grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:35:14 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 18
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Anarcho-capitalism
Jump to navigation Jump to search
	This 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.
Archive 15 	Archive 16 	Archive 17 	Archive 18 	Archive 19 	Archive 20
	→ 	Archive 25

    1 Anarcho-capitalism and Individualist Anarchism
    2 Consequentialist?
    3 Another real-world example
    4 Article far too large. Split!
    5 Merge
    6 just open greed?
    7 List of sockpuppets
    8 Sources
    9 Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard
    10 Wolf DeVoon
    11 Currency
    12 OED
    13 Large swaths of original research
    14 Invitation to the Anarchism Taskforce
    15 NPOV
    16 Intro needs trimming
    17 removal of "orignial research"
    18 "a form of market anarchism"
    19 Adding free-market anarchism
    20 Avrich as source
    21 Anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism
    22 Torts filed against corporations for liabilities arising
    23 Bulk-deletion of ancap != anarchism sources
        23.1 Iain McKay, Anarchist FAQ
        23.2 Chaz Bufe article
        23.3 Sabatini

Anarcho-capitalism and Individualist Anarchism

Your honor is verging on creating an edit war over saying in the
opener that Anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with Individualist
Anarchism. I'd like this discussion moved to the talk page.

While there is plenty of evidence (as sourced above) that
Anarcho-capitalism is a form of Individualist Anarchism, I balk at
suggesting that they are synonymous. Murray Rothbard himself refused
to call himself an individualist anarchist, since the term was
preempted by Spooner and Tucker for their own (differing) philosophy
(see The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View, page 7). While
Individualist Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism do have a broad
intersection, it is not accurate to say that Anarcho-capitalism is
"also called" Individualist Anarchism. --Academician 05:13, 28
December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm making not making a claim that "individualist anarchism" and
"anarcho-capitalism" are necessarily synonmous. Usually they are, but
sometimes they aren't. The claim is that the terms "individualist
anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are often used interchangeably for
the same philosophy. For example, Wendy McElroy calls herself an
"individualist anarchist" and she says she is a Rothbardian. That
makes her an anarcho-capitalist. And if you look at the reference
books on anarchism, Rothbard is referred to in many of them as an
"individualist anarchist" rather than an "anarcho-capitalist." They
are often synonyms. The same for "free market anarchism." Not everyone
is aware of the term "anarcho-capitalism." I heard it called
"individualist anarchism" before I heard of the term
"anarcho-capitalism." Your honor 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as economics goes individualist anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism are not synonymous. Individualist anarchism is
mutualism, they are in favor of private property but also subscribe to
the labor theory of value. They both champion the individual but the
economics are different. Anarko-Kapitalizt 04:40, 29 December 2006

    Anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism too. Usually when
someone is referred to as an "individualist anarchist" they're
Rothbardians. Very few individualist anarchists are mutualists.
Modern-day mutualist Kevin Carson says "Although there are many
honorable exceptions who still embrace the "socialist" label, most
people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are
followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned
the labor theory of value." -Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political
Economy, Preface. For example, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy does
not refer to herself as an anarcho-capitalist but a Rothbardian
"individualist anarchist" See McElroy, Wendy. The Passion of Ayn
Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens (2005) According to
Simon Tormey, "there are individualist anarchists who are most
certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."
Tormey, Simon, Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld
Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 There is no rule that to be an
individualist anarchist you have to subscribe to the labor theory of
value and the outdated mutualism and Benjamin Tucker stuff. Your honor
04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Saying that anarcho-capitalism is "also known by other names,
such as ... individualist anarchism" implies that the two are
synonymous. They are not. Even if most modern individualist anarchists
are anarcho-capitalists, the implicit statement that the terms are
synonymous A) is potentially offensive to the anti-capitalist
individualists, B) is potentially offensive to anarcho-capitalists who
refuse the individualist anarchist label, C) is disparaging of
individualist anarchism's history, most of which - and the most
well-known of which - came before anarcho-capitalism, and D) suggests
that earler individualist anarchists, such as Tucker, Spooner etc.,
were anarcho-capitalists when they were in fact anti-capitalists. It
is appropriate to note, in the section covering the wide variety of
names anarcho-capitalism has been known by, that "individualist
anarchism" is one of them. It is simply not appropriate to insert that
one term (and not all the others) into the leading sentence. It would
also be cumbersome to have all the various terms in the introductory
sentence, which is why the section on other names exists.
        Let me use an analogy. At the punk rock article, a user
changes the lead to read thus:

                Punk rock (also known as hardcore or pop punk) is an ...

