grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:23:07 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 11
>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 the dates between May 05 and June 05.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive12. Thank
you. Saswann 21:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    1 Individualist Anarchists
    2 Sectionifying the NPOV Tag
    3 Further problem
    4 New Sidebar
    5 "Aggression" vs. "Coercion"
    6 Criticism section
    7 Graph showing different ideologies
    8 source requested for Kev's edit
    9 Asthetics of portraits
    10 A sentence I removed that you can now freak out about
    11 Liberalism
    12 Kev

Individualist Anarchists

"where workers retain the full value of their production"

99.9% of the readers will not know what this means. This needs to be
rephrased or explained.

    I changed it to something about "cost-value", etc. This line was
either unintelligble, or blatant POV, or both. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8
Jun 2005 (UTC)

"These individualists also advocated "free banking" where any
individual or group of individuals would be allowed to lend money for
interest and enter into competition with each other, following a
mutualist model."

I moved this up two paragraphs to the general description of
ind-anarchists. It was in a paragraph contrasting ancaps and indAs,
which made it misleading (since ancaps are also for free banking.)

    This sentence was not merely moved, content was removed from it. A
day ago it read that individualists advocate interest free banking,
now it just reads that they advocate free banking along with
anarcho-capitalists. But the "free banking" that anarcho-capitalists
advocate would not be considered free by most individualists, in no
small part because of the institutions used to enforce the interest
loans being made by AC banks. Kev 02:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        A-C's have no objection to interest-free loans. - Nat Krause
15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            lol, no, but some anarcho-individualists did have
objections to interest-bearing loans. Come on, you must know that is
the point. Are you being purposefully obtuse? Kev 18:30, 8 Jun 2005

                Only a little. The claim that individualist anarchism
opposes interest appears to be inconsistent with my (so-far rather
cursory) examination of Spooner's Poverty, but I will take your word
for it for the time being. However, if the point is that
individualists would prohibit nonzero interest rates, the article
should say that, rather than saying that they supported interest-free
banking, which is also true of ACs. - Nat Krause 10:11, 9 Jun 2005

                    No, because any traditional anarchist worth a
damn, individualist or not, would not "prohibit" interest rates, they
would simply take direct action against any harm they saw done by them
when and if they occured. Does this imply that the ACs agree with the
socialists, because neither is creating a law against free loans? No,
of course not. But one can reject something, indeed oppose it whenever
it arises, without "prohibiting" it or resorting to legal institutions
to enforce a restriction. Most individualists did advocate interest
free banking, most also believed that a certain amount of interest
bearing loans would still exist in the world, this does not put them
in agreement with anarcho-capitalists anymore than my belief that
there will still be sporatic capital based relations in a large-scale
anarchists society means that I endorse or agree with the
anarcho-capitalist dogma that capitalism equals freedom equals
anarchism. Kev 19:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trying to address Kev's point, added: Also, while both philosophies
favor individual private property, anarcho-capitalism expands the
right of private property beyond what individualist anarchists would
have found acceptable. However, a single pithy citation that
illustrates the contrast would be helpful Saswann 12:24, 8 Jun 2005

    Good luck. I would satisfied with a solid Wikipedia article
describing the difference at length. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005

        IMO here's the difference in Lysander-lingo: To
anarcho-socialists, profiting from capital is a crime; to
individualist anarchists, it's a vice; to anarcho-capitalists, it's a
virtue. --Hogeye 00:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added some explanation to this paragraph: "Thus individualist
anarchists opposed titles to unused land, and many opposed the
charging of rent and interest. This core tenet of individualism, which
they shared with collectivist anarchists, that the fruit of a labor
should be under the control of the laborers, was a point of divergence
from anarcho-capitalism. However, unlike the collectivist anarchists,
individualists considered collecting such "usury" to be a vice rather
than a crime; instead of attempting to outlaw or expropriate capital,
the individualists proposed outcompeting established capital with
mutuals. Thus their position on property was neither fully socialist
nor capitalist."

It's beginning to look like the third paragraph in this section might
be moved to the criticism section? Saswann 14:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Allow me to throw some fat on the fire...

Anarchist Schools 	Anarcho-Socialist 	Individualist 	Anarcho-Capitalist
Is land legitimate private property? 	No 	Yes (qualified)

    as long as owner uses it
    it can't be used as collateral.

Are man-made capital goods

legitimate private property?
	No, in most cases. 	Yes 	Yes
Is it immoral to collect profit

from capital and interest?
It's a crime, and

should be expropriated in most circumstances.
It's a vice, but

should not be expropriated.
It's permissable,

and generally a virtue.

--Hogeye 03:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RJ11, I think the stuff you added about IA's and mutual banks is
informative and accurate. However, I'm not so sure it is appropriate
in the ancap article. It seems to me that pointing out the
similarities and differences between IA and ancap is good, but adding
gratuitous descriptions of IA programs (like mutualism) is getting off
the track. Couldn't you skip that stuff and just link to the
Individualist Anarchism article? The user can learn all he wants about
mutualism there. It seems to me that IA is already over-emphasized,
and we'd do better beefing up the Liberalism and Austrian Econ
sections. --Hogeye 04:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put a copy of the Individual Anarchism section in the Anarchism
(anti-state) article. --Hogeye 16:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev, in bullet point one you added, "However, individuals emphasized
that interest should be kept as low as possible, either at cost or
slightly above, to protect the rights of laborers." This is redundent
since the opposition to interest is covered in point 4 about usury.

