grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:36:11 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 19
>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 17 	Archive 18 	Archive 19 	Archive 20 	Archive
21 	→ 	Archive 25

    1 Contemporary Political Ideologies
    2 Chaz Bufe source
    3 References
    4 Bot report : Found duplicate references !
    5 As a label
    6 Refimprove?
    7 27 meters of bovine waste!
    8 Devolution of anarcho-capitalism into statism
    9 Copyrights
    10 Cleanup-restructure
    11 Reason why entire talk: page should be deleted
    12 first paragraph
    13 Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism
    14 Merge proposal
        14.1 Proposal withdrawn

Contemporary Political Ideologies

I have checked this out on Google Books, and the cited page (p.142)
does not mention anarcho-capitalism. I deem Richard Blatant's removal
appropriate in this case. I agree with Chaikney that the above sources
should be included if they actually do deny that ancap is a form of
anarchism. Skomorokh 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            If we're only going to take sources on that basis, this
will be like looking through geography textbooks for explicit denials
that the world is flat.
            At the moment we have many sources (mostly economists
rather than political activists) which take at face value the a-c's
self-designation as anarchist without giving the matter any
consideration; in the converse situation, anarchists who don't think
a-c are anarchist either ignore them, very few bother to state that
they aren't anarchist because it's the implicit position, as with
geographers who don't believe the earth is flat. This leads to
unbalancing of sources and a misrepresentative article. Chaikney
(talk) 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                If you can find many published reliable sources saying
that Earth is flat, and only few saying that it's not, then that we
would have to represent the round earth view as the fringe view on
Wikipedia. The reason we don't, is because there are an extreme
shortage of such sources for the flat earth view. It's the same for
anarcho-capitalism or any other subject. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:58,
30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only mention of anarcho-capitalism is see on page 136, where
it says, "Even such American anarchists as Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939)
and Lysander Spooner (1808-87), the forebears of modern
'anarcho-capitalism', agreed with the proposition that..." Richard
Blatant (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The other source I removed, which was Peter Marshall, the closest
thing he says to anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism is
"Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might
therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than
anarchists." He says the "might" best be "called" something else, but
doesn't say that they're not anarchists. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:11,
29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        That seems like a polite way of saying "the bulk of their
thought and practice is counter to anarchism, all they have in common
is rejection of the state", i.e. "these people are not anarchists" to
me. Will restore. (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (this
was me Chaikney (talk))[reply]

            "Might" is the keyword. Don't read whatever you want to
read into a writer's words. Take them at face value. Removing. Richard
Blatant (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                Marshall is a historian, not an activist. His purpose
in the book is a history of anarchism. He barely considers the
anarcho-capitalists (spending more time on Taoism, if I remember
right) because they have so little in common with anarchist theory and
practice. At face value, he says the only connection to anarchism
these people have is the name (which they gave themselves) and
anti-statism, which they also share with right-libertarians. Ergo,
ancap != anarchism. Focussing on "might" taken out of context is
misleading. Chaikney (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and Chaikney
(talk) 11:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                "Might best be called.." is a statement what what they
"might" best be "called." It's not a definitive statement, and it's
not a statement that they're not anarchists. One can be a
right-libertarian and an anarchist at the same time, just as one can
be a left libertarian and an anarchist at the same time. Richard
Blatant (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Bufe source

Split by Skomorokh, 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A third one I removed is the one about Cuban Anarchism, the
introduction to the book. It doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a
form of anarchism. It says: "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. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such shining
examples of anarcho-capitalists." Richard Blatant (talk) 19:17, 29
July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        I disagree with the removal of Bufe; he is an anarchist, and
by referring to anarcho-capitalism as an absurdity in this sense
clearly implies he does not consider it a form of anarchism. Skomorokh
19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            No, because he said anarcho-capitalism is absurd, yet
"possible." He says anarchism is simply rejection of the state.
Richard Blatant (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                Sorry, my mistake. I've read the entire section now
and see that Bufe considers anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism
"under [the] extremely narrow definition" of rejection of the state.
So, should we add this source to the "Sources which consider
anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism" section? Skomorokh 20:33, 29
July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                    Yes, the fuller context: "American "anarchist"
journal recently published a book by a fellow egotist consisting
largely of ad hominem attacks on actual anarchists"”knowing full well
that the "anarchist"  author of the book was a notorious police
narcotics informant. Such individuals may (mis)use the label, but
they're anarchists only in the sense that the now-defunct German
Democratic Republic (East Germany) was democratic and a republic. This
is what anarchism isn't. 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" nd religious anarchism
are possible. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such
shining examples of anarcho-capitalists. But most anarchists use the
term "anarchism"  in a much broader sense, defining it as the
rejection of coercion and domination in all forms. So, most anarchists
reject not only coercive government, but also religion and capitalism,
which they see as other forms of the twin evils, domination and
coercion." He explicitly says that that's what "anarchism is." Then he
goes on to say something about "most anarchists," but I don't see him
saying that he's part of "most anarchists." Maybe it should be
included in the sources which consider it a form of anarchism. Richard
Blatant (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                        I can't see any way (on this side of the
rabbit-hole) that these statements:

                            anarcho-capitalism is an absurdity
                            they are anarchist only in the sense that
GDR was democratic (i.e. they have the name but they are not that
                            most anarchists define it as rejection of
all domination

                        ...can be made to add up to "Chaz Bufe thinks
a-c is anarchism". If he disagreed with "most anarchists", he'd say
so. If you disagree with a majority view that you state in an article,
then you say so in that article, or (not wanting to propagate the
idea) you wouldn't have mentioned it. Restoring. (talk)
23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (this was me - Chaikney (talk))[reply]

                            Anarcho-capitalists are also opposed to
domination and coercion, so it fits the definition anyway. Yes, he
says anarcho-capitalism is an absurdity but he also says it is
possible. He says he is not aware of any anarcho-capitalists.
Removing. Richard Blatant (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                Except that anarcho-capitalists are
the only ones who don't see capitalism as being reliant on or
synonymous with domination & coercion.