        Do you see the problem? Punk rock existed well before hardcore
or pop punk came into existence. It is true that in the 80s, most of
punk was called hardcore, and now, most of what is called punk is pop
punk, but the terms are not synonymous. That edit would be liable to
ofend people, and would be reverted instantly. Hardcore and pop punk
are only subtypes - dominant subtypes, certainly, but subtypes
nonetheless - of punk rock as a whole. That would be to neglect the
history of punk rock.
        And, similarly, inserting individualist anarchism in the lead
of this article would be to neglect the history of both
anarcho-capitalism, whose founder distanced it from individualist
anarchism, and of individualist anarchism, which long predates
anarcho-capitalism and the most well-known proponents of which were
not capitalists. -Switch t 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            It doesn't matter if anyone is "offended." I'm not helping
to create a "politically correct" encyclopedia. The fact is that
anarcho-capitalism is just one of a few other names that refer to the
same philosophy. There is no legitimate reason to exclude the
alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term
"anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence. I put a
parenthetical note there stating that not all philosophies that are
referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same as this one, so
I don't see what the problem is. I'm not sure you understand. It's not
just that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism.
It's that anarcho-captalism IS individualist anarchism. It's an
alternate name for it (regardless of whether or not other philosophies
are called individualist anarchism too). Not all anarcho-capitalists
refer to themselves as anarch-capitalists. Many refer to themselves as
individualist anarchists instead. As the Kevin Carson source pointed
out, most who call themselves individualist anarchists are
Rothbardians. And it's not just self-labeling. Many scholars refer to
it as individualist anarchism instead of anarcho-capitalism as well.
It's simply an alternate name for the same thing (not always, but
often). Your honor 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                I'm sorry, but it does matter if people are offended
because Wikipedia says something false. Individualist anarchism is not
just another name for anarcho-capitalism. If there's "no legitimate
reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as
the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence", then
why do you insist on only adding one of them, and that one being the
most controversial and misleading? The parenthetical not ewas messy,
made the sentence hard to read, and added nothing to the article that
isn't noted elsewhere.
                It's not that "not all philosophies that are referred
to as "individualist anarchism" are the same", it's that the
philosophy referred to as "individualist anarchism" is different.
                The information is already in the article. You are
only trying to confuse the matter, conflate two seperate ideologies,
and make the article harder to read. There's no reason to do that
merely to give prominence to information you like when it is already
in the article in the appropriate place. -Switch t 07:17, 30 December
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    He has a legitimate point. There are Rothbardians
who don't call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" but "individualist
anarchists" such as Wendy McElroy or "market anarchists." Benjamin
Tucker was a market anarchist too but not an anarcho-capitalist. A lot
of anarcho-capitalists don't like the term "anarcho-capitalism"
because it leads to confusion by people who are not familiar with how
free-market capitalism is defined.Anarcho-capitalism 00:26, 9 January
2007 (UTC)[reply]

                        In fact, here's a source right here using
"individualist anarchism" as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism:
"*"[David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society and the State, University Press
of America, 1983] [e]xamines the doctrine of individualist anarchism
or "anarcho-capitalism," a branch of libertarianism, which desires to
universalize the market as the primary mechanism for coordination of
social activity. Reviews the range of economic positions encompassed
in anarchism, from anarcho-communism at one end to individualist
anarchism at the other, pointing out that anarchism, in this view, is
compatible with capitalism." Review in Journal of Economic Literature
(JEL 83-1167, p. 1620) of David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society, and the
State, University Press of America, 1983Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 16
January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Consequentialists such as Friedman disagree,

I don't have The Machinery of Freedom on hand right now, but I'm
pretty sure there is a passage where David D. Friedman not only very
explicitly denies being a consequentalist, but in fact expresses his
amusement about the idea. Instead, he puts up philosophical arguments
to show that both naïve consequentialism and naïve
deontological/natural-rights ethics can lead to absurdities when taken
to their logical extremes. In general, Friedman seems not to worry
about this too much. Unlike staunch everything-from-first-principle
rationalists like Rothbard, but notably very much in the spirit of
Popper and Hayek, he doesn't seem particularly committed to an
all-ecompassing grand axiomatic System Of Ethics And Law, but prefers
to show how his ideas make sense under a variety of reasonable
assumptions, and analyze them more from the perspective of a social
scientist than that of a moral philosopher. I think this derives from
a relative lack of interest in actual politics. Friedman does not seem
to be worried that having subtler ideas or a more mess-with-your-mind
writing style would make it harder to attract a political following
than a more Randian "I'm always right and this is how the world works"
style. Sjeng 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's true. Here he is talking about it in a debate with
rights-theorists libertarians: What's Right vs. What Works. Charles
Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. Liberty.
January 2005, Vol 15, No 1 Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 24 January 2007

        Thanks, I liked that article a lot. I will stop the
inappropriate chatting on the talk page now.Sjeng 04:44, 18 February
2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another real-world example

Don't some people consider Somalia as another example? Fephisto 18:53,
11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't seen a source for that.Anarcho-capitalism 21:08, 11
February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunbat 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] and here an
article by the same author Sunbat 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        But those don't say it's an example of anarcho-capitalism. A
source would have to say that explicitly or it would be deleted out of
the article for being "original research."Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 12
February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            I havent read the book, so i cant give you any quotes
alas. maybe someone else can, check maybe? Sunbat 05:50, 12
February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                This? [1]. However, upon looking, I'm getting a lot
more articles saying it's not an example, so, nm. Actually, doesn't
the [Anarchy in Somalia] article point to Anarcho-capitalism being
there? Fephisto 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article far too large. Split!

There is too much information on this page that doesn't need to be here.


    Reduce the size of the introduction!
    Reduce the size of the non-aggression axiom section and move
relevant information to that page
    Reduce the size of the section on Classical liberalism (and so on...)
    Reduce the size of The Austrian School school section
    Reduce the size of the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section.

Basically, pages exist on all these topics, independently of this
topic. Therefore, you don't need to duplicate the information here.
The introduction is not meant to provide everything about the topic

I would do it, except that I have a lot of stuff in the real world
just now, and it is easier to suggest to other people. Also, I'm not
really a contributor to this article, so you people might get annoyed
if I did it without asking.