In point two, you change, "Anarcho-capitalists view all voluntary
contractual arrangements as permissable," to "Anarcho-capitalists do
not view contractual arrangements that allow the employer to profit
from the labor of the employee to be exploitative." In addition to
being wordy and negative, it is redundent. You already point out why
IA's think labor profit is exploitive earlier in the paragraph.

In point three about PDAs, you add, "though they disagree on some
aspects of their jurisdiction." This is esoteric, pretty useless
without explanation. Explanation that would probably belong in another
more appropriate article.

In point four, you add some esoteric stuff about what would happen if
the State suddenly vanished. The usury contrast is already clear
without the philosophizing. (Besides, it seems to me that Tucker
justified any redistribution on past statist monopolies, with an
entitlement theory like the anarcho-capitalists, and quite in contrast
to the socialist schools who are more concerned with end-state
distributions. --Hogeye 22:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I think the point about interest is relevant to the point of free
banking in particular, as it is an area where they diverge. More
importantly, the 4th bullet point rightly states that individualists
"tended" to reject interest (not all of them did), whereas the part
you are challenging informs the reader that all individualists sought
to keep interest as low as possible, and all of them did.

    You can try another wording if you like, one that is shorter and
less redudant than my attempt. I changed it because I find the use of
the words "voluntary" and "permissable" in this context to be a little
heavy handed in the POV direction, so something without those would
work for me.

    Well make up your mind, I can either explain things there or I can
give a brief statement refering to the fact that they differ. What I
can't do is allow the statement of comparison to stand without giving
some indication that they do differ on this point. After all, that is
precisely what this section is about.

    I disagree that this is esoteric, the question of what to do with
vast accumulated capital in the absence of the state seems extremely
relevant to both the article and specifically the comparison between
the two philosophies. It might be true that individualists are not at
all concerned with end-states (though given the quote by Tucker I
supplied on this page I doubt it, in fact I doubt that
anarcho-capitalists are truly unconcerned with end-states despite
occasional claims to the contrary), but it is also true that this is a
big point of departure between an individualist and the
anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists believe that anarchism
exists, by definition, in the absence of the state. This part about
Tucker indicates that this individualist, for one, did not agree that
absence of the state is sufficient for anarchism. How that would not
be highly relevant to the anarcho-capitalist claims to belong to the
individualist tradition, and thus the section detailing the merits of
those claims, I don't know. Kev 06:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sectionifying the NPOV Tag

As far as I have been able to tell, the NPOV issues we've been
discussing are all in the spots where the article mentions other forms
of Anarchisim. I don't think its fair to tar the whole article with
NPOV for an argument centered almost completely on two sections. I was
tempted to label the criticism section too, but it seems the only
argument is that it's too thin. And FWIW, most of the now-missing
content was simply an extension of the "It is like Individualist
Anarchisim"/"No it isn't" debate. Saswann 12:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Through these attempts to remove the "bloat" from the article it
now appears that there is not a single sentence in the entire thing
pointing out that anarcho-capitalism is rejected by all other forms of
anarchism as a misrepresentation of their philosophy. This deserves,
at the very least, a single sentence in the criticism section.
Further, the individualist anarchist section says nothing of the fact
that the anarcho-capitalist claims to belong to the individualists
tradition are controversial. Again, this deserves mention. Kev 07:36,
9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        I agree with this point. Both of those subjects deserve at
least one sentence. - Nat Krause 09:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        Kev, I honestly don't get this. It seems to me the whole
Anarchisim and Capitalisim section, a major peice of the article, is
making this point. Perhaps it's not doing it as strongly as you'd
like-- but if this needs to be stronger, I'd like to hear what kind of
language you'd like to see. (Anyway, that's the section where I think
this point needs to be made) Saswann 14:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- ok, I
added this:

            They also view anarcho-capitalism as a serious
misrepresentation of the core principles of anarchism, and disagree on
definitions as basic as what constitutes a "voluntary" action and what
constitutes "private property."

        To the section, which I think is making your point. Saswann
14:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            It is, that is a satisfactory solution. Kev

I trimmed down the diatribe about Kropotkin's (mis)understanding of
anarchism. Pointing out the disagreement is one thing - going into a
commie screed is another. I put in a link to anarcho-socialism for
people who want more info.