                                    he has never seen an a-c
                                    it is an absurdity
                                    only possible with an "extremely
narrow" definition of what anarchism is
                                    this extremely narrow definition
is not the one that anarchists use
                                    their practice is no more in
accordance with anarchism than the GDR was with democracy

                                "It's possible that the laws of
gravity don't work on the surface of AntiGravMoon. Such a thing is an
absurdity, against all known about gravity on other planets, and I've
never seen it." This is equivalent to "AntiGravMoon does not have
anti-gravity, despite what the Moonies might say". Unless you take the
phrase "it is possible" out of context.
                                Back to the subject in hand, our
context is that Bufe states "capitalism [is] the mechanism that denies
both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority".
Chaikney (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and 09:24, 30 July 2008

                                    Let's look at the sentence again:
"This is what anarchism isn't. 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" nd religious
anarchism are possible." He's explicity saying anarcho-capitalism is
"possible." And he's also saying that "this is what [anarchism] is: In
its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state,
the rejection of coercive government." If that's what "[anarchism]
is," then that's what it is. Then he goes one to say most anarchists
oppose capitalism. Ok, fine. Anarcho-capitalists therefore are
anarchists that are not part of "most anarchists." If the claim that
anarcho-capitalist were not a form of anarchism were any more than a
fringe view among the sources out there, then there should be no
problem finding a plethora of sources saying explicitly that it is not
a form of anarchism, like there are saying that anarcho-capitalism is
a form of anarchism explicitly. Richard Blatant (talk) 15:52, 30 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the Bufe reference is ambiguous and insubstantial.
If we cannot come to an agreement on whether it considers a-c as a
type of anarchism or not a type of anarchism, we should omit it
entirely. Skomorokh 16:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The reference is neither ambigious nor insubtantial when read in
context. While published as a book Introduction, it leaves off from
that to cover what the author considers is / isn't anarchism. He says
you could define it one way (only absence of state) but that leads to
absurdities because it focuses on only one type of freedom. The bulk
of the article lays out his view of what anarchism is, and it
precludes capitalism and therefore anarcho-capitalism.

        "the primary goal of anarchism is the greatest possible amount
of freedom for all, anarchists insist on equal freedom in both its
negative and positive senses that, in the negative sense, individuals
be free to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm or
directly intrude on others; and, in the positive sense, that all
individuals have equal freedom to act, that they have equal access to
the world's resources."


        "the term "libertarian"  in its original sense: as a synonym
for "anarchist."  Indeed, it was used almost exclusively in this sense
until the 1970s when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the
grossly misnamed Libertarian Party. This party has almost nothing to
do with anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of
equal freedom and positive freedom"”the access to resources necessary
to the freedom to act. Instead, this "Libertarian"  party concerns
itself exclusively with the negative freedoms, pretending that liberty
exists only in the negative sense, while it simultaneously revels in
the denial of equal positive freedom to the vast majority of the
world's people. 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). Thus, in the United States, the once
exceedingly useful term "libertarian"  has been hijacked by egotists
who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word.
Fortunately, in the rest of the world, especially in the
Spanish-speaking countries, "libertarian"  ("libertario" ) remains a
synonym for "anarchist."  It is used in that sense in this book."

    And on the point about scarity of sources. Anarcho-capitalists
have an interest in being seen as anarchist while most anarchists
reject this without giving the matter much thought. So a-c have to
make a great effort to try and position their movement, giving us a
large number of sources that make that argument. On the other hand,
why would social anarchists take time to dismiss a US-based fringe
form of anarchism. It gets ignored or cursorily dismissed as
irrelevant. If you're going to issue a pamphlet do you deal with
capitalism, or those people on the internet who call themselves
    A more appropriate standard to apply to these sources would be to
include those anarchist authors who regard capitalism and anarchism as
antithetical. That's the elephant in the room here. Chaikney (talk)
17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        If you're going use authors who regard capitalism and
anarchism as antithetical, then you have to make sure that they're
referring to "capitalism" the same way anarcho-capitalists are
referring to it. If you can do that, great. I think probably the
reason that a large number of sources in this artcicle for
anarcho-capitalism being anarchism, is because in the past some were
trying to represent it as not. So sources had to be brought forth
showing that the the claim that it is not a form of anarchism is the
actual fringe view among sources. By the way it may be true that most
anarchists think anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism but
that's not the issue. The issue is whether most reliable published
sources consider it a form of anarchism. Wikipedia is not about what
unpublished sources consider. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:07, 30 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]
        About your quotes on Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party
is not anarcho-capitalist. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2008

            We are talking about reliable published sources here,
unless you want to define "reliable" as "conforming to
anarcho-capitalist notions of correctness". A-c's version of
capitalism seems to comprise "Not being exploitative" despite sharing
the same features (wage labour, competitive social relations, private
ownership of the means of production, enclosure of the commons etc) as
what anarchists talk about when they mean capitalism.
            If we are to only accept sources that define capitalism as
anarcho-capitalists define it, then we have no sources other than
anarcho-capitalist sources. Which will tell us about what a-c say but
will remove all context regarding its status in the anarchist movement
and make for an unbalancwed article. Chaikney (talk) 17:50, 30 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]

