Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

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

    1 Intro
    2 Balance in the lead
    3 Origin
    4 This page is too big.
    5 Origin of term & controversy
    6 RFC for lede
    7 Slight factual error
    8 victimless crimes
    9 Nonfiction and further reading
    10 Global perspective?
    11 Where to put Molinari and fans?
    12 Cleanup
    13 Somalia as Modern Example
    14 Redirect/merge Free-market anarchism here?
    15 3rd paragraph
    16 Fictional Literature Addition
    17 Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism...
    18 Confusion regarding a sentence in the intro
    19 On "Early Pennsylvania" (Section 3.3)
    20 Anarcho-capitalism = Tea Party movement
    21 David Friedman
    22 Featured article?
    23 Market anarchism
    24 Individualist Anarchist?
    25 Not NPOV
    26 Merger proposal
    27 Amish
    28 RfC on Stefan Molyneux

Intro

Seriously, does this intro really need to be this long? —Memotype::T
23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Other introductions are even longer. Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 12 March
2009 (UTC)[reply]

        True, but I think this can still be trimmed down some, it's a
very daunting lead. —Memotype::T 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            It is now three paragraphs - the recommended size. The
former fourth paragraph fits in nicely under the philosophy section
(with a minor tweak). JLMadrigal (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2009
(UTC)[reply]

                Great job, the lead now looks much more approachable.
Thanks —Memotype::T 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance in the lead

The lead makes no mention of the criticisms outlined in the article.
Perhaps inclusion of the Noam Chomsky quote would be apposite.
--MoreThings (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Origin

I previously edited in a link to a Google Books scan, which turned out
to probably have an incorrect date. This publication, from 1965,
however has the date clearly visible in the scan itself, and mentions
"anarcho-capitalist principles", which means that the term originated
before 1968 as stated here.

The Spectator, July 2, 1965 —Preceding unsigned comment added by
Trefork (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is too big.

It's about as big as the main article on anarchism. Since this is such
a small school of thought, I must ask why it has such a massive
article. Zazaban (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After a short skim-over, I feel that a great deal of this article
should be cut. There is waaaay too much detail. Zazaban (talk) 08:17,
8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        Though it's slightly longer in prose size than anarchism (51kb
vs 41kb, neither egregrious by size guidelines), wiki is WP:NOTPAPER
and length of article is not an indicator of importance or anything.
This is a featured article, so removing a "great deal" of it would be
highly inappropriate, unless we wanted to split it off into
sub-articles. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:10, 8 September 2009
(UTC)[reply]

Origin of term & controversy

Someone keeps deleting the fact that the term was coined by Murray
Rothbard, and the ambivalence or outright rejection that he and many
others expressed about using the term "anarchism" which has always had
an anti-capitalist meaning 69.228.251.134 (talk) 15:32, 24 October
2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's already in the article. And please don't try to push some POV
about anticapitalism. Anarchism qua anarchism isn't anticapitalist.
Leave your Infoshop capitalism-hating at Infoshop, please. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for 72 hours due to the edit war. Please
discuss the substance of the edits here; further reverts may result in
blocks.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Murray
Rothbard is very important and should be right at the beginning of the
article. Also important is the word "arguably", which was added for 2
reasons. First, to express the rejection among traditional anarchists
of the relatively new term "anarcho-capitalism" as part of the (always
anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. Secondly, because the very
person who coined the term, Rothbard HIMSELF admitted that it WASN'T
anarchism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

    "We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?"
simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of
the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be
considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must
therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of
the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian
position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic
elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the
current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at
opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we
are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on
firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
--Murray Rothbard

    That these footnoted and uncontroversial facts have, in the space
of a day or so, been called "POV" "vandalism" and reverted reflexively
without discussion should tell us something about the ideological
fanaticism inhabiting these pages. 69.228.251.134 (talk) 20:57, 24
October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        That of which you speak is in the article already, and does
not need to be at the beginning of the article. The only reason to put
it at the beginning is to push the POV that anarchism is
anticapitalist. Such a discussion has been done to death on Wikipedia
already, and it has been decided to not "kick anyone out of the tree".
Please leave your idealogical fanaticism at Infoshop. Thank you.