        I untrimmed part of it, the whole quote might have been
overcompensation, but dropping it wholesale was overcompensating for
the overcompensation. The fact that there are points of severe
disagreement between anarcho-capitalism and socialist-anarchists is in
fact one of the major defining elements of anarcho-capitalism-- an
element that is impossible to accurately describe unless there's some
description of what the disagreements actually are. Saswann 18:12, 9
Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further problem

Currently much of the article, in particular the sections on "The
Contractual Society", and "Systems of Justice", stack the deck toward
an anarcho-capitalist conception of human relations by stating on
multiple occasions that they only support voluntary agreements between
individuals. While this is in fact what the anarcho-capitalists
believe, and as such should be mentioned, it is also relevant that
this is a major point of contention between them and several other
philosophies (like traditional anarchism and state socialism). The
need to qualify these statements when they were first made and give a
brief statement concerning their source in AC worldview was not so
important when the criticism section actually dealt with this critique
directly. However, that critique has now been removed (or minimized to
scare quotes), and the article it has been removed to is about as
heavily POV as a thing can get, probably facing VfD soon. As such,
these statements now need to be qualified or that critique needs to be
put back in the criticism section. This is important to NPOV, because
currently the voice of wikipedia is being used to state that
anarcho-capitalists support only voluntary agreements, and such a
statement is not a fact but a POV. Kev 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked in the history for the old section in the critique on 'what
is voluntary', but I couldn't find it. So I added the following to the
Critiques - Moral section:

"Anarcho-capitalists consider a choice or action to be voluntary so
long as there are no human-imposed constraints. Some critics reject
this view, saying that natural constraints on action, such as the need
for food and shelter, should also be considered involuntary."

I also added a sentence about the disagreement among ancaps about IP.
--Hogeye 23:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New Sidebar

Most of the dispute about the POV of this article hinges on very
technical (and in some cases, arbitrary) definitions of terms. The
fact is that Anarcho-capitalists and Socialist anarchists are using
different dictionaries that have particularly nuanced points of view
(the definition of voluntary comes to mind) which means that both
sides, in some cases, are reading a different article with the same
text. With that in mind, I added a sidebar that gives the
anarcho-capitalist definition of terms that might be unclear or
contentious. Saswann 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Good job! I tweaked the defs a little. --Hogeye 19:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Aggression" vs. "Coercion"

Probably we should settle on which term to use, just to keep the
terminolgy consistent throughout the article. I vote for "aggression"
since we are using the term "non-aggression axiom." "Coercion" is
usually more broad than "aggression," and normally means 'use of
force' rather than 'initiation of force.' --Hogeye 20:21, 9 Jun 2005

    I agree coercion is better, and you're right that there can be
initiatory or defensive coercion. Ancaps are not against coercion,
unless it's proactive. RJII 03:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section

Certain individuals continue to change the content of a certain
criticism in the criticism section to make it sound like a different
criticism altogether. The "individual as lowest denominator"
foundational belief of capitalists is not shared by all people, thus
their attitude that their active restriction of natural resources
qualifies as "non-human factors" is considered ridiculous amongst many
political philosophies. The point is that anarcho-capitalists property
relations are not considered voluntary or even defensive amongst many
non-propertarians, but this keeps being changed to an issue of whether
or not non-human factors can make a situation relevantly involuntary.
But non-human factors are not the issue here, as capitalist
propertarians are in fact humans and are in fact engaging in forceful
restriction of necessary resources. Allowing this criticism to remain
on this page should not be a difficult thing to do for anyone who has
any integrity in their belief in AC. I'm not going to continue to
reinsert this criticism everytime it is purposefully altered to
misrepresent it, I will simply reinsert the NPOV dispute tag until
partisans can calm themselves. Kev 19:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    An NPOV tag just gives editors free reign to say whatever they
want. Go ahead. RJII 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Kev, that's a good point. I had assumed the reason for the
'involuntary' claim was the one most people give -natural constraints.
I understand what you are saying (I think) about constraints due to
property relationships. What do you think of the following (which I
added already): "Other critics argue that employment is involuntary
because the unfair distributions of wealth that make it necessary are
supported by private property systems. This is a deeper arguement
relating to distributive justice. These critics appeal to an end-state
theory of justice, while anarcho-capitalists (and propertarians in
general) appeal to an entitlement theory." --Hogeye 21:20, 10 Jun 2005

    "anarcho-capitalists (and propertarians in general) appeal to an
entitlement theory." <- what does that mean? RJII 06:01, 11 Jun 2005

        If you click on the distributive justice link, you'll find
out. But obviously I'd better put a direct link. Thanks. --Hogeye
19:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graph showing different ideologies

I think that the graph with three US political parties should be
removed. It has no relevence outside the USA.

    Are you saying you think the whole graph should be removed, or
just the plots for the three US parties? --Hogeye 04:50, 11 Jun 2005

        well either one. But without some reference to something, it
is not as useful. Thus either it should be removed or be replaced with
something more like this or this (both from This way it is more obvious to an
international audience what is going on.

--AFA 01:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The political compass seems rather obscure about the horizontal axis.
The first one has main labels Left - Right, which is abiguous to me.
Do you mean the for or against the 'ancien regime'? Do you mean
socialist vs capitalist? Do you mean civil liberties vs regulated
morality? The X-axis has secondary labels (Collectivism - Libertarian)
which is really silly because the Y-axis is already labled
"Libertarian." Then they even have a third labeling - Communism vs
Neo-Liberalism, the former too restrictive and the latter too broad.