                How about we just put a disclaimer on the top of the
article: "WARNING: Most anarchists, excluding anarcho-capitalists,
oppose free-market laissez-faire capitalism and think
anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism." Richard Blatant (talk)
18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                    The above sentence would be a violation of WP:OR,
unless there is some anarchist census of which I am unaware. Any
empirical claim in the encyclopedic voice about this would be
unverifiable. "Anarchy" means "absence of government," both according
to Merriam-Webster and its etymology: ἀν- (an-), “not”, + ἀρχός
(archos), “ruler, authority”. Allowing one faction of anarchists to
own the term, which has been in common usage for a pretty long time,
would be a violation of WP:NPOV. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:50, 30 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]

                        And that common usage has been that of
anti-authority, i.e. against hierarchy, rather than the narrow
not-government definition. This is why most of the writing is now
around issues of how those struggles against forms of domination
relate to each other. So we have anarcha-feminism prioritising gender
oppression alongside struggles in the economic domain which have
historically been the focus of the anarchist movement.
                        Of course the other issue about the suggested
disclaimer wording is that "most anarchists excluding anarcho
capitalists" is a statement that "wikipedia classes this group as
anarchist" Chaikney (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                            It's just that most anarchists are
communists, supposedly. That's why they see anarchism as being a
situation where everyone is on the same level with equal wealth and
stature. That leaves out the whole school of individualist anarchists.
That's why people like the anarcho-communist Meltzer source has
problems with every individualist from Max Stirner to Benjamin Tucker
to Murray Rothbard being considered an anarchist. Most anarchists
cannot define anarchism. The definition and what anarchism is and what
falls under it has to come from the majority view of published
sources, with fringe definitions being treated as such and indicated
by the lack of sources. If anarcho-communists who have their own
anarcho-communistic definition of anarchism don't have proportionate
representation in academia, that's not our problem. Richard Blatant
(talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                That's a very top-down approach to
defining anarchism. If anarchists aren't allowed to say what anarchism
is, how on earth would academics know what it is?! Luckily we can see
what anarchism has been in practice, a movement from below.
                                It's not an "anarcho-communistic
definition" to say that the majority of anarchist activity has been
inextricably linked with anti-capitalist working class struggles
against domination in the economic domain. The syndicalists, the
communists, the mutualists and the 19th century individualists all
identified as part of working class struggle against capitalism. This
is historical fact that the anarcho-capitalists find themselves in
opposition to. If the wikipedia article doesn't reflect this fact
because of lawyering over each word in each source then it is
sacrificing accuracy for the letter of the rules. Chaikney (talk)
21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                    I define capitalism as private
ownership of the means of production and market without government
regulation. The 19th century individualist anarchists did not oppose
capitalism, as I've just defined it. Maybe you're defining it some
other way. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Their describing themselves as
"socialist" shows exactly where they would define their position vis a
vis capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                            From the Benjamin Tucker
ariticle (and sourced): "According to historian of American
individualist anarchism, Frank Brooks, it is easy to misunderstand
Tucker's claim of "socialism." Before "socialism" was monopolized by
Marxists, "the term socialism was a broad concept." Tucker (as well as
most of the writers and readers in Liberty) understood "socialism" to
refer to any of various theories and demands aimed to solve "the labor
problem" through radical changes in the capitalist economy." That
would make anarcho-capitalists socialists too. Anyway, what does it
matter? There is no rule that says all anarchists have to agree with
other to be anarchists. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2008
                                            So socialism isn't just
Marxism, yep. Hence the Marx-Bakunin split in the First International
Workingmen's Association. It also includes the forms of anarchism
current at that time and lifestylist experiments like the New Lanark
guy's. What was their attitude on rent and wage labour, didn't
Rothbard reject it as too socialist? Can talk economic theory but it
doesn't mean that you can say the individualist anarchists would be
anarcho-capitalists today and it doesn't make socialism=capitalism.
Chaikney (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                                    Benjamin Tucker
didn't oppose wage labor. Individualist anarchists ARE
anarcho-capitalists today. That's what the sources say. For example
Kevin Carson, "most people who call themselves individualist
anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian
economics." Richard Blatant (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                                                        not the 19th
century individualists, they are dead. Historically, anarchists have
been anti-capitalist and part of the workers' movement. This applies
also to the individualist anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists claim a
lineage, fine. But there's no historical continuity, their ideology is
a such a massive break from anarchist writing and practice that most
sources dealing with anarchism don't consider them significant enough
to mention. Yet you're demanding that this insignificance be used as
evidence for their being part of anarchism because nobody bothers to
prove the negative? (And if they do, then they are disallowed because
they must be using the wrong definition of capitalism, be unreliable
because they are anti-capitalist, or not an economics professor.) I'm
no expert on wikitheology but this seems to me like using the letter
of the law to push a point of view. Chaikney (talk) 23:37, 30 July
2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were supposed to be discussing Chaz Bufe here. No one has bothered
to refute the last point I made about that, so restoring. Chaikney
(talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't claiming a lineage. Even if there is zero lineage, most
individualist anarchists today are anarcho-capitalists. In response to
your other point, I can turn around and say you're assuming that
because a source does not mention anarcho-capitalism that they don't
think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchistm. You can't make that
assumption. There are lots of forms of anarchism, and not all sources
have the space or interest in talking about all of them, or think that
all of them are important enough to mention. Richard Blatant (talk)
23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't referring to you but to the article. Rothbard claims the
lineage by claiming to synthesise austrian economics with
individualist anarchism.
    There was no a-c before Rothbard ergo a-c claims lineage from
individualist anarchism.
    The specific source under discussion is clear that capitalism is
antithetical to anarchism. Even if a-c redefine capitalism, that's not
Bufe's view of capitalism but someone elses. A-c might think the
criticism is unfair because their capitalism is nicer, but that
doesn't change Bufe's view.Chaikney (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008

