grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:23:51 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 12
>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 June 05 and July 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/Archive 13. Thank
you. Saswann 13:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    1 Corporations & Limited Liability
    2 Gustav de Molinari
    3 Debate over Lead Paragraph
        3.1 Def is POV
        3.2 Libertarian?
        3.3 New Lead
            3.3.1 Attempt #2
            3.3.2 3rd time the charm?
        3.4 free market and unlimited private property rights
    4 Non-aggression principle
    5 I am impressed with the quality of the aritcle
    6 Peer Review
    7 Original appropriation
    8 Full lead section
        8.1 Alfrem RFC
    9 Use of Force
        9.1 Questions
    10 Individualist anarchism

Corporations & Limited Liability

In the Individual Anarchist section, I going to delete the following
bullet point:

    Both oppose the existence of corporations, as they shield
individuals from liability.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I have nothing against corporations
(unless they receive some kind of special privilege or subsidy from a
State), nor against limited liability. To me, a corporation is just
another voluntary organization, like a commune or a partnership, that
happens to be owned via "joint-stock" arrangements. As for limited
liability, this is a reasonable and voluntary arrangement whereby
passive (non-decision-making) owners reduce risk. Why should a
shareholder lose his house (rather than only the value of his shares)
when a CEO does something criminal? Of course, limited liability
shouldn't apply to the criminal. A standard home loan is usually a
limited liability contract. If the homeowner defaults he loses at most
the home, even if the amount owed is more than the value of the home.
At any rate, in a free society I'd expect some/most private courts to
support limited liability, and even now anyone can set up a limited
liability entity ("virtual corporation) in cyberspace simply by
staying anonymous. --Hogeye 04:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    You can't do original research on wikipedia Hogeye. I'm sure you
can find some prominent anarcho-capitalists who agree with your
notion, it sounds familiar to me, so please do so and referance them
and then the deletion would be fine. Your arguments, interesting as
they may be, only count if they happen to be arguments used by a
significant portion of other anarcho-capitalists. Kev 05:58, 16 Jun
2005 (UTC)

How about the horse's mouth? Murray Rothbard in "Power and Market"
here in the chapter on triangular intervention. "It should be clear
from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all
monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals
pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would
simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to
the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond
this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be
under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and
lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will
transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own
risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of
limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in
advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It
is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations."

Am I the only one who reads Rothbard?

Here's a mutualist blog (Kevin Carson?) agreeing:
"In fairness to corporations (words I never expected to write), I have
to agree with Murray Rothbard that limited third-party liability
against torts, while clearly an illegitimate grant of privilege, is of
relatively minor significance compared to limited second-party
liability against creditors; and the latter can be accomplished
entirely by voluntary contract."

        One point I should make here is that a corporation (under US
law) is a different animal than Rothbard's formula (this might be
another sidebar definition) in that the US legal formulation limits
all liability, including the corp's actions with parties not part of a
"contract" ie. you are limited in your ability to retaliate against
corporate "aggression" (i.e. a company tears down your house by
mistake, sells a fraudulent drug that results in death, absconds with
your pension.) Saswann 12:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's an excellent article by Gary North about limited liability - a
simple and elegant exposition of the issue (where I got the home
mortgage example from). Billy Bob sez check it out! Limited Liability
and the Right of Contract

Stephan Kinsella (User:Nskinsella) writes in a blog: "My view is
that corporations are essentially compatible with libertarianism. As
for voluntary debts being limited to the corporation's assets; this is
no problem since the creditor knows these limitations when he loans
money. What about limited liability for torts or crimes? As mentioned,
the person direclty responsible for a tort or crime is always liable;
sometimes the employer (which is often a corporation) is also liable
for the employee's actions, via respondeat superior. Who else should
be responsible? In my view, those who cause the damage are
responsible. Shareholders don't cause it any more than a bank who
loans money to a company causes its employees to commit torts."