To me, the label on the other graph "Socialism - Capitalism" narrows
it down to the apparent type of property system - something observable
in legal systems and customary practice. Socialism favors collective
ownership, provided by entities ranging from free communes to
totalitarian States in authority. Capitalism favors private ownership,
provided by entities ranging from competing firms to totalitarian
States. Socialist states prefer nationalization; Capitalist states
prefer regulation and cartelization. No matter how much de facto
control they have, je jure ownership is left in private hands. Of
course, these are the extremes. Real states generally use both
regulation and nationalization in varying degrees.

I took the US political parties off the graph. Besides being
provincial, as you pointed out, it was controversial. Everybody has an
opinion about where parties and current politicians should be plotted.
Adding more would make it even more controversial. Perhaps less
controversial are long-dead guys like Proudhon and Bakunin. --Hogeye
19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Yes I agree that it is controversial if you have different parties
or people on a graph. The reason I suggested the two politicalcompass
ones was to show how many people they had. I am happy with the parties
being removed.--AFA 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Putting Proudhon and Tucker in the center is clearly POV, and all
attempts to label the graph as expressing the anarcho-capitalist POV
have been reverted. Those two either need to be removed, or the graph
has to be labeled as the anarcho-capitalist perspective, or it remains
a POV violation. Kev 04:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Didn't you help with that table which showed the IA position to
be somewhere between socialism and capitalism, disagreeing on some
points with both? See the Anarchist Schools table in this article.
--Hogeye 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Okies, individualism cannot be somewhere between socialism and
capitalism, as some individualists are socialists, so this is a false
dichotomy. It can and does have points of agreement and disagreement
with both, but it is entirely arbitrary to stick it right in the
middle. Some would put it all the way on the socialist side (like
Tucker), some would put most of the way to the capitalist side (like I
suspect McElroy), and others we really don't know one way or the other
(like Spooner). It may be a nice compromise, given all these contrary
positions, to put it in the middle. However, that doesn't make it any
more accurate or correct. IMHO the chart shouldn't even be there, but
if it is going to be there it needs to be labeled as the POV that it

    And no, I'm not going to consider a table you created in an
article you created as evidence in support of your position, that
would be rather circular. I've read that article, it is nothing more
than an attempt to push your own personal POV by cloning a previous
article and reinterpreting it, and really it should be up for speedy
VfD. In fact, you should be the one putting it up for VfD. Kev 21:35,
14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

source requested for Kev's edit

" Later, as the monopoly economy expanded, Tucker argued that vast
concentrations of wealth which arose from monopoly could eventually
sustain usury even in the absence of the state." Kev, please provide a
source. I know you said State Socialism and Anarchism by Tucker, but
could you provide a sentence or at least a paragraph that concurs,
because I don't see that in there. RJII 14:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    SSA.38 Today the way is not so clear. The four monopolies,
unhindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust,
and the trust is now a monster which I fear, even the freest banking,
could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy. As long as the
Standard Oil group controlled only fifty millions of dollars, the
institution of free competition would have crippled it hopelessly; it
needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth. Now that
it controls, directly and indirectly, perhaps ten thousand millions,
it sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer
a necessity. It can do without it. Were all restrictions upon banking
to be removed, concentrated capital could meet successfully the new
situation by setting aside annually for sacrifice a sum that would
remove every competitor from the field. Kev 17:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article say this about individualist anarchists: "They believed
that usury was only made possible by a government-backed monopolies on
banking, currency, and land (protection of unused land)." The quote
does not deny this fact - even in the case cited, usury was originally
made possible by statist monopoly. So the additional information is
gratuitous and overly detailed. Why is the IA section here more
detailed than the IA article? Why is there more about mutualism and
mutual banking here than in the IA article? I think most of the
esoteric garbage here about IA should be moved to the IA article. This
ancap article should just have short comparisons, not a whole
sub-article about IA. --Hogeye 18:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    This information is intimately relevant to the comparisons being
made. And the quote does indeed deny that usury is "only" made
possible by government backed monopolies. It clearly states that in
the absence of government-backed monopolies previously existing
concentrations of wealth would still be able to maintain usury, this
is a big departure from anarcho-capitalism. As to why this isn't
present in the IA article, I'm still working on that. Wikipedia is a
work in progress you know. I agree that the comparisons should be
short, I also believe that they should not be overly simplistic to the
point of misrepresenting the subject they are attempting to
illuminate. Kev 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The four monopolies, unhindered, have made possible the modern
development of the trust." --Hogeye 18:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Yes... Kev 20:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asthetics of portraits

The portraits looks better when the subjects are facing toward the
middle of the page. --Hogeye 18:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A sentence I removed that you can now freak out about

However, anarcho-capitalists do not oppose mutualism and would allow
mutualist businesses to exist, since, like the individualists, they
oppose coercively intervening in contractual arrangements of others.