    He says "most anarchists reject not only coercive government, but
also religion and capitalism..." That complement of that is that some
anarchists accept religion and capitalism. Richard Blatant (talk)
00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        That's referring to self-defined anarchists. No-one would
write "everyone who says they are an anarchist thinks this". No-one's
disputing that folk self-define as anarcho-capitalist, folk can
self-define as anarcho-fascist or anarcho-nationalist; the question is
does Bufe support this as a form of anarchism. On the evidence of the
article he does not, calling it absurd, only possible with a narrow
definition of anarchism that is not the one that he uses, and
labelling capitalism as antithetical to freedom.
        Now you can choose to quibble that he's using the "wrong"
definition of capitalism, or that a particular sentence has a loophole
because he uses "most" instead of "all" but it doesn't make the
intention unclear to anyone who isn't determined to find reasons to
reject its inclusion. The source does not consider anarcho-capitalism
to be anarchist. Why such obfuscation and blocking over such a minor
issue? Chaikney (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            It's not a minor issue. The encyclopedia has to be honest.
Aparently, it's not a minor issue to you either for some reason or you
would have dropped it. He points out his definition of anarchism:
"...This is what anarchism isn't. 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" nd religious
anarchism are possible." He says that that's what anarchism is in it's
narrowest sense. He accepts that definition. Richard Blatant (talk)
17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                One source is a minor issue, repeated bulk deletion of
sources that you disagree with, that is not. I tried to help improve
an overlong, unbalanced and poorly written article. I tried to
maintain a belief in good faith on your part, I failed on both counts.
Chaikney (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

                    Well that's interesting, because I think you have
good faith. We just disagree on what the source says. I could be
mistaken, as could you. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008


These were removed from the bloated external links section. If
reliable, they may be incorporated as inline references:

    The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild,
Wild, West Anarcho-capitalism in the old "Wild West" in the U.S.
    The anarcho-capitalist political theory of Murray N. Rothbard in
its historical and intellectual context by Roberta Modugno Crocetta
    Anarcho-Capitalism Lifestyle guide for Anarcho-capitalists
    Who Needs Government? Pirates, Collapsed States, and the
Possibility of Anarchy Series of essays on Cato Unbound. August 2007.
    American Anarchism 19th Century Individualist Anarchist influence
on Libertarianism by Wendy McElroy
    American Liberal-Anarchism from The Conquest of Power, by Albert Weisbord

Skomorokh 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references,
i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same
content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically

    "lr40" :
        Long, Roderick T. "Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years
Later". Retrieved 2008-07-07.
    "fpc" :
        Rothbard, Murray N. Future of Peace and Capitalism, James H.
Weaver, ed., Modern Political Economy (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1973),
pp. 419-430
    "maass" :
        Spangler, Brad. "Market anarchism as stigmergic socialism".
Retrieved 2007-12-14.
    "cvttm" :
        McElroy, Wendy. "Capitalism versus the Free Market". Retrieved

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a label

Is there a real need for this section? It seems to me that its source
content could easily be incorporated into "Anarcho-capitalism and
anarchism section". -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 3 August 2008

The {{refimprove}} was added, but no reason was given. Please explain
it, or the tag should be removed. Nsaa (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2008
27 meters of bovine waste!

> From the article: The basic anarcho-capitalist flag. The black represents anarchy and the gold represents a certain precious metal advocated by many as a basis of currency in a stateless society. <

This is obvious junk. The amount of gold mankind has mined throughout
its whole civilized existence fits in a ball with a diameter of 27
meters (that's about 30 yards for the anglo-saxons).

This is a minuscule amount for any practical purposes. The whole load
of Fort Knox is not enough to buy out Bill Gates's personal wealth. If
the world wanted true gold currency, the ducat or sterling coin would
have to be about the size of a dust speckle to let enough of them to
be stamped to serve everybody. One should also consider that gold is
important material for building electronic equipment and it is a total
waste to put gold metal into money or jewellery.

Anarcho-capitalists are follies because there simply isn't any
substance of obvious solid value, which is also available in large
enough quantity to respresent the great wealth of a modern
industrialized society. That means state/country government must exist
to guarantee the exchangability of essentially worthless paper
banknotes, which only have the effigy of gold.

Only very small countries like Singapore plan to back their national
money with 100% gold, it is not suitable for large nations. (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Above comments illustrate the 'not enough gold' fallacy of
monetary theory. Any amount of the monetary unit is enough, you just
subdivide it to reach the desired price ratios. For example. Comment
author above is assuming current gold prices to price "Bill Gates's
Wealth", instead of focusing on the ratio of BGW:Gold. If Gates's
wealth was allowed to float against gold directly, a gold-ratio price
would quickly emerge. -Sh0t (talk) 1605, 31 Jan 2009 (UTC)
Devolution of anarcho-capitalism into statism

Suppose that an anarcho-capitalist community exists. The residents
(who own all the property) decide to sign a contract putting
themselves (and their successors, heirs, assigns, etc. along with
anyone they may transfer the land to) under a homeowners association,
with decisions being made by a majority vote of households. Among the
association's powers set out in the covenant are the ability to (1)
assess dues that residents must pay; (2) manage common property, such
as streets, parks, etc.; (3) create and enforce rules, such as length
of the grass in people's yards, etc. in addition to the criminal code,
which defines punishments for robbery, rape, murder, etc.; and (4)
basically everything else that governments normally do. Over time,
through ostracism and boycotts of nonparticipants, everyone in the
community is pressured into joining the association. As the years go
by, children are born into this situation, who have never signed the
covenant; yet, they are required to obey all the rules, and, if they
inherit the property, pay whatever dues are assessed. There is no exit
clause in the covenant, and the majority of households in the
community wish that the arrangement continue.