        Further, when you look at the time the article was written,
Rothbard had not yet fully embraced the term anarchism. A few years
later, he had. So whatever your supposed point is with the quote just
doesn't materialize. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009
(UTC)[reply]

            Agreed with Knight, this is simply POV-pushing. Soxwon
(talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the aforementioned hysterical claims of "POV" "vandalism" to
describe perfectly reasonable and sourced edits, no one should take
the new accusations seriously. We all know that both Soxwon and BAAWA
are die-hard right wing-capitalists. So the final decision should rest
with someone who doesn't have such a stake on the issue.
69.228.251.134 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for admitting that you're POV-pushing. Continuing to
POV-push will result in you being reported and possibly banned. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's YOUR POV and false accusations that will get you reported and/or
banned.69.228.251.134 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When you edit anarchocommunism, anarchosyndicalism, and all the
rest in the lead to say that they are terms coined by whomever, then
you can legitimately have your edit. Until then: all you have is a
POV. And I made no false accusations, either. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's become clear that 69.228.251.134 is going to continue to push his
disruptive edit. The philosophy section of the article already states
that Rothbard's idea was the first well-known version. There is also a
criticism section and a section on anarchocapitalism and other
anarchist schools. No anarcho-whatever article has "anarcho-whatever
is a term coined by X" in it. There is simply no reason for
69.228.251.134's edit. Granted, it is at least sourced. But it just
has no place in the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:20, 31
October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC for lede

Dispute over wording of the opening statement. Soxwon (talk) 02:42, 1
November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not me who is pushing a disruptive edit. The fact that the
term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Murray Rothbard is very
important and should be right at the beginning of the article. Also
important is the word "arguably", which was added for 2 reasons.
First, to express the rejection among traditional anarchists of the
relatively new term "anarcho-capitalism" as part of the (always
anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. Secondly, because the very
person who coined the term, Rothbard HIMSELF admitted that it WASN'T
anarchism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

    "We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?"
simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of
the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be
considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must
therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of
the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian
position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic
elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the
current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at
opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we
are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on
firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
--Murray Rothbard

    Since traditional and historical anarchism has always been
anti-hierarchical and against both, capitalism and the state (as shown
by the literature and the coiner of the term "anarcho-capitalism"
himself) the explanations in the lead should grant as much importance
to the anarchist critique of "anarcho"-capitalism, as it would to a
movement that labeled itself "anarcho"-statist i.e. a movement that
shared some critiques of capitalism with traditional anarchists, but
which emphasized as its goal, the creation all around the planet of,
say, "voluntary nation-states". So the question, as was obvious from
the beginning, is not whether or not these facts are mentioned
somewhere in the article, but whether or not their importance means
they should be in the lead.69.228.251.134 (talk) 02:56, 1 November
2009 (UTC)[reply]

        No anarcho- page mentions in the lead who "coined" the "term"
being discussed, so why this edit is so important as to be the first
one to do so must be demonstrated. Frankly, it is pure POV-pushing
being disguised as a legitimate edit in order to marginalize
anarchocapitalism. Recall: it has been decided to not kick anyone out
of the tree here on Wikipedia as far as the whole anarchist "dispute".
The article in fact mentions that there is a "dispute" over
anarchocapitalism and the rest of the "anarchists". It does not belong
in the lead--not unless 69.228.251.134 now wishes to do the same for
each and every anarcho- article on Wikipedia. The fact that
69.228.251.134 has only done this for anarchocapitalism speaks to the
fact that it is POV-pushing and should not stand.