    Good. Now you can delete the statement, though I would recommend
against it for two reasons. 1) removing content is generally frowned
upon, the more accepted route would be to alter the statement to show
that there is disagreement in this area, and tag on of your above
quotes to show that some support corporations. Also, add part of the
analysis you provided above for why and to what degree some
capitalists support corporations while others do not. Unless of course
your contention is that none of them do, in which case it could be
deleted. 2) When a statement that many people believe is true is flat
out delete, even if it turns out that it is false, it inevitably
happens that later on a wiki reader will visit the page and put it
back in, unaware of previous events. On the other hand, if a statement
is given concerning the falseness of the general impression, or the
divide surrouding it, that reader won't assume that the information
isn't there. Kev 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        I revised the The Contractual Society to reflect Rothbard's
definition of corporation vs. the current legal definition. Saswann
12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gustav de Molinari

For others doing research, here is a dynamite bio (3 parts in pdf) of
Gustav de Molinari, with the scoop on how his "friends of liberty"
buddies (Bastiat et al) reacted to his "Production of Security" essay
when he presented it to the econ club.

Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition

Here are some links where you can find "The Production of Security"
and "Soirées on the Rue Saint-Lazare." The latter is a conversation
between a socialist, a conservative, and an economist. (The economist
being the anarchist.) Good stuff!
Debate over Lead Paragraph
Def is POV

The description is POV:

    Anarcho-Capitalism is a branch of libertarian political philosophy
which calls for a free market, private property, and a society without
a state. Anarcho-capitalists favor a completely private system of law
and order based on common law and explicit contract.

    Anarcho-Capitalism is not neccessarly a libertarian philosophy.
(like Friedman)
    It's not necessarily political.
    The term private property is also indeterminate for ancaps, example: land
    State is no problem for me as ancap. The problem is that I must take part.
    Why should I favor a system of common law? This is nonsense.

I prefer

    The term Anarcho-Capitalism is used by people who describe a
philosophy of society with a free market and at least without coercion
to partake in a state system. All Anarcho-capitalists refuse the force
monopoly and favor a completely private system of law and order. Many
(but not all) use also terms like private property and libertarianism
to describe their idea.

If you dont like it, then search an other. But the current one is POV
and I delete it. --Alfrem 19:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    All this is as difficult to decipher as the definition you
proposed. The definition that was there was clear. RJII 19:03, 19 Jun
2005 (UTC)

        clear POV. --Alfrem 19:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Hi there, Alfrem. I understand your points, but don't agree with
some of them. But first may I suggest better wording for your

        The term Anarcho-Capitalism is used to describe a philosophy
of society that has a free market and allows people to opt out of
state systems. All anarcho-capitalists oppose the state's monopoly of
force, and prefer completely private systems of law and order. Many
(but not all) use terms like private property and libertarianism to
describe their idea.

I'm sorry, I don't think that Alfrem's version is an improvement. I'll
discuss some specific points below. I may choose to revert to an
earlier version some time in the future. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun
2005 (UTC)

    Anarcho-Capitalism is not necessarily a libertarian philosophy.

    Why is this? Are you from a part of the world where "libertarian"
means "socialist"?

        No. I am ancap. But I agree with Friedman that stateless order
must not lead to libertarian results. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005

            That's irrelevant. Anarcho-capitalists desire and call for
libertarian results, even if they are realistic in admitting that
nothing can 100% assure that they will be achieved. - Nat Krause
13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                No. Libertarianism is a meta-ideology of an ideal. In
this ideal (without social dilemmas, irrationality and market
failures) Libertarianism is wonderful. And it is a desire to aim at
idealism. But this doesn't mean that a ancap must submit to a
meta-ideology. --Alfrem 21:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                    I don't know what you mean by meta-ideology. - Nat
Krause 10:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It's not necessarily political.

    I disagree. Anarchism is by definition political, since it deals
with the ethical aspect of power. Anarchism is the philosophy/belief
that the State is unnecessary and oppressive, and should be abolished.