(This same scenario could also arise through a landowner subdividing a
large property and selling it to residents, on the condition that they
sign the homeowners association covenant.)

Would this "anarcho-capitalist" community then differ in any
significant way from a state, other than in the means by which it was
established (i.e. by consent)? Also, what if the whole world became
dominated by such associations? Would there then exist a right to
secede and try to form a more libertarian community, despite the fact
that one's ancestors had agreed to this scheme, and that it had been
formed through voluntary contracts? EVCM (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2008

    Actually, never mind; I found the answer in The Voluntary City.
HOAs are basically to be considered as a form of government, and thus
should be avoided. Land leases are a better system. EVCM (talk) 02:32,
2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Rothbard was no fan of copyrights in general (for example state
guaranteed copyrights). He meant contract based copyrights. And he
only described situations in which a copyright note was on a found
object. He never stated that copyright is somehow inherent in books or
other cultural works. Therefore it is not true to present him as a
supporter of copyrights in general. (talk) 05:59, 24
September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spooner-Tucker" anarchism is mentioned with no summary of what it is
or link to what it is. This should removed, reordered, or a
description should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
Porco-esphino (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why entire talk: page should be deleted

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's
subject." when it is clearly being used as one —Preceding unsigned
comment added by (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2008
first paragraph

Last sentence: "Because personal and economic activities would be
regulated by the natural laws of the market through private law rather
than through politics, victimless crimes and crimes against the state
would be rendered moot."

Is this sentence even worth having? Is mentioning that crimes against
a state is not possible under the philosophy that opposes a state
really so interesting that it belongs in the opening paragraph? The
first part of the sentence sounds goofy too.

I think it should at least be changed to something like: Because
personal and economic activities would be regulated privately and
subject to the natural laws of the marketplace rather than to the laws
of a political system, victimless crimes and crimes against the state
are rendered moot. Gay for Gutfeld (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2009
Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism

I have a concern about the first sentence of the lead, which states:
"Anarcho-capitalism (also known as free-market anarchism), is an
individualist anarchist political philosophy..." While I agree that
most anarcho-capitalists propound this view, it is not universal.
Roderick Long, editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies disputes
the point.[1]. An overview of the debate can be found here.

To reflect this point of view I have adjusted the wording in the lead
to "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as free-market anarchism), is
frequently referred to as an individualist anarchist political
philosophy..." If anyone has a concern with this change, please
discuss it here. Sunray (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware of any sources that says it's not an individualist
form of anarchism? If not, there is no sense in this. There are
tremendous amount that say it is. Jadabocho (talk) 01:04, 20 February
2009 (UTC)[reply]

        Please check the two I have included above. Sunray (talk)
01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            I don't see Long saying that at all. The other source is
not even a reliable source according Wikipedia policy. Jadabocho
(talk) 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                Long says:

                    ... What the 19th-century individualist anarchists
advocated under the name of a “free market” has both similarities with
and differences from what the mainstream of 20th-century
anarcho-capitalists have advocated under that name.
Anarcho-capitalists tend to stress the similarities and ignore the
differences; anarcho-socialists tend to stress the differences and
ignore the similarities. It would be a mistake on the part of
anarcho-capitalists to seize on de Cleyre’s and Slobodinsky’s use of
the term “capitalistic Anarchism” to elide the genuine differences
that exist between the two traditions. But by the same token, it is a
mistake for anarcho-socialists to seize on anarcho-capitalists’ use of
the term “capitalism” as though it implied agreement with existing
corporatist capitalism...

                    ... And along with the terminological blinkers
come substantive blinkers. You’d never guess, from reading some of the
anarcho-capitalists’ attempts to claim the mantle of the individualist
anarchists, that most of those individualist anarchists saw the
anarchist cause as inextricably bound up with “socialist” causes like
worker empowerment and the abolition of the wage system – causes that
many anarcho-capitalists in vulgar-libbin’ mode regard as anathema.
But then you’d likewise never guess from reading anarcho-socialist
critiques of anarcho-capitalism that there have nevertheless been
self-described anarcho-capitalists, and prominent ones, who themselves
favoured worker empowerment and the abolition of the wage system. All
these details call for studying similarities and differences carefully
and using the sledgehammer sparingly.

                I wasn't suggesting that we use the geocities
reference as a source. However, the writer does provide citations and
it is a good overview. Sunray (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009

                    Note that he says "the 19th-century individualist
anarchists." Why do you think he prefix it with "19th-century"? It's
to show that when he uses the term "individualist anarchists" without
the prefix in the rest of the article that he's referring to those in
the 19th century. That's not him saying that anarcho-capitalists are
not 20th century individualist anarchists. And in your second quote,
he says "most of THOSE individualist anarchists." He's just saying
the19th century individualist anarchists are different in ways from
anarcho-capitalists. That's not saying that anarcho-capitalists are
not also individualist anarchists. Jadabocho (talk) 02:33, 20 February
2009 (UTC)[reply]

                        I don't understand your objection to referring
to 19th century individualist anarchists. The central tenets of
individualist anarchism were, after all, articulated by Benjamin
Tucker in the 19th century. Sunray (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2009

                Here's more (from the geocities paper:

                    As class struggle anarchist Benjamin Franks notes
individualist anarchism "has similarities with, but is not identical
to, anarcho-capitalism" [Rebel Alliances, p. 44]...

