grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:24:57 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 13
>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 July 05 and Aug 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 14. Thank
you. Saswann 12:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    1 Continuing NPOV problems
        1.1 Fixing Kev's Issues
    2 Rothbard on land
    3 Crit picture
    4 Saswaan
    5 Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
    6 Featured article status!
    7 Somalia pictures
    8 Molinari trouble again

Continuing NPOV problems

First, I would like to point out some of my previous notes in the talk
archives [1]. While a couple of these points were dealt with others
were not, and some were simply reinserted after being removed or
corrected. Currently this article continues to slant toward a heavy
anarcho-capitalist POV. This includes the presentation of
anarcho-capitalism in relation to anarchism, which is expressed as
drawing criticism from only a particular portion of the anarchist
community where in fact that portion is the vast majority. In
addition, the individualist section now makes no statement at all
concerning the fact that the individualists which ACs claim tradition
to universally disavowed capitalism. Also, the section on
individualism continues this inane process of adding bullet points for
every minute agreement between individualism and anarcho-capitalism,
some of the areas it now refers to are badly misrepresented, such as:

"Both individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists advocate "free
banking" where any individual or group of individualists would be
allowed to create and lend private currency."

makes no mention of the fact that "free banking" to the individualists
was in fact free, interest at the level of cost, whereas "free" to the
anarcho-capitalist simply means absence of government regulation.

    That's not a correct interpretation you have there. "Free banking"
just means that anyone is allowed to set up a bank and print their own
currency. The individualists believed this would naturally lead to the
inability to lend money for a profit due to competitive pressures.
"Free banking" doesn't mean "free money." It means the same thing to
both traditional individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. I'm
not sure, but I'd guess that anarcho-capitalists don't think free
banking would lead to the inability to make a profit through lending.
This is from the site: "Individualist and mutualist
anarchists like William Greene [Mutual Banking], Benjamin Tucker
[Instead of a Book], and J. B. Robertson [The Economics of Liberty]
viewed the money monopoly as central to the capitalist system of
privilege. In a genuinely free banking market, any group of
individuals could form a mutual bank and issue monetized credit in the
form of bank notes against any form of collateral they chose, with
acceptance of these notes as tender being a condition of membership.
Greene speculated that a mutual bank might choose to honor not only
marketable property as collateral, but the "pledging ... [of] future
production." [p. 73]. The result would be a reduction in interest
rates, through competition, to the cost of administrative
overhead--less than one percent." Traditional individualists and
anarcho-capitalists both support free banking. However, they may
differ in their opinion on what would result. RJII 15:12, 2 August
2005 (UTC)[reply]

        I see no compelling reason to accept your interpretation over
my own given the very evidence you cite yourself. From what I can
tell, free banking includes rates being driven down to cost or near
cost, something that anarcho-capitalists do not advocate. Kev 15:59, 3
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

            Anarcho-capitalists don't advocate a particular result?
You don't advocate results, you advocate policies, and you believe
they would lead to certain results. From RJ's quote above, it's clear
that individualist anarchists believe the same thing ancaps do: that
anyone should be free to start a bank and issue currency. The
difference is over what effect they believed would result, not what
system they advocated. No ancap would ever go up to a mutual bank and
say "No interest? No, no, no, you're doin' it all wrong!" Likewis,
it's clear (RJ probably has the quotes) that individualist anarchists
would never forcibly stop people from offering loans at interest in an
anarchist society. So in this specific respect, it appears their
desired system is the same. Hoping that people would make different
choices within a system does not mean you advocate a different system. 02:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualists do not object
to unequal wealth distribution."

there are -many- times in which Tucker and Warren decried vast
concentrations of wealth as being anti-thetical to the free market,
this bullet point glances over that fact and claims it as a

    This is a valid concern. But, they don't oppose unequal wealth
distribution when no one is enforcing banking and currency monopolies
and land monopolies. Anarcho-capitalists don't either. But, i'll
modify the statement a bit. RJII 15:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        They do oppose vast degrees of unequal wealth when it is not
being enforced by the state as being anti-thetical to the market, they
simply do not oppose it as strongly as being immoral. Kev 15:59, 3
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many relevant points have been removed or tweaked into saying
something else one after the other by RJ over the last few weeks.
These include:

"Anarcho-capitalists believe that protection of individual liberty and
private property be should be performed by private, and competing,
institutions rather than by a tax-funded government monopoly."

a false dichotomy that entirely rules out the anarchist argument
against both private and public institutionalized coercion.