This is, according to the anarcho-capitalists, true. Then again, it is
also true, according to the anarcho-capitalists, that they do not
oppose any form of economics ostensibly arranged voluntarily between
two parties, be it mutualism or socialism or communism or whateverism.
All of this is already both indicated explicitly and implied in above
sections, it is redundant to the individualist section and only being
used to add another point of agreement, which is not very relevant
given that it isn't a point of departure for any anarchist theory. In
other words, it isn't -specifically- a form of agreement between
individualism and anarcho-capitalism, but rather one of those few
areas in which anarcho-capitalists actually agree with anarchists in
general about something. Kev 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted most of the detail about mutualism. Take it to the IA article, please.

    You are removing relevant content. This part about Tucker is
essential to understanding the differences between anarcho-capitalism
and individualism, as it reveals that the main concern of
individualists is not merely the absence of the state, since Tucker
objected to vast concentrations of wealth even in the absence of the
state. Stop trying to censor this. Kev 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        I think you are referring to the following sentence: "They
depart from Tucker in that they do not believe that vast
concentrations of wealth would need to be removed in order to allow
for the free functioning of the market." This is false. Many/most
anarcho-capitalists believe that concentrations of wealth need to be
"removed." Particularly, government land and the airwaves should be
auctioned off, or otherwise privatized, and past largesse given to
corporate cronies should be remedied and, where possible, returned to
those who got plundered. Now, before you rephrase it will all the
necessary qualifications and such, why don't you consider doing your
esoteric analysis of the IndAnarchists in the correct article. This is
not an article about AIs; it is not an article about the theory of
mutualism; it is an article about anarcho-capitalism. The section is
about how the IndAs influenced anarcho-capitalism. Most of your
comments are right on and quite erudite - but they simply don't belong
in an ancap article. --Hogeye 21:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            If you want to remove the section comparing
anarcho-capitalists to individualist anarchist, then you are correct
that my comments do not belong. However, I think the section is
necessary and so long as the article compares the two, these specific
comparisons are necessary to make that section balanced and accurate.
As for anarcho-capitalists believing that vast concentrations of
wealth do in fact need to be removed, perhaps we just need to be more
clear. I'm under the impression that anarcho-capitalists would -not-
favor non-market redistribution of wealth from companies like standard
oil who at one point or another monopolized the market. Are you saying
that they would favor such non-market measures? If so, it appears that
parts of this article are currently not describing their beliefs
properly, that anarcho-capitalism favors limited expropriation despite
its many claims to the contrary. If not, then this is a point of
divergence between, if not anarcho-capitalists and individualists,
then anarcho-capitalists and some individualists, like Tucker. Kev
21:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                What do you mean by "non-market redistribution of
wealth"? Expropriation of their wealth by force? If so, which
individualist anarchists do you claim advocate this, and when? Tucker,
at the most, gave qualified support for it in 1926 (in the postscript
to "Anarchism and State Socialism"), but that as a regrettable
second-best preliminary, and as reversal of the position that he had
held almost all of his life. Is there anyone else in particular that
you have in mind here? Could you cite some sources? I ask because I'm
not sure what you're referring to, not because I think the position
puts them at odds with the anarcho-capitalists (Rothbard supported
revolutionary land redistribution in Latin America; Karl Hess urged
'the revolutionary treatment of stolen "private" and "public" property
in libertarian, radical, and revolutionary terms', including "Land
ownership and/or usage in a situation of declining state power" and
"Worker, share-owner, community roles or rights in productive
facilities.... What, for example, should happen to General Motors in a
liberated society?" qtd. by Kevin Carson). Other anarcho-capitalists
are more hesitant than Rothbard or Hess were in the 1960s (and Bob
LeFevre rejected the notion entirely, since he was a thoroughgoing
pacifist), but it seems to me on the face of it that this at least as
much a matter of debate among the 20th century anarcho-capitalists as
it was among among 19th century individualists. My impression of the
i-a's is that they were generally actually far more hesitant to
advocate these kind of measures than some a-c's have been. Radgeek
22:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                    Well crap Rad, why don't you put all that in the
article? As for my evidence, it is exactly that postscript you refered
to, that I posted above on this talk page. That it is "a second-best
preliminary" doesn't phase me as concerns its relevance. That it is a
reversal of his earlier position, (actually I would consider it a
modifaction thereof, but whatever), should not phase you. After all,
many people consider anarcho-capitalism itself to be a reversal of
previously held anarchist values, yet the anarcho-capitalists still
maintain claims to the tradition and to the relevancy of the title, so
why should we turn around and say that when (and indeed if) Tucker
reversed his position it suddenly stopped being an individualist one
(especially when we can't say for certain that this position is
essentially an individualist one in the first place). I think it would
be far more relevant to note that he considered such a solution to not
be an anarchist one, I mean he said so right there in the other
postscript, if you didn't notice. However, I still think this is an
incredibly important position on his part to point out for two
reasons. 1) We still have Tucker, as an individualist (unless we are
claiming he wasn't one at this point, some people do anyway),
declaring that market forces in themselves are not enough in those
circumstances to destroy the economic inequalities created by state
monopoly. 2) This gives clear evidence that contrary to many
anarcho-capitalist claims the individualist anarchists did not merely
believe that anarchism was the absence of the state, since in said
circumstances, even in the absence of state backing, Tucker did not
believe that an anarchist market was possible (much less present). I
can understand why this would unhinge some anarcho-capitalists, but
given that it is a fact, and it is a relevant one, that it would
disturb the anarcho-capitalist worldview only makes me think that,
yes, it -really- does belong. Kev 22:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                Kev> "I'm under the impression that
anarcho-capitalists would -not- favor non-market redistribution of
wealth from companies like standard oil who at one point or another
monopolized the market."
                That a complex statement, so I need to break it down.
Anarcho-capitalists support returning stolen goods to their rightful
owners. Ancaps are also for dispossessing thieves of stolen goods.
Whether you consider restitution to the rightful owner as "non-market
redistribution," I don't know. Whether Standard Oil used aggression to
any significant degree is debatable. I don't think so - I think
Standard Oil's competitors used aggression, however, when they used
the State to harass their competitor, and got the clearly invasive
Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed. I don't think Standard Oil ever had a
coercive monopoly.