And I've suggested basically the same thing over at the anarchism page
as well, once you are done here, you might pop over to help there. AFA
16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No such thing as "too much information." This article is
definitely not large. It's pretty small.Anarcho-capitalism 16:10, 23
March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with User:Anarcho-capitalism this is normal size for a
featured article. Lord Metroid 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        The point is that it is duplicating information found at other
pages. As such, we are maintaining two versions of the same
information. What is the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was
added by AFA (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

            If that is the case, than the duplicate information should
be removed from the least essential article for the specific topic of
the duplicated information and be replaced by a smaller conclusion and
referal Lord Metroid 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too large, please look at wikipedia policy.--Dwarf
Kirlston 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the crazy shit about mergeing. A Featured Article being merged
with market anarchism. 2 different topics. No way I would agree with
that. Lord Metroid 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur. Intangible2.0 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        Wouldn't "market capitalism" include the anti-capitalist
Proudhon's Mutualism? I oppose a merge. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 01:07, 20 April
2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge as well. If anything there could be subsection of
market anarchism titled Anarcho capitalism.... which would re-direct
you here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoweLeif (talk •
contribs) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just open greed?

I have thought for some time that anarcho-capitalism is a very bad
thing. Most anarchist sects want freedom from government in order to
correct some injustice in their system or such, but I am of the
opinion that anarcho-capitalists simply seek to increase their wealth
by abolishing any and all laws binding them, thus letting them run
rampant. Invadra 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the correct place for discussing this subject as the
talk pages are meant for discussing editing of the article associated
to the talk page. If you want to discuss philosophy, I know that the
messageboard of Free Domain Radio discusses moral and political
philosophy and because the host of Free Domain Radio is an
anarcho-capitalist that message board is populated by people that
would gladly discuss anarcho-capitalism with you. Lord Metroid 16:28,
13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sockpuppets

User:Crashola is a sockpuppet of a banned user. For details, see
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. -- infinity0 23:35,
17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will start a centralized discussion about sources on
anarcho-capitalism (not) being a form of anarchism so that we don't
need to repeat same arguments on several pages.

    I agree with argument that since "The Norton Dictionary of Modern
Thought" only refers to specific individuals associated with
individualist anarchism, one of whom was Nozick, it shouldn't be used
as a source for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
individualist anarchism.
    "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with
anarchism" can't be used for argument that anarcho-capitalism is not a
form of anarchism. According to Wikipedia:No original research policy,
synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is not
allowed. Concretely: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a
reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic
of the article. In this case this means that the fact that some people
claim that capitalism is not compatible with anarchism cannot be used
to advance the position that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of
    The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought says: At the
other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn
as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian
New Right. They don't speak about individualist anarchism as a dead
philosophy but as a living philosophy in the form of
    "Dictionary of Marxist Thought" makes a claim that
anarcho-capitalism is a contemporary variant of individualist
anarchism. That is all that matters. Tertiary sources are allowed per
    "BASTARD Press", "SPUNK Press" and "Frontlines" seem to be do it
yourself publishers and are sources of questionable reliability. As
such they should only be used in articles about themselves per WP:V.
-- Vision Thing -- 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I upped the subsection for "Sources that do not consider
capitalism to be compatible with anarchism". Many of the sources are
relevant. One of the sources (Tucker) predates the term, but discusses
the relationship between anarchism and socialism as a socialist
individualist anarchist. And it's largely his legacy that's disputed.
Generally, these divide into (1) those who consider anarcho-capitalism
to be non-anarchist (2) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be
non-capitalist and (3) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to mix
non-anarchist capitalist and non-capitalist anarchist elements.
    A fourth subsection, divided into pre-Rothbardian and
post-Rothbardian subsections, of market anarchist works on the
relationship between anarchism, socialism, and capitalism might be
better. Jacob Haller 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Nope, this one doesn't work. The argument is not "A and B,
therefore C". It is "Not A, Not B, therefore Not A+B". Its a logical
deduction (heck its really a tautology) akin to A=A and Not A=Not A,
and thus not covered by your above wiki-policy quote. Unless you are
claiming that anarcho-capitalism means something different than
anarchism + capitalism. Evidence for that claim would be welcomed,
perhaps you are saying that anarcho-capitalists use the term anarchism
differently than any other anarchists do? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007

    Original research policy clearly states: precise analysis must
have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic
before it can be published in Wikipedia. Authors you listed didn't
publish precise analysis in relation to the topic
(anarcho-capitalism). -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 22 May 2007

        There is no precise analysis here. There is a logical
tautology. If you think that is precise analysis, I suggest you look
up the meanings of the words involved. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007

            Determining whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism definitely requires a precise analysis. Also, those authors
didn't wrote about anarcho-capitalism (which is required by OR policy
to use them as a source). -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 27 May 2007

                There is no determination here, any determination is
left to the reader. The text is merely stating a fact, that these
writers do not consider anarchism and capitalism to be compatible. The
idea that these sources should be removed because they do not
specifically mention anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous when they are
clearly talking about the relationship between anarchism and
capitalism. To remove them on this standard would require that we
remove all the quotes by Molinari and others, is that something you
are advocating? Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                    I overlooked one of your last edits were you have
changed the text. Current version is acceptable with rewording. --
Vision Thing -- 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Okay, that makes sense. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 - I don't see the point of using a tertiary source when there are
plenty of primary ones, but whatever floats your boat. Etcetc 01:07,
22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Spunk press is not a do it yourself publisher. They have a long
history of publishing many authors well-known in the field. Do you
have evidence that Frontlines and Bastard are self publishers? If so I
would like to see it. It is odd that you are holding these particular
sources to such a high standard, when several of the sources already
in the article fail it. You don't mind if I begin to remove sources
that are obviously self-published? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007