        This depends on your meaning what is "political". When I
ignore the state and do my own things, this is not political in my
view. Therefore, you cant decide what is political by defintion, so it
is useless to say by definition. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            When you ignore the state, you are not calling for its
removal. Once you begin to have ideas vis a vis political
organization, such as anarcho-capitalism, those ideas are political
ideas. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                Politics is for me the active intervention in the
process and method of making decisions for people. But A. is not a
collective method of making decisions. It is a process in the market.
--Alfrem 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                    The market is a means of making collective
decisions. However, it is not political. The intended results of
anarcho-capitalism are not political, but the theory itself is a
theory about politics, therefore, it is a political philosophy. - Nat
Krause 10:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The term private property is also indeterminate for ancaps, example: land

    Yes, there is disagreement between ancaps and Geolibertarians (and
individualist anarchists) on whether land is valid property.
Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists do support private property. The
details of the property system can be described elsewhere in the

        No. The term private property is disputed in details. You
can't make a generalization. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            I don't follow you. Yes, private property is disputed in
details. Anarcho-capitalists are in favor of it, but there are some
details which are disputed. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    State is no problem for me as ancap. The problem is that I must take part.

    Perhaps a better name for your philosophy is
"panarcho-capitalism." If you are not fundamentally against the State,
you are not an anarchist. You may enjoy the essay Panarchy, written by
a Frenchman named P. E. de Puydt

        The topic is Ancap, but not Anarchism or Panarchy. When
Rothbard would have had the possibilty to abdicate the state, he
wouldn't had claimed any ancap theory. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005

            Yes, the topic is Ancap—however, your arguments are
applicable to something else. You should return to the subject.
Anarcho-capitalists call for a society without a state. I didn't
understand your second sentence. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Why should I favor common law? This is nonsense.

    Yes, you are right, Alfrem. Good catch. Common law is merely one
historical example of non-statist law. Thanks for your ideas. Hogeye
19:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        Yes, it is merely one historical example of non-statist law.
An other is customary law in Somalia. Nobody can know what I or you
prefer. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            I would have thought that common law (in the sense that we
use it) is the same thing as customary law. Either term is acceptable
because they have the same meaning. Anyway, the current version is
incorrect: anarcho-capitalists do not rely only on explicit contract.
Most of them, anyway, don't believe that you need an explicit contract
situation to prohibit or punish, say, murder. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20
Jun 2005 (UTC)


The lead line is ok as it stands, but am I the only one who feels the
loss of the relationship to libertarianism is a signifigant loss? To a
certian extent the origins of anarcho-capitalism and libertarian
philosophy (in the US) are one and the same. Saswann 16:32, 20 Jun
2005 (UTC)

I'd say put it back in. The only objection so far is that the
libertarian David Friedman thought that statelessness might not
automatically lead to libertarian results (but was likely to.) Ancaps
are definitely libertarian. Hogeye 16:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I say put the old definition back in. I don't know what that guy
was thinking. RJII 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        It is not necessary to discuss this point while people like
Jeremy Sapienza, or Friedman, or I are seen as Ancaps but not as
Libertarians. --Alfrem 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

            I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you just
said. Are you objecting to or agreeing with my point? Are you
identifying Jeremy Sapienza & Friedman as Libertarians? If they are,
how is that germaine to anarcho-capitalisim and its origins? Saswann
15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW- I think the first line reads like crap now, but I'm not going to
start a revert war over it. Saswann 15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Libertarian" simply means "anti-authoritarian." I don't think we
should cater to Alfrem's bizarre non-standard notion of
libertarianism. Jeremy Sapienza & Friedman do identify themselves as
libertarians (small L). Now, if Alfrem had said that where he's from
"libertarian" means "anti-statist socialist," I would have had some
sympathy for his position. I still don't know exactly what he thinks
"libertarian" means. Alfrem, have you looked at the "Ideology Map" in
the article? What do you think about the "libertarian" label there?
Hogeye 16:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    This article might by relevant: [1] RJII 17:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Sapienza is not libertarian. Some other guys on
aren't it also. Friedman likes the libertarian position, but he
doesn't identfy himself as Libertarian. Libertarianism is for me also
not important to explain my ancap position. --Alfrem 17:13, 21 Jun
2005 (UTC)

        What are you talking about? Where does Sapienza say he's not a
libertarian? David Friedman is definitely one—it's right on his

            Ask him! --Alfrem 17:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            Friedman: "This page has links to things I have written
likely to be of interest to libertarians". That's all. Laughable!
--Alfrem 17:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                A libertarian is someone who believes that individuals
should have complete freedom of action as long as they don't infringe
on that same freedom of others. That idea is foundational to
anarcho-capitalism and they state it explicitly. Have you been living
under a rock? Of course anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism. RJII
20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                    That is the idea, but it is not libertarian.
Everybody has also the freedom to use force as so long as he can
enforce it. And the libertarian definition is also very imperfect.
What is a violation when we dont have any consent? --Alfrem 09:55, 22
Jun 2005 (UTC)