        And that 69.228.251.134 has consistently misrepresented the
truth (e.g. saying that there was a discussion on the talk page when
the timestamps showed that there wasn't, saying on his talk page that
he didn't perform 3 reverts in 24 hours when the timestamps show him
performing 3 reverts in just under 19 hours) speaks to the fact that
he is not doing these edits in good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
11:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on this is guided by two important considerations: First,
this is an article about a concept and associated works/movements. It
is not an article about the word. Second, we should make some effort
to follow the focus of secondary sources about what issues are
prominent. Who coined the word is not a prominent issue in most
literature I've read on the subject. So on the basis of those two
factors, I see no reason for who coined the word to be something that
is discussed in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009
(UTC)[reply]
Slight factual error

The text below the image in section 1.5 states that Murray Rothbard
believed the American Revolution was United States' only just war.
This is not quite correct. He believed the American Revolution and the
War for Southern Independence were the only just wars. See:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard20.html

Not sure how to fit it into the context but if anyone feels like
fixing it, there you go :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86
(talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    True, but he didn't consider the U.S. part of the "War for
Southern Independence" to be justified.--bjwebb (talk) 14:49, 5 April
2010 (UTC)[reply]

victimless crimes

I don't think it is a consesus among the anarcho-capitalists that the
so called victimless crimes would be rendered moot. David Friedman
argues that some cities or local communities could actually pass
private laws banning drugs or even, if the enforcement of such laws
was efficient from the perspective of the consumers. The outcome he
predicts would be that in a stateless society some liberal cities
(e.g. New York) would allow for hardcore drugs such as heroine whereas
traditional communities would even ban liquor consumption. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by 193.52.24.125 (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2010
(UTC)[reply]
Nonfiction and further reading

The further reading is completely redundant of the earlier nonfiction
section. Anything relevant, like links, from the former should be
moved to the latter, and the further reading section deleted. Any
thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:53, 24 April 2010
(UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't quite fit with the wiki style guide. The literature
section serves a navigational purpose, it is a sort of summary for
another article. On the other hand, the further reading section serves
to supplement this main article (e.g. anarcho-capitalism, not the
"list" sub-article entitled Anarcho-capitalist literature). Preserving
article hierarchy helps with both readability and the article's
usefulness as a quick reference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:44, 16 May 2010
(UTC)[reply]

Global perspective?

I'm not sure why that tag was added, as nothing has been put in the
talk page about it. The article mentions, to my knowledge, all the
important figures in anarcho-capitalism, including American and
European thinkers, and historical instances such as Iceland. The
concept is universal in application, so I'm not sure what could be
added in that regard. Are there Asian or African angles to the concept
that are missing, and if so, what are they? I'm honestly perplexed as
to what could be added. This is a featured article, which means it has
been rigorously examined and been found to be of the highest quality.
This just seems like a random tagging. Thoughts? —Torchiest
talk/contribs 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Random tagging is what it looks like from here. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        Well, if no one objects, I'm going to remove it. LK (talk)
04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            I see it's back and same problems remain so removing.
CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where to put Molinari and fans?

First I've added the sorely lacking synonyms to anarcho-capitalism and
the fact that it is a libertarian philosophy.

Re: Gustave de Molinari, not sure where to put info about him since he
both had similar early ideas and has modern fans influence by the
other modern anarcho-capitalists. There's a quote in his article where
Rothbard calls him first AC. Ideas? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:04, 11
August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup

    I cleaned up a few obvious problems today. But article in
generally overly wordy and sometimes redundant and self-contradictory,
sometimes poorly referenced, and with strange POVs here and there. But
not something I'm likely to clean up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 28
August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia as Modern Example

Somalia is a textbook example of an anarcho-capitalist
society.Leahcim506 (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [citation needed] --LK (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge Free-market anarchism here?

Someone wants to do that at
Talk:Free-market_anarchism#Redirect_to_anarcho-capitalism. I think
this article belongs as subsection of Free-Market anarchism. Any
thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3rd paragraph

I feel as a reader the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is hard to
read. I can't place it, but it just doesn't seem to 'flow' very well
Jinothius (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional Literature Addition

Viception (http://viception.wordpress.com/) is a fictional
anarcho-capitalist book. I tried adding it before, but was overruled.
Will someone add it? Ravulio --(talk), 17 March 2011 —Preceding
undated comment added 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism...