                    On the land question, Rothbard opposed the
individualist position of "occupancy and use" as it "would
automatically abolish all rent payments for land." Which was precisely
why the individualist anarchists advocated it!

                    For Rothbard, the nineteenth century saw "the
establishment in North America of a truly libertarian land system."
[The Ethics of Liberty, p. 73] In contrast, the Individualist
Anarchists attacked that land system as the "land monopoly" and looked
forward to a time when "the libertarian principle to the tenure of
land" was actually applied [Tucker, Liberty, no. 350, p. 5]...

                I could go on, but think it should be clear by now
that there are some problems with conflating individualist anarchism
and anarcho-capitalism. Sunray (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009

                    You still don't get it. People use "individualist
anarchist" to refer to those in the 19th century because there is no
other words for them. Anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists
too but they have a special name to distinguish them from other kinds
of individualist anarchism. If you refer to the individualist
anarchists in the 19th century as individualist anarchists and
individualist anarchists in the 20th century as anarcho-capitalists,
this is not saying that anarcho-capitalists are not also
individualists anarchists. And yes they have some different beliefs,
but that doesn't make them both not individualist anarchists because
what defines an anarchist as an individualist anarchists is simply
that they're individualists. Jadabocho (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009

                        You are right. I don't get it. How have
anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists resolved differences
regarding the land question? There are also fundamental differences in
the way that anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists view
labor. How have these been differences been resolved? Sunray (talk)
16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                            First of all, your question assumes that
all individualists anarchists of the 19th century agreed with the
"occupancy and use" standard. Lysander Spooner didn't, for example.
The "occupancy and use" thing IS an individualist anarchist idea, but
it's one of many individualist anarchist ideas including ideas that
disagree with that (both in the 19th century and today). Ninteeth
century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker even changed his ideas
on land to the idea that if something is stolen it becomes the thieves
property as long as he can hold on to it. Individualist anarchists do
not all agree with each other. It's not a specific philosophy. It's
just a broad category of anarchism. It means nothing more than an
anarchist that is not a collectivist - that he's an individualist.
That allows for a diversity of ideas and disagreements among
individualists. Jadabocho (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                                I don't disagree with what you have
said. Individuals have divergent views and individualist anarchists
hold a range of views. However, when we write about a school of
thought, or a political philosophy, we have to find the common tenets
in order to have a coherent article. Individualist anarchism is
certainly the broader term (and I think the article on that subject
reflects the range of views). However, the fact remains that there
have been questions raised about whether anarcho-capitalists are truly
individualist anarchists. Most say they are. Some say they are not.
Does not the current wording in the lead do that justice? If not, how
should we revise it? Sunray (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2009

                                    Ok but I think the number of those
who say they aren't is so miniscule relative to the sources that say
they are, that you're giving these extreme minority of sources undue
weight when you changes the sentence to state to say "frequently"
rather than just asserting it. So far the only source I've seen that
actually tries to make such a point is that FAQ you've been quoting. I
think it may be the only source out there that explicitly makes the
claim that they're not individualist anarchists, or maybe one of just
a couple. I think it's like changing "the Earth is spheroid" to "it's
frequently considered to be spheroid" because of a couple flat Earth
theorists. Jadabocho (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                                        I don't have time to do a
library search right now and the above to sources are the best I could
find that are freely available on the internet. However, there has
been previous discussion of the subject on this page. My sense is that
while many individualist anarchists accept anarcho-capitalism as
related, others in the anarchist community do not. I doubt that this
can be dismissed as merely a fringe point of view, but have no more
time to devote to the matter. Sunray (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009

                                            Well yes there are many in
the "anarchist community" that do not believe anarcho-capitalism is a
form of anarchism at all. I understand that. But their opinions is
notw what matters in regard to writing a Wikipedia article. We go by
the opinions of those whose work has actually been published, as in
scholars, not by anarchists who are simply chattering on the internet.
00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

                                                I am not talking about
people "chattering on the internet." Everything in those links I've
given is sourced. Sunray (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                                                    The Long source is
not saying that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of
anarchism. The only source you have is that FAQ. I don't think there
are any more besides that except perhaps one or two. On the other
hand, there are lots of sources for anarcho-capitalism being
individualist anarchism. Jadabocho (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2009