                    Well heck, anarcho-communists only believe in
expropriation to rightful owners, they simply disagreed on who those
rightful owners were, if we are going to cover all our words in sweet
nothings. Your opinions on standard oil are interesting, but I'm not
sure if they are relevant and this might not be the best place to
discuss them. I think it is Tucker's opinion that is relevant here.
Kev 22:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                        Kev> "Well heck, anarcho-communists only
believe in expropriation to rightful owners, they simply disagreed on
who those rightful owners were."

                        Hey, we agree on something! Yes, what one
deems "aggression" depends on the property system one holds. --Hogeye
23:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                            You hang out at, right? I
had an unfinished essay of mine, which I wrote about 4 years ago,
posted to that forum a couple of years back. The essay asserted that
anarcho-capitalist emphasis of the non-aggression principle is
misplaced. The argument was that while anarcho-capitalists do in fact
believe that they are against aggression (in most cases), the fact of
whether or not they are relies on their fundamental assumptions about
property. As such, people who hold different assumptions would
disagree. The problem arises in that a large majority of political
philosophies (with a few notable exceptions) do not advocate
aggression according to their own standards of justified coercion. In
other words, that anarcho-capitalist, despite its claims to the
contrary, is nothing special in this regard. The same, of course, can
be said for any anarchist philosophy (excepting perhaps strict
pacifists or select types of non-propertarians), however, no other
anarchist philosophy wears the non-aggression principle on its sleeve.
Kev 00:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                I'll try to look up that essay. It
sounds like we agree entirely about the term "aggression" - how its
meaning is relative to a specific property system. Did you get a
chance to read the thing I wrote trying to reconcile the different
notions of aggression? "Meta-aggression."

                                Probably the reason ancaps emphasize
non-aggression is that the NAP is not just one of many values to trade
off, but the primary principle, taking lexicographic importance over
other considerations. Many/most socialists openly support other
principles such as egalitarianism, which allegedly justify
redistributive aggression. Take a look at distributive justice for
more on this. --Hogeye 00:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                    You probably shouldn't bother with
the article, it was unfinished and as such I wasn't the one who posted
it. In particular, its conclusion had just been thrown together and
I've since cut drastically back on its claims. I do vaguely recall
glancing over an article on that subject at anti-state, but just in
case I would appreciate a link. BTW - I would contend that whether or
not "redistributive aggression" is in fact "aggression" depends again
on your property claims. For example, some believe that the property
being redistributed was itself aggression, thus the resdistribution,
while coercive, is not aggressive. Others, as another example, might
argue that the intial property claims are not necessarily aggressive,
but that neither is violating them, all depending on the
circumstances. Anywho, this isn't the place for this discussion. Kev
01:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                        Meta-Aggression --Hogeye
01:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                            Interesting, I didn't see
it at, I saw it on that page ;) Anyway. What about
non-propertarians? I understand that some propertarians don't accept
the existence of non-propertarians, arguing that all human action
requires property claims, defining property as mere use. Nonetheless,
there are people out there who believe that all propertied systems, be
they capitalist or socialist, are unjustified (or at least inevitably
genearte unjustified results and are thus not worthy of actualy
support). Whether or not these individual's claims to rejecting all
forms of property are accurate, they at least believe them, have some
internal consistency in those beliefs, and their use of the term
property seems to be closer to the norm than that of those who deny
their ability to exist. Anyway, they seem to generate an odd result
for your new term. Namely, while they could potentially be
meta-aggressed against, they would never be meta-aggressors
themselves. Indeed, it would appear that anyone making any claim to
property would, from the POV of the non-propertarians, be potential
aggressors just from the fact of having made the claim. This isn't to
say, of course, that a non-propertarian couldn't be a standard
aggressor, but I think it challenges the usefullness of the new term
to consider that this group of people don't fit into the same
potentially harmonious meta-society that all the others will. Kev
01:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                                Is anyone other than a
contented lackey really an apropertarian? You'd have to have someone
who doesn't think they own their own body. Those who favor possession
property (aka usufruct) want more than simple possession. They want
recognition that they are entitled. They want more the the fact - they
want right. Every sweat shop is possessed by the workers for often
more than eight hours a day, but syndicalists don't claim victory. The
social recognition that it's theirs (so that, at a minimum they don't
get run off or shot by the bosses) is more what they have in mind. Not
just possession, but ownership. A type of ownership that has different
transfer rules and abandonment rules than neo-Lockean (sticky)
property, but ownership nevertheless.