                        Frankly, the more I read what Alfrem writes,
the less I understand what he means. There comes a point where one has
to start ignoring it. - Nat Krause 10:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                            You know, you are libertarian, aren't you?
;-) --Alfrem 11:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

                                I really have no clue how Alfrem
defines "libertarian" and why he objects to its being connected in any
way to anarcho-capitalism, or even termed a political philosophy.
*Dan* 12:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

                                    The term Anarcho-Capitalism is
claimed from many different people. They are not all using the NAP to
explain ancap-ideas, and they argue not all in political ways by
defintion. Something else is nonsense. --Alfrem 12:44, 22 Jun 2005

                                        Well, I agree with the last
sentance Saswann 13:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (When it read "This is
nonsense") Saswann 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem, will you please define what you mean by "libertarian"? I still
have absolutely no idea why you disagree with, All anarcho-capitalists
are libertarian. Give an example of a belief or position that is
anarcho-capitalist but not libertarian. I'm really trying to
understand what you mean. To me, any philosophy, belief, or position
that favors less power for the State is libertarian. Since you don't
want the State to bother you, you are libertarian. Hogeye 19:01, 22
Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I tell you my position to refuse the state. I think it is useless
to call for a treatment I will never get (i.e. no force against me)
and no initiation of aggression is also no aim of evolution. I don't
stem me against evolution because then I would stem me then myself.
Force is a possibility to resolve social dilemmas. But it is only one
option among many options. I cant know which is the best. But state
cant be any standard and any aim of evolution. --Alfrem 19:44, 22 Jun
2005 (UTC)

New Lead

    Anarcho-Capitalism is an economic philosophy developed by Austrian
School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th
Century. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property
rights, and a society without a state. It was developed as a synthesis
of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist

I think it would require a severe intellectual contortion to argue
that this is somehow unfactual or POV. Saswann 13:30, 22 Jun 2005

    Some people think Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist. RJII
14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    It is not true! Rothbard did the most in this time to claim the
term, but he was not alone, and the Austrains were not alone. LOL.
--Alfrem 14:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        Yes, I appreciate your effort, Saswann, but Alfrem's right:
some of the statements in the new lead are debatable. It's an
improvement, but I think it would be best to go back to the version of
a few days ago. - Nat Krause 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the lead to what it was before this argument started. I
think everyone would appreciate a reasonable sourced and coherent
argument before it is changed again. 18:33, 22 Jun 2005

    How old are you? --Alfrem 18:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attempt #2

    Anarcho-Capitalism is the term for an economic philosophy that
combines anti-statist principles with a capitalist economic system. It
calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a
society without a state. The modern incarnation developed by Austrian
School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th
Century was an attempt at a synthesis of Austrian School economics,
classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.

Ok, no grand claims that this will satisfy any revert warriors-- but I
think this addresses all the complaints voiced over the first version.
Saswann 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3rd time the charm?

    Anarcho-capitalism refers to an anti-statist philosophy that
embraces capitalist principles. The first modern version of
anarcho-capitalism that identified itself with this term was developed
by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the
mid-20th Century as a synthesis of Austrian School economics,
classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.

Attempt at pithy, comprehensible and accurate Saswann 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And where is the free market? --Alfrem 14:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    By anarcho-capitalist's own definition, it's contained within the
definition of capitalism. And the whole free-market debate is so
nuanced (got to stop using that word, someone have a better one?) that
it cannot be integrated in the lead in any way that doesn't make some
sort of assumption. Leave the fine gradations for the body of the
article. Saswann 14:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