                                                        The Long
source is saying that there are differences between 19th century
individualist anarchism and 20th century anarcho-capitalism. The
differences have not simply vanished. I think it would be best to
discuss this in the article or put a note on the statement in the
lead. Sunray (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                                                            OF COURSE
there are differences between 19th century individualist anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism. That's not in the slightest dispute! But having
differences from 19th CENTURY individualist anarchists does not make
you not an individualist anarchist. You don't have to be like the 19th
century individualist anarchist to be an individualist anarchist, and
Long is not arguing that anarcho-capitalists are not individualist
anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists ARE individualist anarchists. They're
just not 19th century individualist anarchists. They're 20th century
individualists anarchists and have some different viewpoints from 19th
century individualist anarchists. Do you have any real sources
claiming that they're not individualist anarchists? Jadabocho (talk)
03:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] With respect to your statement that "Anarcho-capitalists are
individualist anarchists": Long says: "You’d never guess, from reading
some of the anarcho-capitalists’ attempts to claim the mantle of the
individualist anarchists, that most of those individualist anarchists
saw the anarchist cause as inextricably bound up with “socialist”
causes like worker empowerment and the abolition of the wage system."
Would you be able to elucidate how 20th Century Anarcho-capitalists
have dealt with the questions raised about land and labor? Sunray
(talk) 07:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you not been reading my replies? I replied to this earlier.
He talking about "THOSE individualist anarchists." That's not saying
that anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. It's just
saying anarcho-capitalism is just not THAT genre of individualist
anarchism. When I discuss anarcho-capitalism, I refer to it as
"anarcho-capitalism" too, rather than simply "individualist anarchism"
because the latter term is too broad. That doesn't mean I think
anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. Of course they
are. We refer to the 19th century individualist anarchists as simply
"individualist anarchists" because there is no specialized name to
distinguish them from other individualist anarchists. Long makes it
clear when he's using the term that he's referring to the 19th century
individualist anarchists. To your second question, that's not relevant
to whether or not they're individualist anarchists. If you want to
know that information you can read this article. 17:27, 23 February
2009 (UTC)

    Simply put, interpreting Long's words to mean that A/C is strictly
separate from I/A is WP:OR. I agree with the rest of the commenters
that Long was simply differentiating for the sake of being
unambiguous, not because he wants to assert that the two are
unrelated. —Memotype::T 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose that the free-market anarchism article be merged in here. As
this article notes, the terms are synonymous, and the majority of the
FMA article is a rephrasing of this one. Talk:Free-market anarchism
shows widespread dissatisfaction with its tenability as a standalone
article, and the ambiguity thereby created. Skomorokh 02:08, 2 March
2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think they're not synonymous terms. The article points out
a source for Tucker being a free market anarchist, but I haven't seen
any sources call him an anarcho-capitalist. Jadabocho (talk) 04:19, 2
March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        You don't think they are or you don't think they're not? A
previous version of the free-market anarchism article at market
anarchism focused on all market-friendly anarchist schools of thought,
but it was superseded by the anarcho-capitalism-lite version.
Skomorokh 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            I don't think they're always synonyms. I mean sometimes
free market anarchism is used as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism and
sometimes it's not. It's like the Anarchism article where
"libertarianism" is sometimes a synonym for anarchism and sometimes
not. Just now searching on Google, I found another source, Kevin
Carson, referring to Benjamin Tucker as a free market anarchist: "It
was for this reason that the free market anarchist Benjamin
Tucker--from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow--regarded
himself as a libertarian socialist."
Jadabocho (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                Yeah, this is an indication of the ambiguity of the
whole situation. The question is whether it's possible to have a
separate, unambiguous, and accurate article on "free-market anarchism"
that does not overlap significantly with this one. I doubt whether it
is. Skomorokh

                    Well it would have to overlap with this one,
because market anarchism is most associated with Rothbard and
Friedman. Tucker is a somewhat obscure figure as far as scholarship is
concerned. Not a lot of people are aware of market anarchists existing
prior to Rothbard. Free market anarchism was a very obscure forgotten
philosophy until Rothbard revived it. So it's USUALLY equated with
Rothbard's philosophy, but not always. Jadabocho (talk) 04:41, 2 March
2009 (UTC)[reply]

                        I imagine that you wouldn't learn much from
reading that article after having read this one, individualist
anarchism and anarchism in the United States. I think the anarchist
schools of thought article (and its
all-too-infrequently-updated-summary in Anarchism) does a good job of
outlining the link between 19th century market anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism. Skomorokh 04:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. Market anarchism is the genre, and anarcho-capitalism
is a specie (other species from same genre could be mutualism,
agorism, anothers individualist anarchism like voluntaryism, etc.)
--Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I agree, but the market anarchism article which described
those different "species" was moved to free-market anarchism and
stripped of the majority of its non-anarcho-capitalist content a long
time ago. Skomorokh 22:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        Free market anarchism and market anarchism are the same thing.
Looking at that article, there is not much anarcho-capitalist content
in it. Rothbard and Friedman are only briefly mentioned. Jadabocho
(talk) 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is a shame, but it seems like the appropriate way to
deal with that is by editing free-market anarchism to make it more
inclusive, not by smashing it together with a separate article about a
different topic. Radgeek (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with merge proposal. Free market anarchism is not
only anarchocapitalism, but also mutualism (anticapitalist free market
anarchism), you also can't describe nineteenth century individualist
free market anarchists as anarchocapitalists, but only put them in the
free market anarchism category. If we will merge this two articles -
we would claim that mutualism isn't free market anarchism (clearly it
is free market anarchism and anticapitalism). So, I just can't agree
with total absurdity.--Kregus (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would just like to add that some forms mutualism may be a form
free market anarchism and some may not, so a blanket statement
couldn't be made. The criterion is whether the form of mutualism
supporters marketizing the security function of the state. Jadabocho
(talk) 16:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we must call this article just a "free market anarchism", because
all forms of mutualism are anticapitalist in some ways and we can't
say that Benjamin Tucker is an anarchocapitalist, but he clearly is
free market anarchist (support for private defence). Free Market
anarchism is the genre, and anarcho-capitalism is a specie (other
species from same genre could be mutualism, agorism, nineteenth
century individualist free market anarchism in the United states,
etc.). We can't say that anarchocapitalism is the only type of market
anarchism. I propose to call this article "free market anarchism" and
include information about all species of free market anarchism, not
only about anarchocapitalism, because there are some forms of
anticapitalist free market anarchism, like Benjamin Tucker
individualist anarchism.