...so why the association between the two theories? I'm not saying
that anarcho-capitalism is invalid or non-existant. I just find it odd
that many anarchists have paid dearly for fighting capitalism as an
authoritarian institution over the years only for some
right-libertarians to come along and corrupt the term. Anarchy means
no authority, yet employers and landlords hold authoritarian positions
inseparable from capitalism. Furthermore, because the two theories
oppose each other, associating them only serves to confuse to the
detriment of both theories. How about removing the association and
just listing individualist anarchism as an influence? KLP (talk)
04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say, not personal
opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        I haven't disagreed with or contradicted any reliable sources
in clarifying the distinction between anarcho-capitalists and
anarchists. Let's avoid confusing readers. KLP (talk) 15:38, 16
February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            It's not even clear what you are proposing or for what
article, so one must assume you want to delete this article and move
it under individualist anarchism, which would be very much vs. the
many WP:RS that support this. I should have just asked you to clarify
your unclear proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011
(UTC)[reply]

                I have a couple of proposals for this article:

                    Change comparisons between anarcho-capitalists and
social anarchists to comparisons between anarcho-capitalists and most
anarchists. Individualist anarchists also oppose capitalism.
                    Move the capitalism category box above the
anarchism box. Capitalism is the primary constituent of
anarcho-capitalism and deserves foremost placement.

                KLP (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, this discussion has been done to death. Ad nauseum. Ad
infinitum. It's in the archives for the talk page several times in
different forms. Anarchy means no rulers, not no authority.
Historically speaking (which is what you're trying), only catholics
can be termed christians. Why do I bring that up? Because you're
trying some historical argument that all anarchists were opposed to
capitalism, blah blah blah, and now some libertarians are trying to
"corrupt" (your word) anarchism. Just as the protestants "corrupted"
christianity. IOW: that won't fly. Learn to live with the fact that
capitalism and anarchism are compatible. Or don't. Doesn't really
matter. What matters is that you stop trying to push a POV which has
been dealt with already.

    Anarchism is the "primary component", as you term it. There's
already an article about anarcho-capitalism and its place in
anarchism--which is linked to. I think that should take care of your
suggestions. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011
(UTC)[reply]

        Relax. I had to get everyone's attention somehow. My
suggestions will simply put this article in compliance with Anarchism
and anarcho-capitalism and improve coherence in general. KLP (talk)
03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            Obviously someone has been busy with that article, but the
issue isn't compliance with article but policy and what is put in this
article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Original poster. By your opinion the same can be said for anacho
communism/socialism with a person being at the authority of the
collective but that is not what anarchy means. Anarchy means stateless
and government-less, it does not mean without authority. Dunnbrian9
(talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What opinion? KLP (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunnbrian9 That's not true. There is a huge difference between an
authority that a person has because of his knowledge and an authority
because of his luck, coincidence, help by others, position in the
byrocratic system. Anarchy means without rulers. If someone is giving
you orders than he is a ruler, so you can't say that's anarchy. BTW
Anarchy and anarchism is different. Anarchy is a state and anarchism
is a philosophy. In the anarchist philosophy there is no space for
authority that comes from above and is not spontanious (earned by
knowledge and not abused afterwards). — Preceding unsigned comment
added by 77.28.172.112 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion regarding a sentence in the intro

"Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a
contradiction in terms,[15] and vice versa."

Is this statement meant to say that anarcho-capitalists consider all
anti-capitalist anarchists that came before them not to be anarchists?
I think we should remove "and vice versa" and advance the clarity of
what is being said-- That anarcho-capitalists generally do not
consider anarchists before Murray Rothbard anarchists, or that they
consider their positions to be contradictory. — Preceding unsigned
comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 July 2011
(UTC)[reply]

@Original poster. No... The statement says that what I explained in
the above post. Read it. Capitalism + anarchism can't go together. —
Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.172.112 (talk) 02:38, 29
July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By vice versa, it is implied that anarcho-capitalists view socialist
anarchy as a contradiction in terms. Someone or some body of people
must control the distribution of resources and the means of production
within a socialist society. Those people represent an authoritative
body which acts in the same way any State would act. They have the
ability to take property (resources) from some and give to others
without the consent of the individual; which is the primary objection
of anarcho-capitalists to statism. It is impossible to have a system
of entirely voluntary interactions if individuals are not allowed to
retain private property rights over the assets they have produced with
their own labor. Humans will naturally defend that which they have
produced as their own. Any attempt by an external body to appropriate
the product of a man's labor without his consent inherently results in
violence and is non-voluntary. 158.61.151.200 (talk) 23:45, 29 July
2011 (UTC)[reply]