free market and unlimited private property rights

Alfrem, traditional individualist anarchists and some classical
liberals advocate a "free market" but don't believe individuals should
be granted title to unused land. A landlord charging someone rent for
land that he didn't have a choice of being born on is tantamount to
being a government. He didn't agree to choose to have a landlord or
not. Rent was imposed on him. That's basically the reasoning. So, it's
arguable whether "unlimited private property rights" are consistent
with a "free market." You could be right in your point, but in order
to differentiate between other philosophies that say that advocate a
free market, i think it makes sense to state explictly that there is
there is no ethical limitation of private property in
anarcho-capitalism. Besides, capitalism is defined as private
ownership of the means of production with decisions being made in a
free market. Just saying "free market" is not quite enough. RJII
20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    But, "unlimited" is vague and misleading. I.e. Some
anarcho-capitalists believe that IP (intellectual property) is valid,
other's that it is simply a monopoly enforced by State. So something
like "neo-Lockean" may be better. There is still an ambiguity (sticky
property permissable vs. sticky property only), but no need to open
that can of worms in the intro. "Propertarian free-market" may be
best. Hogeye 21:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        This is all too complex in the intro. The intro should hold
only the important things, no insider-wording or misleading terms.
--Alfrem 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Hogeye, I think you're trying to embed too much nuance into
the lead. Because the lead is only a few sentences, it is going to be
a generalization. The body of the article is where we should get into
markets and property issues specific to the issue at hand. In fact,
looking at my own current rewrite, I wonder if the phrase "calls for a
free market and unlimited private property rights" &c. is needed at
all anymore. Saswann 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-aggression principle

I just wanted to tell Alfrem that my revert was not personal. I'm
actually glad that there's a Non-aggression principle article now.
However, I'd ask for a little more care next time, a lot of that
section was Ancap-specific, and does not belong in a general article
on this segment of libertarian thought. (Unless it becomes a much
broader article surveying all the philosophies that adhere to it.)
Also, just dropping the section was removing content that was central
to the article— unlike, say, the tangent about Crypto-anarchism— the
principle is essential to understanding the whole. Saswann 17:12, 23
Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I see only one ancap-setence: "The difference between
anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the
degree to which they take this axiom." The rest is also important for
libertarians and should not hold in this article due to redundancy.
--Alfrem 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        The general points are now in the general article. The
Rothbard quote belongs in the Ancap article as a citation showing an
Ancap philosopher upholding the principle, and the remaining sentence
is needed so that the non-aggression axiom is actually defined in this
article. Leaving only the phrase "non-aggression axiom" with no
accompanying explanation or citations is really opaque style. Saswann
19:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am impressed with the quality of the aritcle

It is well written, has nothing to raise the wrath of my anarchist
(broadly socialist) principles ('cept the fact that it is claimed that
anar..., but you address that). Thus I would like to congratulate the
editors. --harrismw 04:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Hey, thanks for the kind words. A lot of editors have done a lot
of work to bring this article up to snuff, and I think a lot of the
disputes over content have been comparatively well mannered-- if
extraordinarily wordy :) Saswann 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'm putting this up for peer review since (aside from the recent
debate over the lead) the form and content seems to have stabilized
Saswann 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Original appropriation

"This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where
they differ from collectivist forms of anarchisim."

I don't agree with this. Many collectivists believe in possession
property, which was also presumably appropratiated originally. A
bigger difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism is
in the abandonment criteria. Broadly speaking, ancaps keep their
property until and unless they consent to trade or gift it, while
ansocs keep it only as long as they are using it.

I'm going to think about this and probably revamp this section,
renamed "Property Theory" or some such. Maybe I'll include that
property system comparison table:
Anarchist Schools 	Collectivist 	Individualist (traditional) 	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 22:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Full lead section

One of the Peer review coments is the sparse lead section. This has
been a side-effect of POV battles, but I'm hoping that things have
calmed down on that score. With that in mind, I added a second
paragraph that I hope starts to build a feature-quality lead for the
whole article Saswann 29 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

    I had a hard work to eliminate the word "libertarian" from the
intro. And now you come again with the libertarian doctrine. I must
delete it. I am sorry. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)

        ? I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. Rothbard was a
libertarian. . . Saswann 29 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)

            Read the discussion above. I can't be bothered with this
dispute again. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)

                Alfrem, you started the dispute again, so the onus is
on you to explain why. While I'm not arguing with your motives, that
is at least in part because I really don't understand them. You need
to clearly explain why Rothbard, one of the founders of the
Libertarian party in the US, should not be called a libertarian.
Saswann 29 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