    "BASTARD Press" is DIY publishing to produce content for the
InfoStall [2], for Frontlines I haven't managed to find any
information which is evidence enough about their notability, and
"SPUNK Press" is not a publisher but an online archive. By the looks
of the article you used as a source [3] it hasn't be published
anywhere. In general I don't have anything against self-published
sources if they are used for sourcing of uncontroversial content, but
for controversial issues like whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism only reliable sources must be used. If you look through the
sources used for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism,
you won't find any self-published source, or even source coming from
anarcho-capitalist (and there are many of those). -- Vision Thing --
19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        This is simple then, you've made clear that this is a
controversial topic, reference to which you keep changing in the text.
Since you've now based your argument for rejecting my sources on the
claim that this is a controversial issue, you've no reason to continue
to remove indications of such from the text itself. Also, to help you
stick to your own standard I'm going to remove Ralph Raico, since he
is a libertarian with a vested interest in portraying
anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I'm keeping the Frontlines
bit, cause I don't think your inability to find evidence of their
notability counts, I could say that about a lot of the references in
this article, controversial or not. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007

            To me a question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism is not a controversial issue, anarcho-capitalism is a form
of anarchism without a doubt. It also isn't controversial issue for
those scholars who say that it is a form of anarchism. It is only a
controversial issue for those scholars who argue that it is not a form
of anarchism. Since they are in minority their view shouldn't be
presented as a generally accepted.

                Who is in the minority? The vast majority of anarchist
theorists have argued that capitalism cannot survive without the
state, which implies that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, oxymoronic.
These fork into arguments which hold that non-socialist-anarchisms are
not anarchist, and those which argue that non-socialist anarchisms are
not capitalist. Jacob Haller 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                    That can also imply that anarcho-capitalist
theorists envisage their version of capitalism in a different way than
those anarchist theorists did. -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 27 May 2007

            Ralph Raico is libertarian but as far as I know he is not
an anarcho-capitalist. However, I will agree on his removal if you
will agree on removal of your libertarians and anarchist as sources
for claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism on the
same basis (subjectivity).
            Concerning, "Frontlines" I can't even find any evidence
that such publisher exists, and that is enough to put into question
their reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                You are trying to play this both ways. When it comes
to the text you claim that the status of anarcho-capitalism as a form
of anarchism is non-controversial, and continue to remove any
reference to controversy. When it comes to sources you disagree with
you claim that it is controversial, and continue to insist on leaving
only those sources that referance AC as a form of anarchism. You
ignore and dismiss all sources that would demonstrate the controversy
and insist they they must be in a majority without any evidence at all
to back up that claim. This is not a discussion you are engaging in,
but an attempt to push through a particular viewpoint.

                Anyway, its a strange standard you are advocating, if
we are going to remove sources due to the political ideology of the
source then you will find more than just Raico left out, Susan Brown
and Paul Avrich would also be removed, among many others. Or are you
suggesting we remove only those sources that say anarcho-capitalism is
not a form of anarchism and keep the rest? Its certainly seems to be
what you are suggesting in your edits. Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007

                    I'm leaving it for you and other editors to
decide. For me it works either way. -- Vision Thing -- 14:49, 28 May
2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etcetc, can you provide quotes for "Sources that consider anarchism
and capitalism mutually incompatible"? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 29
May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I? Of course. Are you asking me to dig up every reference and
provide you with a full quote? If so, why? Etcetc 05:45, 30 May 2007

        Because I tried to check something and I found some
discrepancies. But anyway, we had the same procedure for sources which
support claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, so it is
only fair to follow it here too. -- Vision Thing -- 12:14, 3 June 2007

            Give me a single example of a discrepancy and I'd be happy
to give the quote to justify the reference. As to the
anarcho-capitalist sources, many of them failed to correspond to the
text when I check them and were posted by individuals now banned from
wikipedia for engaging in blatantly anti-wiki behavior. In other
words, ALL of the anarcho-capitalist sources are suspect. I'd be happy
to provide a quote from each and every source I have posted if you do
the same with the anarcho-capitalist ones. You have already reinserted
several suspect sources, indicating that you have no intention of
being intellectually honest about this, but if you've changed your
ways I would be happy to oblige your rather strange request. Etcetc
23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                Sure, you can find all quotes here, under Sources
section. As for discrepancies in your sources, I have read page 238
from 'Political Theorists in Context' by Stuart Isaacs twice and I'm
not clear how you have concluded that he argues that anarchism and
capitalism are incompatible. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 5 June 2007

                    The quote you've called into question is
"Anarchism was a movement based upon equality and, like communism, it
sought a working class revolution to overthrow the state." The quote
is on page 240, I suppose the page must have flipped over while I was
typing in the citation. Of course, there are plenty of other quotes as
well, like "In other words, anarchism has at its core a belief in the
direct democratic participation of all in the decisions that affect
the societies in which they live." on the page before. Etcetc 06:44, 7
June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                        Neither of those comments addresses
capitalism. First (btw, talking in the past tense) talks about
revolution to overthrow the state, not capitalism, and second talks
about direct democracy, so you would need to do some (mistaken)
original research to use that one. Also, author you quoted says: In an
unlike turn of events many neo-liberals of the 1980s and 1990s turned
towards anarchist ideas. These new libertarians argued that the state
(in particular the welfare state) needed to be 'rolled back' to allow
individuals' greater freedom to exercise their own ambitions and
enterprise. Both Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Regan in the
USA benefited from this Right-leaning anarchist spirited discourse. So
you are clearly adding your own spin to the comments of this author,
and maybe to rest of them too, since he is clearly not indicating that
anarchism and its ideas are incompatible with capitalism (I imagine
that you consider both Thatcher and Regan as ultra-capitalists). --
Vision Thing -- 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                                The fact that they "turned toward
anarchist ideas" does not imply that they were anarchists, nor that
their political philosophy was compatible with anarchism. Are you
actually suggesting that the author was implying that Thatcher and
Reagan were anarchists? Obviously capitalists can have some anarchist
ideas, so can fascists, that doesn't make either group anarchists