                                                At any rate, even if
true apropertarians exist (as I admit they might in super-hard-core
primitivists), that doesn't seem to detract from the usefulness of the
meta-aggression concept, just as the existence of pacifists doesn't
detract from the concept of aggression. One can (as you did) actually
use the idea to say something meaningful. E.g. There is no way to
aggress (or be aggressed) against an apropertarian (by apropertarian
standards) since they deny that one is entitled to one's own life,
liberty, or property. The schmoo from Lil Abner? --Hogeye 03:02, 15
Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                                    Ah, its
disappointing but we really are off an a tangent of a tangent here.
This is where it would get good for me, cause I would be able to shock
or disappoint you by claiming that, in fact, I don't claim to own my
body. And what is more, a large number of traditional anarchists deny
the claim to self-ownership, along with, big shocker, even a handful
of anarcho-capitalists I've met. But we can't go into detail here. I'd
like to give you my email but, you know, I think that is a bad idea
given the audience. If you would like to continue this conversation,
please feel welcomed to take it over to my wiki homepage. At least
there we wouldn't be interupting an article talk page. Kev 06:08, 15
Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                                            Great, I
could use a slave. RJII 13:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
                                                            Thanks for
the threat, I'll note it for future referance. Kev 18:39, 15 Jun 2005

think you misunderstood RJ. As I see it, he wasn't threatening you,
just pointing out the logical consequence of you claiming you don't
own yourself. As self-ownership is defined, when you claim you don't
own yourself, you either don't understand the definition or are
dropping moral objections to being enslaved. 21:23, 15
Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only according to a propertarian model or a highly specialized
definition of property. Not even all anarcho-capitalists believe in
claims to self-ownership (which are incoherent imho), so please don't
give me the crap about opening oneself up to slavery. Kev 01:07, 16
Jun 2005 (UTC)

 No, according to the definition of self-ownership. To own something
in a moral sense means to have the moral right to determine its usage.
If you deny self-ownership, you deny that individuals should determine
how their bodies are used. This is how proponents of self-ownership
use the term. If you want to refute self-ownership proponents' claims,
it would be irrelevant to bring up other definitions of the term, just
as it would be irrelevant to dismiss "anarchism" since you "don't
support chaos". I'm sorry if you feel I'm giving you crap. That was
not my intent. 01:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

     So if you don't have a "moral right" to determine the usage of
something, that entails that you shouldn't use it? I would tend to
disagree. In fact, I don't think that rights are necessary to
determine the legitimacy of use, nor do I see the necessity of
morality. But this is a big tangle of issues and I've been through it
all with many anarcho-capitalists before. If you'd like to discuss it,
I'll have to invite you to my talk page like I did Hogeye, because it
is inappropriate to continue this discussion here. (technically its
inappropriate to continue it on wikipedia, but we'll be sneaky) Kev
06:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

         Kev> So if you don't have a "moral right" to determine the
usage of something, that entails that you shouldn't use it? I would
tend to disagree. In fact, I don't think that rights are necessary to
determine the legitimacy of use, nor do I see the necessity of

         ??? Morality is the study of whether actions are right or
wrong. Obviously you believe in this, or you would not be promoting a
political philosophy, any one of which advocates a set of principles
to determine which actions are right or wrong. If you believe people
should not exploit one another, you believe in morality. If you
believe capitalism should not exist, you believe in morality. And so
on. Rights (in the moral sense) _are_ delineations of legitimacy of
use; of course they're necessary. I'd like to know what definitions
you're using.

         Kev> But this is a big tangle of issues and I've been through
it all with many anarcho-capitalists before.

         Based on how you're responding, it doesn't appear you've
debated this, or really even considered it.

         Kev> If you'd like to discuss it, I'll have to invite you to
my talk page like I did Hogeye, because it is inappropriate to
continue this discussion here.

         It's entirely appropriate and relevant if non-propertarians
can even exist. If your basis for denying anarcho-capitalism equal
status with the other types of anarchism is its support for private
property rights, and in fact, other schools of "legit" anarchism
promote private property rights, your position is much weaker.
JohnSharp 02:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

             I just wanted to write in a little bitty column. RJII
03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