@talk That body is not an authoritative body. It's just a body that
has an evidention of the income and outcome and they don't have power
over others. So If questioned, the people inside the body can rotate
on some mandat so the horizontal structure is preserved. And "They
have the ability to take property (resources) from some and give to
others without the consent of the individual; " is not true, because
the individual freedom is as important as the collective freedom, so
everything is free in an socialist anarchist society as long as the
people agree on that. And of course, for the next sentence, the
creation of a system in which everyone exactly geets what he deserves
is more than hard to create (but will always be the best) because of
the human factor and the thing that everyone will thinks that he
deserves more than he is given. But that system, of course, is part of
the social anarchist movement and it is called collectivism and you
can't disquallify the social anarchist movement with that. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by 77.28.172.81 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2011
(UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalists view a separation of individual and collective
"freedom" as also being oxymoronic in nature. An individual can
necessarily not be free if the product of their labor is being
expropriated by others against their consent.Michael.suede (talk)
16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On "Early Pennsylvania" (Section 3.3)

That entire section seems to be completely irrelevant. I suspect that
literal anarchy is a complete misdefinition of the situation referred
to, and thus using that situation as an example of anarcho-capitalism
severely hinders the logic and credibility of the entire article.
Also, the section is way too short and gives virtually no explanation
or background. I considered just deleting it, personally, but I didn't
want to take such a drastic step without obtaining feedback
first.Gniob (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the source article. Section 3.3 is relevant, but still way
too short, etc. Is there such a term as "stub section"?Gniob (talk)
23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism = Tea Party movement

In essence, what the Tea Party movement and people like Peter Schiff
are shouting, isn't that not just simply Anarcho-capitalism what they
want? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an anarcho capitalist, but no. 68.84.235.198 (talk) 20:08, 16
November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Friedman

I was wondering if it would be beneficial to provide additional
information on David Friedman's theories of the business model and
interaction of private law agencies; elaborating on his ideas could
provide a more thorough and comprehensive exposition of the differing
views especially considering that his expertise is legal theory and
economics. rob777 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think so.--MeUser42 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot believe David Friedman is not mentioned in the
introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buntje (talk •
contribs) 09:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. David Friedman ranks with Rothbard as one of the fathers of
modern anarcho-capitalism. He should be in the intro and there should
be a more in-depth section of his works. — Preceding unsigned comment
added by 71.58.11.158 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article?

This article has had numerous revisions since the last review of its
featured article status and looks very different from when it passed
that review (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&action=historysubmit&diff=473511427&oldid=21031135).
I propose that we consider reviewing its status again. KLP (talk)
19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Market anarchism

There are multiple market anarchist ideologies one of the more popular
being Mutualism(Which differs greatly from Anarcho-Capitalism). I
think the part that says "also referred to as Market Anarchism" should
be removed. It implies that Market Anarchism is a synonym for
Anarcho-Capitalism, which is heavily biased to say the least.
--Sharangir (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    also referred to as Market Anarchism -> sometimes referred to as
Market Anarchism --MeUser42 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        Does not solve the issue of it implying that
Anarcho-Capitalism is the one and only market anarchist ideology. When
in fact there are older and more popular market anarchist ideologies
that are even anti-capitalist. --Sharangir (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2012
(UTC)[reply]
        Maybe this can be solved by rewriting it to something like
"Often referred to as market anarchism by capitalists, despite there
being other older anarchist market ideologies". But then without my
bias. Something that makes it clear capitalists refer to it as market
anarchism, but others do not think "anarcho-capitalism" when they hear
the terms "market anarchism". --Sharangir (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2012
(UTC)[reply]


And why does "market anarchy" redirect to this page? The mainstream of
market anarchism has always been socialist, eg 'mutualism,' 'economic
democracy.' That's the anarchism mainstream since inception and it's
staunchly anti-capitalist. Finx (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2012
(UTC)[reply]

I actually just had a market anarchist friend of mine point this out
to me as well. I asked him for sources and he recommended "Markets not
Anarchy" along with mentioning the name "Charles Johnson" and the
proliferation of the term on C4SS and Radgeek. I wonder if it might be
worth creating an article on Market Anarchism and removing the
redirect. Zell Faze (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Individualist Anarchist?