    I have no clue what you're talking about there. This is talking
about anarcho-capitalists only ..not anyone else. And, it's true. RJII
15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        It is not true, as it gives the false impression that there is
only one alternative to private competing institutions, and that the
alternative is the state. It needs to be rewritten to express the fact
that anarcho-capitalists believe their institutions are an alternative
to the state without implying that they are THE alternative. Kev
15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJ also removed the fact that most modern mutualists reject
anarcho-capitalism. He claimed in his edit summary that most
individualists believe anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism,
besides giving no evidence whatsoever for this claim it would not
itself justify removing mutualists as well.

most anarchists who follow in the collectivist traditions of anarchism
strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchy.

This sentence is overly qualified. Most anarchists strongly maintain
this claim period, the fact that they are collectivist is a side point
(and actually somewhat inaccurate) that merely creates the image that
ac is more broadly accepted.

    That's fine. I have no problem with it just saying "anarchists."
The reason I modified it is it made a claim that individualist
anarchists believed that too, but I've only seen evidence that
individualist anarchists do believe it to be a form of anarchism. RJII
15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use
the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of anti-capitalist
political movements, and use a general definition that includes
rejection of capitalism.

This sentence, while true, is a false characterization in the
comparison it makes. Traditional anarchists do not merely refer to
anarchism as a specific tradition, they also refer to the essence or
meaning of anarchism as inherently anti-capitalist.

    Fine, add it then. What's the big deal? RJII 15:12, 2 August 2005

        I've already explained my reasons for not freely editing the
article, they consist of you removing or reverting almost any changes
I make. Kev 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For all of these reasons and more I feel the NPOV tag is still
necessary. I would happily change all these lines rather than take the
time to detail them here, but I'm sick of RJs continuing edit war
philosophy and unwillingness to compromise or find mutually agreeable
solutions. So the NPOV tag will probably stay until he leaves or
someone else gets the energy to deal with his constant insertions of
rhetoric, or he begins to be reasonable. Kev 12:37, 2 August 2005

    Dude, I'm not going to compromise on the NPOV policy, and not
going to compromise the quality of any article on Wikipedia. If
something is true, I'm not going to compromise by agreeing to not
reveal it. You want me to compromise into veiling the truth. That's
not going to happen. RJII 15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        I've never asked that anyone compromise on NPOV policy, but
that is not what this is about. You call your own perspective "truth"
and edit articles as though your own opinions are fact. They are not.
Actually, they are a POV, and if you really cared about NPOV policy,
you -would- compromise on those edits because it would uphold NPOV
policy in the process. You do not hold some absolute grasp on the
truth RJ, and besides being flat out wrong on many occasions, most of
your edits are simply unverifiable POV mongering. Kev 15:59, 3 August
2005 (UTC)[reply]

            Blah, Blah, Blah. RJII 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing Kev's Issues

1 "free banking"

    no longer exists

2 "Both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualists do not
object to unequal wealth distribution."

    no longer exists

3 "Anarcho-capitalists believe that protection of individual liberty
and private property be should be performed by private, and competing,
institutions rather than by a tax-funded government monopoly."

    now reads

        "Anarcho-capitalists would protect individual liberty by
replacing a government monopoly that is involuntarily funded through
taxation with private, and competing, businesses."

4 most modern mutualists reject anarcho-capitalism

    the article points out the two are incompatible, it reads

        "staunch advocate of the mutualist form of private property,
which holds to the labor theory of value, in contrast to the marginal
theory of value held by Austrian School economists and

            This doesn't really make sense. There is no "mutualist
form of private property." I'll see if I can modify that. RJII 00:57,
6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 "most anarchists who follow in the collectivist traditions of
anarchism strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of

    now reads

        "most anarchists strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is
not a form of anarchism."

6 "The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to
use the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of
anti-capitalist political movements, and use a general definition that
includes rejection of capitalism."

    now reads

        "The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism
tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of
anti-statist, anti-capitalist political movements that hold to an
intrinsic labor theory of value that believe anarchism is defined as
being opposed to capitalism as well as the state."