                                Your attempts to dismiss this source
border on outrageous, are you actually trying to argue that a workers
revolution is in any way compatible with capitalism? If you think that
reference to direct democracy requires original research in order to
consider it incompatible with anarcho-capitalism, then you have an
awfully high standard. One that would rule out several of the
pro-capitalist sources you continue to champion. After all, some of
them only indicate that Murray Rothbard was an individualist anarchist
without making any mention of his being an anarcho-capitalist. That
would require the great leap of imagination for the reader to like
Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism with his attributed individualist
anarchism. Yet you seem to think that without a direct statement
indicating that anarcho-capitalism is or is not anarchism it is all
original research. You need to make a choice, either we include
sources that obviously support the text even though they don't simply
repeat the same exact statements, or we throw out all instances of
interpretation, anaylsis, and deduction on both sides that don't
measure up to your suddenly high standards. Its your call, I'm cool
with it either way, so long as you cease to apply a double standard.
Etcetc 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                                    What I'm saying is that workers
revolution against state is compatible with capitalism. As for direct
democracy, did you read its Wikipedia article? If you didn't it says
Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy.
And you are arguing that direct democracy and capitalism are
incompatible... -- Vision Thing -- 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Yeah, and Switzerland is a
bastion of anarchism. You are trying to compare apples to oranges,
though only when it suits you, of course. The text is clearly
referring to direct democracy in an anarchist context. And yep, a
"workers revolution" that is "like communism" as the text explicitly
compares, is in fact incompatible with capitalism. Etcetc 15:26, 7
June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Tucker's AtO removed from the list? Jacob Haller 17:11, 30 May
2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist
capitalism. Some sources even classify Tucker as an
anarcho-capitalist. -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with
anarcho-capitalist capitalism according to... Vision Thing? Etcetc
23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's debatable. Tucker and Rothbard had different views of
land ownership and banking systems. Rothbard often argued that
non-Lockean land systems and non-metallic banking systems violated
natural rights; however, Tucker and Rothbard proposed similar methods
for resolving disputes, which have been extended to allow for multiple
land systems and multiple banking systems. But somewhere we have to
distinguish between Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism and
Malatesta's pf anarcho-communism...
        In effect, Tucker states that anarchism cannot be capitalist
in the ordinary sense of the term (which makes as much sense as saying
that classical individualist anarchism was not socialist in the
ordinary sense of the term, except that socialism has had two rival
ordinary senses since the late 19th century, and capitalism has had
one ordinary sense, which confuses markets and privilege). Jacob
Haller 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard

I read on the internet that Ron Paul, candidate for president of the
U.S., was a close associate of Murray Rothbard. Is this true? Anyone
have a solid reference for this? After reading this, I'm recognizing a
lot of Rothbard influence in what Paul says. Paul sounds like a
near-anarchist. Ansetropen 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, Ansetropen, like Crashola and so many countless ones before,
is yet another banned sockpuppet. Etcetc 19:32, 24 May 2007

        Rothbard helped Paul develope his understanding of economics,
but he never converted Paul to an anarchist. Paul is a minarchist.
Allixpeeke (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            Paul was definitely a closet Anarchist imho. As for their
ties, when Paul ran for president in 1988, Rothbard was his economic
adviser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                No~o, Ron Paul has some libertarian tendancies but he
is far from an anarchist, even closet anarchist. He is a career
politician for beeps sake! Lord Metroid (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008

Wolf DeVoon

By all means, ignore The Freeman's Constitution, Laissez Faire Law
ISBN 978-1-4303-0836-2, and The Good Walk Alone ISBN 978-1-4303-2859-9 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No where in this article (or any place else ive looked) explains what
form of money would be used in anarcho-capitalist society. What types
of money would be used?

    That's a question that I'm sure many who are unfamiliar with
"hardcore" free market ideas would like to have an answer to. However,
I'm not sure that this question belongs in this article, since I feel
it is better to deal with the general philosophical aspects, and leave
economics to more appropriate articles (Free market, Business cycle,

    Also, it is of course impossible to know what currency would be
used in an anarcho-capitalist society, since people are free to do as
they wish (anarchy = without rulers), and use whatever method of trade
they would deem most beneficial. The same goes for any and all aspects
and details of an anarchist society. You simply can not know what it
will look like beforehand. One can only watch it evolve.