                    No, you are starting the dispute again. You must
only read what is alreday written. There is not only one exegesis of
anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard was not alone. There are also ancaps,
which are not described as libertarians (Friedman, Sapienza and
other). --Alfrem 29 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

                        Alfrem, please stop hassling the editors of
this page. Have you ever produced any evidence contrary to the obvious
conclusion that Sapienza and Friedman are libertarians? Judging from
this talk page, the answer is no. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 04:47

                            You are hassling!
                            David Friedman is a subjectivist in ethics
and he rejects Rothbards moral arguments altogether and instead
proposes an economic argument where private defence/protection
agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual
content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will
have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency
considerations resulting from individual's utility functions, such law
will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to
place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people
who buy the law. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)

                                This seems to be another case where
you have your definition of "libertarian" beforehand, and then you
exclude anybody who doesn't fit with that definition. Nevertheless,
what you say about David Friedman is true and he is a libertarian. -
Nat Krause 30 June 2005 08:49 (UTC)

                                    Friedman don't qualifes himself as
libertarian. Why should he? Why do you must? What does qualify him as
Libertarian? Nothing unless your own political view. And you can ask
him yourself. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)

                                        Alfrem, unless you have a
print source where he denies that he is a libertarian, your plea "Ask
Him" amounts to original research and does not belong on wikipedia.
Saswann 30 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)

                                                Have you a print
source of the counterpart? And there are more which are not
libertarian. This is known. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Too much generalization in this:

    "Anarcho-capitalist philosophy is based on self-ownership, an
absolute right to private property, and a prohibition against the
initiation of force against other persons or property. From this is
derived a rejection of the state (an entity claiming a territorial
monopoly on the use of force) and the principles of capitalism
(allowing any voluntary transaction between any two parties.) Because
of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between
anarcho-capitalists and movements that see the rejection of capitalism
as being just as fundamental to Anarchist philosophy as rejection of
the state. Despite this tension, anarcho-capitalists see Individualist
Anarchist thinkers such as Benjamin Tucker as extremely important in
their own philosophy."

It is not completely wrong but a genaralization. Compare it with
economic views. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)

        Alfrem, I'm going to say this as non-confrontationally as
possible: you need to calm down and stop trying to impose a
non-standard interpretation on this article. If you have legitimate
sources that you can cite for your view, fine. However, you have not.
As I said, the onus is on you to provide legitimate sources aside from
your own personal feeling if you're doing something as drastic as
deleting a whole paragraph that is "not completely wrong." Saswann 30
June 2005 12:04 (UTC)

            Your generalization is completely wrong. You can fix it
with Friedmans economic view. This must be clear enough for you. I can
not change 3 words and all would be nice. You must deliver NPOV.
--Alfrem 30 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)

                Alfrem, No. You can "fix" it with Friedmans economic
view, with proper references and citations. You cannot randomly slash
content and then do some hand-waving and say that you did it because
you once read something that you thought disagreed with it. I have
been very patient with you, but it seems that you are unwilling, or
unable, to back up your assertions. I might point out that in Chapter
43 of Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman says: "One could describe
most of this book as a utilitarian approach to libertarianism" You, my
friend, should explain how someone who is allegedly not a libertarian
would write a whole book on the economic principles of libertarianism.

                    Heh, you wrote POV! Friedman is of the
ancap/market anarchist camp. And you must take it into consideration
without generalization. An utilitarian approach to libertarianism is
an approach (harmonization, aproximation), but not more. --Alfrem 30
June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

                        So your response to an opposing citation is a
flat denial and a reassertion of your own personal view without any
supporting facts. Alfrem, any possible point you might have had is
completely lost under your refusal to follow any reasonable
approximation of academic honesty. All you do is cite your personal
feelings as fact and claim that anyone who disagrees with your own
personal idiosyncrasies is the one pushing a POV. POV is not a magic
word that makes everyone who doesn't think like you go away, nor is it
a justification to slash content with no factual basis other than your
own personal assertions. I've tried to be accommodating, since you
seem to have some familiarity with the subject, and English does not
seem to be your first language. However, it is apparent that trying to
reason with you, or even trying to get some comprehensible explanation
of your position, is a hopeless endeavour. All I can say is, I tried,
and showed a lot more patience than was justified in your case.
Saswann 30 June 2005 14:05 (UTC)

