also, noted Scottish left anarchist Iain MacSaorsa says
that "Spooner's ideas seem to fall somewhere between those of modern
Libertarians and Socialists" and notes Spooners position on private
property. No one is saying Spooner was a capitalist. RJII 22:38, 12
Apr 2005 (UTC)

                I agree that Spooner's ideas fall between
libertarianism and socialism. Ever heard of libertarian socialism? So
long as the text makes very clear Spooner's repeated rejection of
institutions essential to capitalism, I not only have no objection to
expanding on his philosophy (especially on in his own article, rather
than trying to leech legitimacy from him he), but I encourage it. Kev
22:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

                    MacSaorsa is not talking about libertarian
socialism. He's talking about modern capitalist libertarians. RJII
13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article needs section on Individualist Anarchism influence on the
origin of Ancap

This article needs a section on the influence of individualist
anarchism on the development of anarcho-capitalism. Right, now it's
only mentioned in the "conflicts with anarchism" section, from a left
anarchist perspective and is not accurate. RJII 22:10, 12 Apr 2005
(UTC)

    That section used to be in the main article, but was moved to the
criticism section after it was balanced by the individualist anarchist
position. And the current criticism section is mostly accurate,
certainly a lot better than the historical revisionism you are
currently peddling. Kev 22:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Acted on my own advisement and put one in. RJII 21:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passage re-added

The following discussion of terminological differences was deleted by
Che. It has been re-added because there was frankly no discernible
purpose whatsoever in the deletion. Che claims that it is false that
the differences are purely terminological. Of course he's right, but
the passage never claims that the differences are purely
terminological. It's purpose is to clearly delineate where the
differences between contemporary anarcho-capitalists and 19th century
individualist anarchists lie.

    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. Socialist 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 substantive [...]

This is a simple matter of fact about how words are typically used in
two different schools of thought. It's also an important point to
clarify in trying to understand how far "capitalist" a-c's of the 20th
century and "socialist" individualist anarchists of the 19th agree and
wherein they differ. If you have reasons to object to the way that the
two sides of the terminological distinction are set up, feel free to
edit the passage to reflect something more accurate, but simply
deleting it in order to play up the contrast that follows it is
editorially irresponsible. Radgeek 06:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I agree and added some sentences on the terminology of
"socialism." The individualist anarchists did not define it as it is
defined today. It was about wage labor, not collectivism. (at least
for the American anarchists ..i'm not familiar with the Europeans.)
RJII 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Defense agencies and monopoly

The paragraph in this section that begins "Anarcho-capitalist also
seem to think that their society would have little internal violence"
is odd. If it's an ideal ancap society where no one initiates coercion
against anyone else, then there's going to be absolutely no violence.
But, I don't see ancaps thinking this possible. I don't think they
deny human nature and proclivity to violence --that's why they are in
favor of business that protects people from coercion (police, courts,
etc) ..because they recognize human nature. It's not that they think
violence will stop. But, it is in a Criticism section so I suppose
it's ok ..it's just a bit misguided. RJII 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
individualist anarchism and wage labor

Che requested a source. Here's one: [4]
Not accurate or neutral

This article is bloated and wordy, yet doesn't even begin to explain
anarcho-capitalism. There's a link to Noam Chomsky in the first
paragraph (advertising?), but David Friedmen is never mentioned. The
editors don't seem to be particularly interested in the subject.
Mirror Vax 01:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    You're right. It's not a very good article. It's been warred over
on minor points so much that nobody has time to improve the general
content of the article. A lot of people are scared off from having
anything to do with it at all. - Nat Krause 05:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary individualists

The article currently says the following: "The anarcho-capitalist
claim to individualist tradition is rejected by many individualist
anarchists" (present tense) and "Contemporary individualist anarchists
believe that explicit support for capitalism places one outside of the
individualist anarchist tradition." Who exactly are these contemporary
individualist anarchists? Someone like Wendy McElroy would claim that
the contemporary individualists are anarcho-capitalists. - Nat Krause
07:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Wendy McElroy is fringe. She claims that the original
individualists, who all considered themselves anti-capitalists, would
be anarcho-capitalists were they alive today. Which makes here
individualism dubious.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:44,
Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

        Fine, but who are the non-fringe contemporary individualists?
- Nat Krause 03:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)