    However, it should also be said that it is today clear that gold
is a very logical choice of currency, and almost all anarchist
economists (most notably those of the Austrian School) advocate a gold
standard. —Per Hedetun (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to divide the topics aming the articles. The basic
market anarchist position is to have multiple competing currencies.
This means that if one bank/association inflates its own currency, it
doesn't inflate the rival currencies. (This also allows gold, silver,
land, grain, etc. to compete as backing media, which was important to
the older traditions but is less important to ancapism). (If ancaps
focus on gold, are there any special objections to competing media?)
Rothbard condemned fractional-reserve banking as fraud. Many
post-Rothbardians disagree. They argue that if the bank states that it
is fractional-reserve, discloses what insurance it has for runs, what
conditions it has for limiting/forbidding withdrawals, etc., then it
doesn't involve fraud. Jacob Haller 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-Rothbardians? Anyways, the original question of what money
will be used cannot be answered directly, there all kind of reasons
why some moneys mights outcompete others, that all has to do with
transaction costs, convertability, etc. Intangible2.0 02:12, 2 July
2007 (UTC)[reply]

        The entire "argument" is based on a lack of understanding of
what "money" is. You can't just decide that whatever is going to be
money. Money has to arise out of barter by natural means (see Mises'
regression theorem). Different monies could arise in different
more-or-less-disconnected economies, but the idea of many "competing
monies" within an economy is just silly. At the moment, money is
government paper. You can't get back to gold, or anything else,
without a complete regression to a barter economy. (That's why
government paper continues to circulate even (or especially!) after
the government in question has ceased to exist, as with the "Swiss
dinar" in Iraq, etc. In theory, governments could reverse the
"trickery" they used to go from commodity money (gold) to fiat, but
that's not going to happen, and you can't do it yourself, unless you
can somehow gain control of the government's monetary authority)
—Tacitus Prime 13:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            Huh? You assume there's some basic difference between
barter and currency systems, aside from fiat interference, and that
competing currencies act like the former. Well, currencies have
competed many times in the past, without fixed exchange rates, and
without trouble. Jacob Haller 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                Yes, there's a difference between money and barter -
why they have different names, for a start. I don't know why you think
I think the difference has anything to do with fiat. When you speak of
competing currencies, are you referring to (a) proto-currencies
"competing" to become "money" in an economy just beginning to emerge
from barter, (b) currencies from different areas in an economy that
hasn't yet settled on its own (e.g., the use of a wide array of
European coins in various colonies in previous centuries), or (c) a
stable, functioning economy that has multiple local currencies (not
merely engaging in foreign exchange operations) over a sustained
period of time. Only (c) would be "competing currencies" in the way
being talked about here; if that's what you mean, please name an
example. —Tacitus Prime 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                    ??? "Money" is what "serves the purpose of the
tool, money." Any easily portable high-value good does that, as do
high-value notes. The difference between currency systems and barter
systems is one of degree.
                    Categories A and B beg the question - they
presuppose that multiple currencies mean an incompletely-developed
currency system. Category C is fairly common, especially if we add
special-purpose currencies to local currencies, and a fourth category
D - a stable, functioning economy that has multiple currencies with
substantially-overlapping ranges - is not, to my knowledge, uncommon.
                    However, I specialize in eras and areas with large
states using their taxation power, and sometimes more drastic
measures, to support their official currency, and this tips the scales
against alternative currencies. Jacob Haller 14:45, 23 September 2007

                        We're using different definitions of "money" -
"any portable high-value good" is just any portable high-value good;
it's not money. Diamonds are portable high-value goods, but try
walking into your local supermarket and paying for your groceries with
diamonds! The difference between barter and a money economy is
precisely that there is a general medium of exchange (money) in the
latter, so that everything can be priced in terms of that; you don't
have to have a "price of cows in eggs" and a "price of cows in goats"
and so on between every pair of goods, with associated high
transaction costs (and it's much more than just "a matter of degree")
- there's obviously a (strong) tendency to move in that direction.
Having multiple monies is essentially the same thing - the tendency
must be to move toward a single money; multiple monies can only exist
as a transition state. —Tacitus Prime 02:36, 24 September 2007


I was surprised to find the definition of anarcho-capitalism in the
Oxford English Dictionary. Here is the entry: "A theory or ideology
based on a belief in the freedom to own private property, a rejection
of any form of governmental authority or intervention, and the
upholding of the competitive free market as the main mechanism for
social interaction." Operation Spooner 17:53, 31 July 2007
Large swaths of original research

I don't even know where to start but there are huge sections of
original research in contradiction to WP:NOR, the one I think is a
good example is the entire Anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form
of anarchism section which should preferably be changed to give the
same info (and a lot of it is good info, if sourced info is possible,
or removed though that is not ideal as a large part of what makes this
a good article is that information. Cat-five - talk 05:47, 29 November
2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only sources I can give you about "Anarcho-capitalism isn't a
legitimate form of anarchism" is from
- Notice: I have not written this essay myself nor any of it's
content, I merely copied it because I found it an interesting piece of
text. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the Anarchism Taskforce

In the spirit of anarchist pluralism and inclusivity,
anarcho-capitalism, national-anarchism, agorism, green anarchism and
sects and offshoots of all varieties have been allowed mention in the
Wikipedia articles and template regarding anarchism. So I'd like to
continue this panarchist solidarity by inviting you all to join the
newly established Anarchism Task Force, an arena for collaborating on
improving anarchism articles of all varieties on Wikipedia. Skomorokh
incite 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All links and references are heavily skewed towards anarchy. None that
are critical (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hu? It is an article about an anarchistic idea... What did you
expect? If you want to reference the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism
section, please do. But the article it about an anarchistic idea. This
is not an NPOV issue. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2008

Intro needs trimming

It's called the introduction for a reason. You don't have to cram
every single point in the article into the intro in summary. Fearwig
(talk) 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
removal of "orignial research"