It seems to me questionable that "individualist anarchist" is included
as a description of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought. While it
is true that prominent founders of the philosophy, such as Rothbard,
were heavily influenced by earlier Individualists such as Benjamin
Tucker, it is the case that, by and large, the Individualists rejected
outright most of the key components of capitalism. All throughout the
publication of Liberty Tucker derided usury: profit, interest, and
rent, and clearly rejected the general notion of capitalistic absolute
property rights in favor instead of possession and use. Tucker also
was painstakingly clear that his philosophy belonged to the general
socialist tradition and the thought of other Individualists such as
Warren and Spooner clearly belonged to the socialist camp as well -
even if they didn't explicitly say so. Here is a good summary of
Tucker's socialist thought from his own writing:
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/socialism-what-it-is

Walkthejosh (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned
comment added by Walkthejosh (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 August 2012
(UTC)[reply]

    So your argument is ancap is not necessarily individualist because
there are individualists who are not ancap? How does that invalidate
the notion that ancap is necessarily individualist? Byelf2007 (talk) 4
August 2012

        That's not quite the nuance I was going for. I certainly agree
that ancap has drawn from the Individualists, but I don't think that
makes ancap Individualist. For instance, much of the social anarchist
thought on and criticism of capitalism mirrors Karl Marx, but it would
be incorrect to classify social anarchists as Marxists. I see ancap as
a philosophy that picked up some key points of agreement with the
Individualists and then went in its own direction, often time
forwarding conclusions that the Individualists would be uncomfortable
with to say the least. The section on this page entitled "Nineteenth
century individualist anarchism in the United States" delves briefly
into some of the key disagreements ancap and Individualist philosophy
have with one another. It seems to me that general Individualist
thought (Tucker for specific example) on profit, interest, rent, and
private property is distinctly not capitalist (some would argue
anti-capitalist). At its core, Individualist Anarchism is not
capitalistic. As a result, I don't think it correct to classify
anarcho-capitalism as a form of Individualist Anarchism. Walkthejosh
(talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            Ahh, I see. Well, yeah, I guess you're right--ancap isn't
necessarily individualistic. One could justify ancap on collectivist
grounds, because collectivism is emphasis of the group over the
individual--its basically an ethical stance and not a political one
(by the same token, one could be an individualist socialist). I'm
gonna go ahead and take the "individualist" bit out of the lede,
although I suppose there's probably a plausible case for ancap being
necessarily individualistic. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 August 2012

                I don't believe there is any collectivist
justification for AnCap. AnCap is based on self-ownership (of the
individual). If such a collectivist justification exits, it should be
in the article. Dude6935 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                    A utilitarian collectivist could come to the
conclusion that capitalism is the system through which wealth is most
efficiently used, thereby furthering the wellbeing of society at
large. I've met at least a couple of AnCaps on Reddit who claim to
have arrived there through such a utilitarian/collectivist path. I'm
unaware of any publications that meet Wiki's sourcing guidelines that
affirm this, but this has been my experience. Lwsimon (talk) 22:20, 4
September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                        You have merely described how AnCap could be
utilitarian. While the word collectivist is in your response, you do
not discuss the concept's application to capitalism. The only possible
collectivization in AnCap is through an individual's choice to join a
collective. This clearly makes AnCap individualist since all people
are presupposed to be individuals before any man chooses to join a
collective. Dude6935 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not NPOV

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but this article reads like
it's been written by an-caps, which is fine if NPOV can be retained,
but it hasn't been. This article could use the attention of someone
who's familiar with the subject matter, but who isn't an anarchist or
an ancap.