--Kregus (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume that by "this article" you are referring to free-market
anarchism' not anarchocapitalism? Are are you referring to a merged
article? Using the term anarchocapitalism for a merged article
certainly invites trouble and violates NPOV by privileging
anarchocapitalism over anticapitalist market anarchisms. (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not supporting merge, Market anarchism is an umbrella term for many
kinds of anarchistic philosophies such as for example mutualism,
agorism, etc. which although share some traits in common with
anarcho-capitalism are very different. This has also been debated
before and that time it was decided not to merge. Lord Metroid (talk)
22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. Market anarchism (or equivalently free market anarchism)
includes both sticky property (neo-Lockean) proponents, possession
property proponents, and hybrids (e.g. geoism). Anarcho-capitalism
refers only to the sticky property branch. (Agorism is a type of
anarcho-capitalism which stresses counter-economics as the best
strategy for change.) PhilLiberty (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2009

    Not supporting merge. Absolutely not. While anarcho-capitalism is
one form of

market anarchism (perhaps the best known form existing today), part of
the specific reason for the term "market anarchism" is to encompass
not only anarcho-capitalism (of the Rothbard or David Friedman
variety) but also specifically non-capitalist (such as voluntaryism or
agorism) or anti-capitalist (such as Proudhonian mutualism or
Tuckerite "voluntary socialism") forms of anarchism that also conceive
of individual property and freed markets as having a vital role to
play in the constitution of a free society. These views, which
explicitly distinguish free markets from capitalism and market
anarchism from anarcho-capitalism are represented in the works of
prominent activists such as William Gillis [2] [3], scholars such as
Shawn P. Wilbur [4] and Roderick Long, and have been specifically
raised and debated within the milieu of anarchist and libertarian
discussion by (among other things) the publication of Kevin Carson's
two book-length treatments of "free market anti-capitalism," Studies
in Mutualist Political Economy and Organization Theory: A Libertarian
Perspective. (The two books are self-published, which may cause some
hand-wringing among a certain class of WikiPedian. However they have
clearly been accepted by people within both the libertarian and the
anarchist movements as important and notable contributions; for
example, there is an entire issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of
Libertarian Studes (20.1) devoted to scholarly discussion of Carson's
first book.) The term "anarcho-capitalism" was originally developed
specifically to mark off the importance of certain forms of property
and business organization in the views so described (and so to
distinguish those views from pro-market but anti-capitalist anarchists
like Proudhon, Tucker, and Spooner, who the anarcho-capitalists
considered to be admirable but profoundly mistaken on land, interest,
and money). The term "market anarchism" was then, later, developed by
people who represented the earlier mutualist and individualist
positions, specifically in order to highlight both their similarities
and their differences from the new anarcho-capitalist ideas, and to
bring the work of Proudhon, Josiah Warren, William B. Greene, J.K.
Ingalls, Tucker, Spooner, et al. back into the discussion. Given the
actual history and usage of the terms "market anarchism" and
"anarcho-capitalism" it would do violence to the views both of
non-capitalist or anti-capitalist market anarchists, and also to the
views of the orthodox anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard or David
Friedman, to try to mash the two articles together in this way.

You'd be better off deleting the free-market anarchism article
entirely than to mislead people with this kind of conflation, or by
confusing the discussion by making 150 or so years' worth of
anti-capitalist individualist views a mere footnote to an article
about 20th and 21st-century anarcho-capitalism. And to what good
purpose? Is WikiPedia running out of pages? Radgeek (talk) 23:40, 3
March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fully agree with Radgeek. --Kregus (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons already discussed at length by others, I absolutely oppose
the proposed merger. Clore (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Radgeek has made the case well, I think. I also feel that
there is a good deal of inconsistency in the way that categories
within anarchism are being treated. We have struggled for a long time,
for instance, to make the Anarchism entry inclusive, rather than
allowing any particular factions definition to determine the content
of the article. Indeed, this was the argument made for a long time by
partisans of anarcho-capitalism's inclusion. The article on
left-libertarianism has, likewise, been expanded at various times to
include pretty much every claimant to the label. But now we see an
attempt to strictly limit the scope of "market anarchism" to a
particular faction's definition, or, at any rate, to a definition that
makes it possible to exclude free market anarchists from the category
"free market anarchism." We have a variety of traditions dating back
into the 1840s and 1850s which seek to replace the political realm
with the economic, support private property (if for a variety of
reasons, and with a variety of specific definitions, much like
non-anarchist propertarians of virtually all eras), etc. The last time
this merge was proposed, it all came down to whether or not one
proposed explicitly a market in defense organizations. It was a little
silly then, and it still is, methinks. Libertatia (talk) 03:24, 5
March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,while an interesting proposal, as someone else noted above, I
believe it might violate NPOV. Best, User:Libertad450 —Preceding
undated comment added 06:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose It would be better to fix the Market anarchism article and
expand it. As above noted, anarcho-capitalism is a portion of the free
market/individualist anarchist movement, and it would be better to
merge those articles instead. Anarcho-capitalism began with Murray
Rothbard. This article is already a featured article and needs no
renovation. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal withdrawn

I've withdrawn the proposal, as consensus is clear here. It's great to
see so many editors interested in market anarchist content! As
JMadrigal notes above, this article is featured and does not need much
work, so I would like to invite any and all interested editors to
Talk:Free-market anarchism to discuss the future development of that
article. Regards. Skomorokh 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list