I don't see why the section about the labelling of anarcho-capitalism
had to be removed. The issue of the name of the ideology is a
controversial one amongst anarcho-capitalists. For example, Ian
Bernard would commonly say in his radio show that the term
"anarcho-capitalism" is misleading and thus would use "free-marketeer"
as a substitute to avert such misunderstanding. See here - I'm sure any frequent
listener of his radio show would attest to that. Stefan Molyneux, as
another prominent anarcho-capitalist, would call himself a
"philosopher" as a more accurate label than "anarcho-capitalist".
Francois Tremblay, who recently wrote the book "But Who Will Build The
Roads" describes himself as a "market" anarchist, since he believes
the word "capitalism" to be misleading. I'm going to add this, since I
don't see how it qualifies as baseless "original research". It is a
salient controversy in anarcho-capitalist circles.

Instead of critiquing, maybe a wiser course of actions would be to
actually study the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists, prior to
claiming that such a point is without foundation. Lapafrax (talk)
19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"a form of market anarchism"

In the first sentence in the introductory paragraph, it suggests that
anarcho-capitalism is a form of market anarchism. Even though the
sources suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist
anarchism, there is not any reliable sources suggesting that it is a
form of market anarchism. Numerous sources suggest that free market
anarchism is a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. (e.g. [4] [5] [6]) I
found no sources suggesting that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
market anarchism. Murray Rothbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist,
even used the term free-market anarchism as a synonym for

In the free-market anarchism article, it mentions that only two
groups--agorists and anarcho-capitalists--identify themselves as
free-market anarchists. Agorism should be mentioned in this article,
because all agorists are also anarcho-capitalists. So why some
mistakenly assume that agorists are market anarchists but not
anarcho-capitalists? This further supports the conclusion that market
anarchism is not a superset of anarcho-capitalism, but it is a

Furthermore, I suggest redirecting the article free-market anarchism
with this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and two highly
overlapping articles should be merged. There are, and will be, no
sources that differentiates between anarcho-capitalism and free-market
anarchism. We therefore should assume that these two are actually
equivalent articles, according to WP:OR. They are not even "highly

It is unmanageable to create maintain another version of this article.
Benjamin Tucker, an market anarchist, is also mentioned here; even
though he did not explicitly identify himself as an
anarcho-capitalist. The term anarcho-capitalism was coined much later
by Murray Rothbard, which may be a reason why Tucker did not identify
himself as such. This may also be the case of similar historic figures
such as Gustave de Molinari and Lysander Spooner, who are also
embedded in this article.

The term anarcho-capitalism is used much more commonly than the other
term. Visit the discussion page of the other article for an
elaboration. The redirect proposal has been suggested for quite some
time, so now it is about the time to actually redirect. I don't think
anyone would mind if the other article was redirected, as there has
been no activity on the redirect proposal. This article contains
everything that is included in the other article, and you can also
copy the contents of anarcho-capitalism to free-market anarchism, so
just blank that page and write a redirect.

Thank you for your time. (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding free-market anarchism

The term free-market anarchism is used commonly as a synonym of
anarcho-capitalism than a superset of it. According to the WP:NPOV
policy, we should include the significant view, no matter what is
correct, no matter if it is proven or not. The term free-market
anarchism is used much more commonly as a synonym than a superset.
(see discussion above) Therefore, we should include the synonym, to
respect the NPOV policy. (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avrich as source

OK so I have now found the section of Anarchist Voices that is being
cited as considering a-c a form of anarchism, thanks for the help. But
I see that it is footnote explaining an interviewees use of the term
"Rothbardian" and reads almost in full "Followers of Murray N
Rothbard, American economist, historian and individualist anarchist.
He edited Left & Right during the 1960s his books include...."

So we're talking about 3 lines in footnote to a 700-page book! I think
the status of this as an "aside" needs to be made clear in the
reference, given Avrich's authoritative status as a historian of
anarchism. I'm guessing that'd best be done by including it's footnote
status in the WP ref. I'll be doing that later on, (once I work out
the formatting :) ) Chaikney (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing as the reference doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism, I have
removed it. Good work, Skomorokh 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        If Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism for his
philosophy and he's an individualist anarchist, then
anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchism. This is common
sense. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            If Lucy coined the term anti-corporatism for her
philosophy, and she's a vegetarian, then anti-corporatism is a
vegetarianism. This is common sense. Skomorokh 21:42, 26 July 2008

                Yes if she calls her philosophy anti-corporatism and a
source says that philosophy is vegetarian, then her philosophy,
anti-corporatism, is vegetarian. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:49, 26 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]

                    Yes, but that would not imply that the source says
Lucy is vegetarian. That would be original synthesis. I like what you
have done with the Avrich source, by the way. Regards, Skomorokh
22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism

I have added the following note in the section of criticism: "The
Anarchist International, see [7] holds that anarcho-capitalism is
economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism, see [8]." (Anna Quist
(talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    As it is not reliably sourced, I have removed it. Please stop
adding poorly referenced material to the encyclopaedia. Sincerely,
Skomorokh 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torts filed against corporations for liabilities arising non-contractually

Was this really original research? It seems consistent with
anarcho-capitalist principles. I just can't remember if I've read it
anywhere else. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the posting was self-evident when I originally made it, but to
resolve the issue, I've added a quote from Rothbard which supports the
original point. (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bulk-deletion of ancap != anarchism sources