             I'm not exactly sure why it is so hard for certain new
arrivals to understand that this is not the place for a political
discussion. Mr. Sharp, I would be happy to have a discussion with you
on this topic, please transplant your responses to the discussion part
of my wikipedia page and we can talk all you would like, but it is
disruptive to continue here. My personal position is not relevant to
the status of this page, nor would I base the content of a wikipedia
article on my personal feelings about the matter. Please review the
neutrality policy if you are confused. Kev 06:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                 I'm not exactly sure why it is so hard for certain
individuals to understand the relevance of my point. Like I just said,
if you're going to base the exclusion of ancap views on their support
of property rights and in fact, and in fact, all "legit" anarchists
support property rights, of course it's relevant to the discussion of
what should be included in the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
articles. And I understand the NPOV policy, thank you very much. If
you still want to boss me around though, I'd be happy to continue this
discussion on your discussion page. JohnSharp 16:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                     Ancap views are not being excluded in this
article, this is an article about ancap views. As for the basis of
this exclusion being private property rights, this is certainly not
the only basis (many arguments have been offered), and beyond personal
possession forms of property there has never been a group of
anarchists that advocated private property. As for me bossing you
around, lol, I'm not forcing you to do anything. You can continue to
go off on debating tangents all you want if violating wiki policy
doesn't matter to you. Kev 18:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                         "...beyond personal possession forms of
property there has never been a group of anarchists that advocated
private property." What??? Personal possession *IS* private property.
Collective possession is collective property. Both traditional
individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists support private
property. RJII 20:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                             Well, of course, when you define
anarchism as the opposition to the state, capitalism and private
property. . . then, any so-called anarachist that advocates private
property isn't really an anarchist now, are they? Saswann 20:32, 17
Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I'm going to bring this branch back so that people with smaller
screens can more easily read it.
    Kev>Ancap views are not being excluded in this article, this is an
article about ancap views.
    I was referring to its exclusion from the anarchism article and
the anarchism series box.
    Kev>As for the basis of this exclusion being private property
rights, this is certainly not the only basis (many arguments have been
offered) and beyond personal possession forms of property there has
never been a group of anarchists that advocated private property.
    "No true Scotsman..." In any case, that's false. Anarchists have
advocated markets, which necessarily involve people making claims to
things they're not personally using.
    Kev> As for me bossing you around, lol, I'm not forcing you to do
anything. You can continue to go off on debating tangents all you want
if violating wiki policy doesn't matter to you.
    A little irony-impaired, are we? You're the one who thinks
agreeing to a set of rules is necessarily oppressive. Sorry if I
didn't make the sarcasm more clear. JohnSharp 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I beefed up the Liberalism section. Read it over and see what you
think. Hopefully, no one will demand a bullet list of every point
where anarcho-capitalists disagree with John Locke.

Kev, you are using the following as evidence that the individualists
would employ coercion to end capitalism... "If this be true, then
monopoly, which can be controlled permanently only for economic
forces, has passed for the moment beyond their reach, and must be
grappled with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary.
Until measures of forcible confiscation, through the State or in
defiance of it, shall have abolished the concentrations that monopoly
has created, the economic solution proposed by Anarchism and outlined
in the forgoing pages – and there is no other solution – will remain a
thing to be taught to the rising generation, that conditions may be
favorable to its application after the great leveling. But education
is a slow process, and may not come too quickly. Anarchists who
endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism
or revolution make a sad mistake indeed. They help to so force the
march of events that the people will not have time to find out, by the
study of their experience, that their troubles have been due to the
rejection of competition. If this lesson shall not be learned in a
season, the past will be repeated in the future, in which case we
shall have to turn for consolation to the doctrine of Nietzsche that
this is bound to happen anyhow, or to the reflection of Renan that,
from the point of view of Sirius, all these matters are of little

He's saying that government or revolutionary forces might abolish the
monopoly, but he's also saying that an Anarchist does not take this
route. If you think he's saying government SHOULD do this you're
mistaken. If you think he's saying that revolutionary forces should do
this, you're mistaken as well. He says that to either join with State
Socialism or revolution to accomplish the goal would be a mistake.
RJII 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Where have I said that individualists would employ coercion to end
capitalism? That isn't my claim. Kev 01:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        Me, "rv to RJII. Unjustified removal of noteable content. It
is true that the individualists would not coercively intervene in
        You, "I put a quote on the talk page that suggests otherwise,
and the passage already mentions that they did not favor
expropriation, which is true"

            Well, the quote does not suggest otherwise. It's well
known that individualists opposed coercively intervening in a
capitalist system. SO, the sentence can go back in. RJII 03:30, 16 Jun
2005 (UTC)

                The quote above suggests that this particular
individualist believes that until there are forcible measures of
confiscation anarchist methods will not be successful. Clearly he
isn't saying that anarchists should be the ones taking such measures,
but clearly he is saying that such measures are necessary for
anarchism to work. Now either he is supporting such measures to be
taken by non-anarchists or he is not. If he is, then he is an
individualist who does not entirely oppose expropriation, contrary to
the statement in the article. If he is not, then he is suggesting that
anarchism is impossible due to these conditions, but again this would
demonstrate an individualist who believes that market mechanisms alone
are not necessarily sufficient to control monopoly. Its totally
ambiguous from the quote which is the case, regardless of your
attempts to over-simplify things. However, from his other writings
around that time I would venture a guess that it is the latter, that
he had begun to believe that anarchism may no longer be plausible.
Regardless, this individualist who to my knowledge did not repudiate
individualism is saying that forcible measures are required for
anarchism to flourish due to state monopolies being in control for so
long. As such, you can qualify your statement properly or continue
this silly revert war with me. I'm really sorry if this information
goes against your dogma, but I can't change what he said to fit your
preconceptions. Kev 05:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list