                                Do you not see your genaralization?
--Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

David Friedman is a subjectivist in ethics and he rejects Rothbards
moral arguments altogether and instead proposes an economic argument
where private defence/protection agencies and courts not only defend
legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all
claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay
for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from
individual's utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian
in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to
agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. --Alfrem
30 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

    Which would be an interesting expansion of the whole Natural
Law/consequentialist issue in the criticism section-- feel free to
flesh this out. It in no way justifies what youre doing to the lead
section Saswann 30 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

        Critic of what? It is also a theory of market anarchism. There
is not only one school. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

            I'm sorry Alfrem, I think you're reading a completly
different article and I have no idea how to put it in terms you can
understand. Saswann 30 June 2005 16:43 (UTC)

                The article is not ready and I have no idea why you
believe that. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

                    Apparently we have determined that our use of the
English language is mutually incomprehensible. Saswann 30 June 2005
20:19 (UTC)

Alfrem RFC

For those as frustrated as I, please go here
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem. I hope that if enough editors
point out to Alfrem that his current behavior is not helpful, he might
try a little harder to cite his position. Saswann 30 June 2005 14:11
Use of Force

This section could use some refrences/citations. It is the most weakly
sourced section of the article. Saswann 29 June 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Under the Original appropriation title, the article states:

"Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of
all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by
means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied
or used the same places and goods before him."

Do anarcho-capitalists place humans above everything else? In other
words, if it benefits a human but negatively impacts something
non-human, does the human still have the right to it? I'm curious to
hear/read views on the anarcho-capitalists evaluation and placement of
the human species in regards to everything else. 03 July 2005 14:43

    199> "Do anarcho-capitalists place humans above everything else?
In other words, if it benefits a human but negatively impacts
something non-human, does the human still have the right to it?"

    Yes. If there is no infringement of the rights of other humans, if
an action doesn't "negatively impact" the person or property of other
humans, then it should not be prevented by other humans. IOW there is
a right to do that action.

    This of course does not mean that the action is moral in the
general sense; only that one has a right to do it. Hogeye 3 July 2005
19:49 (UTC)

        200?>So, anarcho-capitalists place human rights above
non-human rights? Do any non-humans have rights to property or private
ownership, or do only humans have the ability to exercise those
rights? Also, where do anarcho-capitalists get this right
from--themselves? I'm not trying to ask if it is a moral action, just
where they get the right to that action. 04 July 2005 16:50 UTC

            200> "So, anarcho-capitalists place human rights above
non-human rights? Do any non-humans have rights to property or private
ownership, or do only humans have the ability to exercise those

            Well, to be exact, you need to replace "human" with "moral
agent." We base individual rights on intelligence, not species. If an
alien from Alpha Centari or a porpoise started talking to us and
asserted individual rights, then they too would be a moral agent. But
if you're talking about lower animals or plants or rocks, no these
don't have any rights whatsoever. We derive rights from sentience,
intelligence, and evidence of a moral faculty. Hogeye 4 July 2005
17:18 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism

While I agree with what you said in your edit summary, that there is
no controversy over whether or not anarcho-capitalists referance
individualists, I do not think that is what the text implied. There
are two reasons I disagree with your edit of individualism.

First, there is some controversy over the -degree- to which
anarcho-capitalists are influenced by individualists. Some
anarcho-capitalists claim that this is a very large degree, other
anarcho-capitalists claim that it is minimal, and some non-anarchists
claim the the extent of influence doesn't go beyond surface arguments
for the core of an ideology that they had already taken from
anti-state liberals and libertarians.

Second, I think that begining the individualism section with the claim
that there is significant influence, when this is really a subjective
call, is already caching the later debate in the terms of the
anarcho-capitalists. They can claim some influence, of course, that
much is a matter of fact. But I think it goes a bit far to begin the
individualism section with a claim as to the amount of that influence,
whereas introducing it as controversial at the outset puts the reader
in the mindset that what is written in this section needs to be
weighed against the views of many different groups. Kev 8 July 2005
18:36 (UTC)

        Point taken, but I revised your edit somewhat. Saswann 8 July
2005 21:06 (UTC)

            Works for me. Kev 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list