I have reverted the deletion of half of the sources in "Sources which
say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism". They were alleged to be
unreliable and/or misinterpreted. I want to hear exactly what the
objections to them all are. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008
Iain McKay, Anarchist FAQ

    AFAQ is the most comprehensive source on this side of the dispute.
    the author is the editor of Black Flag, the UK's 2nd longest
running anarchist periodical
    it is about to be published in book form by AK Press

I can see no good reason for seeing this as either unreliable or
misinterpreted. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How do we know that everything that is in the online version is in
the published version? There may be some things that the publisher
didn't accept. Has the book actually been printed yet? Richard Blatant
(talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        It's being typeset, Current plan is for a launch event in
September in Glasgow; only changes to the online version were for
length reasons as far as I know. It's already had 10 years of
fact-checking. Chaikney (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            I didn't have much a problem using this until I just saw
the policy. Apparently, this can't be used regardless according the
policy things "that express views that are widely acknowledged as
extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and
personal opinions" are not to be used as sources. The FAQ makes it
clear that they are promotional in nature. Richard Blatant (talk)
20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Bufe article

"These "Libertarians"  not only glorify capitalism, the mechanism that
denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority,
but they also wish to retain the coercive apparatus of the state while
eliminating its social welfare functions"”hence widening the rift
between rich and poor, and increasing the freedom of the rich by
diminishing that of the poor (while keeping the boot of the state on
their necks)."...No room for misinterpretation here. As for its
reliability: it's a published source that pithily summarises the
common social anarchist view of capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29
July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bufe basically says that whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism or not depends on definition of anarchism. Under one
definition it is form of anarchism, under other is not. Because of
that he can't be used as a source that anarcho-capitalism is not a
form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        He actually gives HIS definition: He says "This is what it is:
In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the
state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely
narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as
"anarcho-capitalism" and "religious anarchism" are possible." One
could even use this as a source for anarcho-capitalism being a form of
anarchism. I haven't because there are plenty of other sources that
where there is no lack of clarity over what they're saying. Richard
Blatant (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This was published in an anarchist journal (AJODA) and deals directly
with the issue. It's referred to when this comes up in forum
discussions. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This and Anarchist FAQ are what WP:V calls questionable sources.
Questionable sources are defined as publications: "that express views
that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature,
or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." and they "should
only be used as sources about themselves." -- Vision Thing -- 15:58,
30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Justify that statement, Vision Thing. AAJODA is a respected
journal, and AAFAQ is praised by notable scholars, widely read, has
been published by AK Press, a reputable publisher (see An Anarchist
FAQ. P.S. Your input would be most welcome at WP:ANCITE, where we hope
to settle questions like this definitively in future. Regards,
Skomorokh 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            It is really a journal? I would say it's a magazine. I can
get it at the local bookstore in the magazine section. It appears they
simply print letters or articles people send in to the magazine.
Richard Blatant (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                If you want sources on what anarchists think, you need
to go to anarchist periodicals. It has never been properly featured in
academic journals, the classic texts were all issued as pamphlet or
newspaper ("journal") form. AAJODA has been published for around 20
years. Branding it a magazine as if it were equivalent to TV Weekly is
deeply misleading. It's about as notable an anarchist source as you
could find. Chaikney (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            This is how AK Press describes themselves: "AK Press is a
worker-run collective that publishes and distributes radical books,
visual and audio media, and other mind-altering material. [...] AK
Press works hard to destroy and move beyond capitalism, toward a
non-exploitative, sustainable, and just economy. [...] We’re proud to
call ourselves propagandists and hope that the materials we provide
both agitate and provoke." [9] If that is not a description of an
extremist, questionable source (per Wikipedia's definition) I don't
know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                Oh for heaven's sake. Now the most prominent publisher
of anarchist books is going to be ruled inadmissable?! As a source for
an article linked from the Anarchism portal!? Then we need to get rid
of all the libertarian think tanks and academics, also. They fit the
same criteria. This is getting silly. Chaikney (talk) 21:51, 30 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]

                    Well, if you'll notice, none of the sources saying
anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism are from anarcho-capitalists
or from anarcho-capitalist publishers or even professed libertarian
publishers. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                        Published by capitalist enterprises, though;
by capitalist economists? In what way does complete detachment from a
subject make you reliable rather than, say, prone to repeat
contentious claims at face value? Echo chamber effect. Capitalist
enterprises aren't keen on publishing anti-capitlist literature, you
know. So we could condemn all anarchist sources as unreliable and have
an article that bears no relation to reality. Chaikney (talk) 22:14,
30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                            AK press gets paid too. They're as
capitalist as anyone else, regardless of how they organize their
private ownership of the means of production. Richard Blatant (talk)
22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                I don't know if you're being serious
or contrarian. Are you about to suggest that AK Press are
anarcho-capitalist? They are a workers co-op. No hierarchy, no boss.
No selling labour in return for time. The society they exist in is
capitalist. They are not capitalist in any meaningful sense. This
illustrates how far anarcho-capitalist ideas about capitalism are from
anarchist ideas about capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008

                                        It's still private ownership
of the means of production. That's the basic definition of capitalism.
They are engaging in private ownership of the means of production and
making money from it. Capitalism allows people to arrange their means
of production however they want to arrange it. That's the essence of
private property. The owners control it, as opposed to society at
large, as in anarcho-communism, or a government controlling it.
Capitalism doesn't require a "boss." Anyone that owns their own
business, a sole proprietorship, is engaging in capitalism too.
Richard Blatant (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list