            This part simply is not true according to many subscribers
of those traditions themselves. I've rewritten it to better reflect
what they believe their core distinctions from anarcho-capitalism are.
Kev 07:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    and if that didn't define anti-capitalism as central enough, the
lead section reads:

        "Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable
tension between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists who see the
rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist
philosophy as rejection of the state"

Given that all these compaints have been delt with or no longer apply,
I'm nuking the NPOV tag until I hear some specific addressable issues
with the article as it stands now. Saswann 21:04, 5 August 2005

    I think you did an excellent job of dealing with my criticisms. I
have changed a few of the other edits RJ made in the interim, and with
the exception of one of the passages above which I have also changed
in the article I think my objection can no longer stand. I've also
beefed up or altered a few parts of the criticism section that seemed
to be introducing even the criticisms of anarcho-capitalists from
their own perspective. Thanks for your efforts Saswann. Kev 07:10, 6
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard on land

Rothbard never says one can legitimately own vacant land does he?
Everything I've read is always about mixing labor with land, and
therefore, making it property. Anyone seen anything? RJII 18:39, 4
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I found out that Rothbard thnks that original appropriation is
not legitimate unless it's by use of the land. One can't merely claim
it or fence it in. But, if afterwards he decides to stop using it,
it's still his since the transformation is the product of labor. RJII
07:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crit picture

This may be controversial (it is kind of hard to find pictures to
illustrate abstract concepts) but I thought that the strike picture
seemed to resonate on a number of levels. First it's a literal
illustration of the fears people have w/ an Ancap society--
exploitation of workers who are suppressed by force. . . but it also
is sort of an Ancap Rorschach test. After all, in the picture, the
Teamsters are attacking the cops. Who's coercing whom here? Also, a
strike to a certain extent would be a legitimate recourse in an Ancap
society. This might not be the right picture for the section, but I'm
open to suggestion. Saswann 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know. It seems pretty POV to me. Especially the caption.
And, yes, unions and strikes, being market forces, are quite
compatible with anarcho-capitalism. I don't like it. RJII 17:32, 9
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I like the picture of the Teamster strike violence. It
livens up a very thorough but very dull article. I didn't quite
understand at first what it was or why it was there, however. I'll see
if I can do something to make it clearer.--Bcrowell 01:16, 10 August
2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saswann, what's wrong with the ancap symbol? The libertarianism
article has the symbol while it was a featured article. I don't
understand what you think the problem is. RJII 20:42, 9 August 2005

    Never mind. I see you drew your own. Nice. RJII 21:23, 9 August
2005 (UTC)[reply]

        FWIW there was a complaint about the license during the prior
fac attempt [2]. Saswann 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a two-fer: the section on the use of force refers to the American
Revolution, a great opportunity for a dramatic picture, and I pulled
out a Rothbard citation that backs up the assertion. Saswann 15:19, 10
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck in an image of a postage stamp showing the Icelandic
Althing (parliament), with a caption briefly explaining David
Friedman's theory that medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist. This
is basically an attempt to make the article more inviting to the
reader, and to try to show that the political theory has at least some
connection to reality. I realize, OTOH, that Friedman's theory is
controversial, and that a controversial theory may be out of place in
the lead; however, the caption does clearly explain that it's only one
person's theory.--Bcrowell 19:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        This might be woth spinning off into the article proper--
maybe "Ancap in practice," which might refer to some of the other
possible examples (I think a few people keep citing Somolia) Saswann
20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

            Yes, I agree. The article comes off as extremely
theoretical and hypothetical. I'm not qualified to do the section
myself, though.--Bcrowell 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

            I was thinking about that too. I don't think it needs
another article though. I think just a small section mentioning some
things like Somalia and Iceland thing. RJII 21:21, 10 August 2005

            There is a Past and present anarchist communities article.
Iceland is in there, with a small discussion of Somalia. RJII 15:23,
12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Stop accusing me trolling. And what is this supposed to mean: "I know,
you define private property differently than they do" ??? RJII 19:16,
11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I was reffering to effect, not motive. There are a lot of
folks out there who are hyper-sensitive to the subject. As for the
definition of private property, tell me you and Kev haven't danced
around and around and around on the definition of private property and
what constitutes opposition to it. :) Saswann 19:34, 11 August 2005