When this article was featured, it felt much more even
handed.Gigacannon (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It has not been brought up before, and the article is still
featured. Please specify where you feel NPOV has been violated.
JLMadrigal (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        The trouble is only a-caps seem to be interested in teh
article. Although there is a criticism bit. Maybe expand that?(Lihaas
(talk) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Merger proposal

Proposal that the page Free-market anarchism be merged into
Anarcho-capitalism due to duplicate terms in the opening definitions.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiWildWildPedia (talk •
contribs) 00:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose for reasons mentioned above by editor Sharangi: "in fact
there are older and more popular market anarchist ideologies that are
even anti-capitalist" but will support merger with either main
Anarchism article or Anarchist Economics article. Note that this is
not the first time someone has wanted to redirect this article, and
that the last two attempts ended with abuse by ancap editors, which
escalated to the noticedboards and several times required suspension
from Wikipedia. Finx (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose.
        Oppose because there is a reasonable difference between
different types of free-market anarchism.
        Weak because, although there certainly is a difference between
different types of free-market anarchism, the difference is not nearly
as extreme as it is often made out to appear. The problem ultimately
stems from the name anarcho-"capitalism," which disguises the fact
that anarcho-"capitalism" actually rejects much of traditional
capitalism. The real difference between the different approaches to
free-market anarchism is not that some support capitalism and others
do not—none really support traditional capitalism. The difference is
merely to what extent the various approaches to free-market anarchism
accept or reject absentee ownership, and the question is not
cut-and-dry. We can't simply say that mutualists reject all absentee
ownership, since most mutualists would agree that a family should not
lose its home and all of its belongings simply because it decided to
go on a one-week vacation. Nor can we simply say that
anarcho-"capitalists" support all property claims; Rothbard made it
clear in For a New Liberty that there are unjust property claims that
should not be respected, and even defended workers seizing the means
of production in certain contexts in his essay "Confiscation and the
Homestead Principle."
        In summation, while there is definitely a real difference
between the different types of free-market anarchism, and while I
oppose the proposed merger, I nevertheless believe it is worth noting
that the difference is more nuanced than the terminology may lead one
to believe. allixpeeke (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support These concepts may not be exactly the same, but they're
close enough that a merge makes sense. The lede of this article even
says anarcho-capitalism is also referred to as free-market anarchism.
Neither article really explains a difference, making me think the
difference boils down to academic and political bickering. --BDD
(talk) 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    'Oppose: Both are different ideologies. In general discourse,
market anarchists oppose capitalism. They define capitalism as
entangled with state. For example, corporate lobbying, corporate
bailouts etc. They "capitalism" and "state" at the same time.
--Natkeeran (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - with reservations. The "free-market anarchism" article
is defective. Free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are
identical. Both ideologies oppose collectivism and support free
markets (the free flow of capital). Collectivization of property
requires a state, so it is incompatible with free-market anarchism.
Merge the articles and remove hegelian propaganda. JLMadrigal (talk)
12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not the
same thing and to think that they are identical is to confuse
capitalsim with the free market. The difference is pretty simple, free
market anarchists want a free market but are fundamentally opposed to
capitalist property relations. Free market anarchists are socialists
in favour of co-operatives, anarcho-capitalists clearly are not. Free
market anarchists still want to end capitalism and see it as
fundamentally exploitative and unavoidably hierarchical. With respect
to this, they have far more in common with anarcho-collectivists and
anarcho-communists. Anarcho-capitalism clashes enough with traditional
anarchist ideas to warrant it being defined separately, not to do so
would be confusing at best.Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014
(UTC)[reply]

    Oppose: to those interested they can go check the new state of the
"market anarchism" article. In it it is clarified that market
anarchism is not reducible to anarcho-capitalism but that there exists
an old current of anti-capitalist market anarchism.--Eduen (talk)
01:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amish

The Amish are pretty well fitted into the a-caps model (or close
enough, like Iceland). It needs some mention here (and probably
there(. Here are some links (not all notable, but a starting point):
[1][2] ([3]*)[4][5][6][7] (possibly synthesis()[8](Lihaas (talk)
20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Unless you can find self identifications of those people under
"anarchocapitalism" clearly that should not go here.--Eduen (talk)
01:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on Stefan Molyneux

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Stefan Molyneux - The RfC question is
"Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in
the lede of this article?" -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 23 May 2014
(UTC)[reply]