        He just didn't know what private property was. First he was
trying to convince himself that individualist anarchists didn't
support private property, then after that was shown to be false, he
resorted to the belief that they were opposed to private ownership of
the means of production. That has been shown to be false as well.
Given that he had been claiming he was an individualist anarchist, I
suspect he'll be moving on to another philosophy. We can't tailor an
article around one editor's ignorance of the subjects. RJII 19:42, 11
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

            RJ, I'm not going to step between you two, I'm just
pointing out that these aren't universally accepted issues. I'm not
even talking about "facts" here, just the way they're presented.
Saswann 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

I've started breaking out this section. (again) It is a topic that
could keep expanding without limit, and this article is getting huge
again. I haven't pruned anything yet, but I think we can cut out all
but part of the first section (that makes the point) and the
Left/Right section that refers to the chart. Saswann 15:57, 12 August
2005 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article status!

Hooray! Thanks to all who put effort into this article. It's very nice
and well-documented. MrVoluntarist 02:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    No doubt. RJII 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia pictures

It's cool that there's a Somalia picture in there, but that picture is
from 1993. Things are much nicer now. It would be nice to get pictures
something like these [3] or these [4] RJII 03:08, 16 August 2005

        If someone can find a PD/GFDL source for new pictures (The DoD
isn't good for pics post-1994 :) Saswann 16:00, 16 August 2005
        Here's some more: [5] I don't know if they're PD or not. RJII
20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

            The main site [6] has a copyright notice (struck out,
hmmm...) so my guess is that it isn't a PD source, though the fact
that Somolia has no government makes the question interesting. I
suspect US law still protects the author of a work outside the US, but
what do I know? IANAL Saswann 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

                True. Somalia doesn't have copyright laws. Besides
that, I don't think the former government signed any international
treaty regarding intellectual property. RJII 20:42, 16 August 2005

                    Is there an IP forum here where we can posit the
question? Saswann 21:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

                        Maybe you can ask in the intellectual property
talk page. Or, you could just post a picture if you think copyright
laws don't protect it. If someone challenges it, they'll do an RFC on
it and take it down if it is protected. RJII 21:55, 16 August 2005

I think I found the right page to ask, I posted a question here [7]
Saswann 11:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a great picture that shows the competition in electricity. [8]
I've emailed to see if they'll let us use it. RJII
03:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        If they're willing, make sure that we get some sort of
free-use license, permission and non-commercial use aren't ggod for a
featured article.

            Well, I got this back from "Mahadsanid
xiriirka aad lasoo yelatay Emailkaan waxaa haddakaaga
soo jawaabey computerka. Marka aan emailkaaga akhrino ayaan jawaabta
ku haboon kuusoo diri doonaa, insha Allah. -Mahadsanid," it looks like it's ok. RJII 15:21, 22 August 2005

                Again for us english speakers? Saswann 19:42, 22
August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

                    "Something something something something Email something something something computer.
Something email something something something something, God willing."
MrVoluntarist 04:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molinari trouble again

I was going to go ahead and make this edit, but I didn't want to
jeopardize the article's chance of appearing on the front page, so I
thought I'd discuss it first. This statement has been troubling me for
a while: "While some current adherents of liberalism and anarchism
wouldn't call Molinari an anarcho-capitalist, his thoughts were
influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries." Now, is there any
reason someone would believe Molinari would not meet the current
definition of anarcho-capitalist? Because if liberals and anarchists
are merely objecting to the connection because it would shatter their
worldview if it were the case that anarcho-capitalist beliefs have
been around since the mid 19th century, obviously (at least I hope
it's obvious), such an objection doesn't merit inclusion. On the other
hand, if there is a genuine reason to dispute Molinari's
anarcho-capitalism, it would help the article immensely to include it.
But then, that's the problem, isn't it? You see, I've asked numerous
people who dispute the connection to name one - just one - political
view Molinari had that would conflict with present
anarcho-capitalists, and so far, no one's been able to come up with
even a flawed one. So, would the liberals and anarchists please
justify this position or remove that statement? MrVoluntarist 00:58,
18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing no objections, the baseless anarchist claim is out.
MrVoluntarist 04:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list