Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 24
>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 20 	← 	Archive 22 	Archive 23 	Archive 24 	Archive 25 	Archive
26 	→ 	Archive 28
Contents

    1 Removal of npov tag from neutral article
    2 Request removal of Criticism section
    3 Merge Proposal
    4 Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools
    5 Economics

Removal of npov tag from neutral article
	This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove npov tag from this neutral article. The following
paragraph in the lede

    Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who
advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and
socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of
resources.

...replaces the text in a neutral manner which previously stated the
context as a POV. The RfC was closed with a weak consensus to include
early mention regarding the distinction between "traditional"
anarchists and anCaps. As a result, the new paragraph is included in
the lede which clarifies the distinction. Furthermore, the new
compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of
anarchism is "correct" or "valid". Further discussion occurs in the
body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among
self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded
further according to the results of the RfC). Please remove this
inappropriate tag from the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 8 August
2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not remove the tag, as I am still awaiting resolution at
the NPOV noticeboard. Thank you! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:14,
8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not remove the tag, as there are critical unanswered
questions about neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]

        There will never be 100% agreement - even though the page is
now clearly neutral. Please remove the tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 16:44, 8
August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opponents of certain controversial topics often will perform such
inappropriate tagging because it can be a sneaky way to discredit the
article subject. This is no different. Instead of the tag at the top,
people who have specific, actionable objections to neutrality issues
should mark the specific sections ({{POV-section}}) or lines
({{POV-check inline}}) that they claim problems. -- Netoholic @ 17:03,
8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article conformed to NPOV...until those who want there to be a
government decided to add a specific sentence. Since that sentence is
not there currently, clearly the NPOV tag can be removed. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: After
briefly reading through the talk page, the current featured article
review, and the NPOV noticeboard thread, I still see legitimate NPOV
concerns with the article that have not yet been resolved between the
editors here. Sorry, but the disputes need to be resolved before we
can remove the tag completely. For the moment, Netoholic's suggestion
of using tags for specific sections seems like a suitable compromise
for the tag until the actual disputes themselves can be worked out.
Let me know which tags should go where and I'll replace put them in
the article. (Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template when
you do so, so that I'll see the request.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪
14:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        Mr. Stradivarius, the current dispute concerns the last
sentence in the lead, which distinguishes anarcho-capitalism from
minarchism and the wider libertarian/anarchist philosophy. I would
suggest tagging that line, as well as the section entitled
"Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools," which gives undue
weight to a non-notable figure.
        I would also ask to delete the "Criticism" section, as it
contains almost no useful information and criticisms are best
dispersed through the text, per WP:CRITS. If I should request this
edit in a separate section, please let me know. Thanks! — MisterDub
(talk | contribs) 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            @MisterDub: Your proposal to delete the criticism section
should go in a new section, yes. I wouldn't feel comfortable with
enacting that without a clear consensus. If that section is also part
of the dispute, then we should probably tag it too until the dispute
is resolved. @Binksternet: would you be ok with tagging the sections
that MisterDub mentions? If so, we should probably go through with it
- it seems like a good first step towards conciliation with the
editors who would like the tags removed altogether. — Mr. Stradivarius
♪ talk ♪ 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                The article is fully protected, so I cannot tag the
criticism section with the NPOV section template. Binksternet (talk)
15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                    Binksternet, I have opened a new section regarding
the "Criticisms" section. For now, I think Mr. Stradivarius just wants
to know if you agree with my previous suggestions of tagging both the
last line in the lead and the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist
schools" section. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:52, 11 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                        I support any effort that helps make this
article informative and neutral. So, yes, I agree. Binksternet (talk)
17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                            Yes check.svg Done Yes, that's what I
meant. I've removed the {{POV}} tag from the top of the article, added
{{POV-check inline}} to the end of the lead, and added {{POV-section}}
to the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section. — Mr.
Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                Nothing in the lede in its current
format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism. It is
entirely neutral. Keeping the tag would be inappropriate. The other
section that has been tagged has been determined by RfC consensus to
be acceptable. This tag also needs to be removed. If there are any
non-neutral sections in the article, state them here and we can
discuss them. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Red information icon with gradient
background.svg Not done: If you disagree with my reading of the
consensus here, you're welcome to ask for review of my decision at
WP:AN. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:25, 12 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                                        I believe Netoholic was trying
to make the point that certain editors are trying to paint anCap
itself as an illegitimate point of view, and thus could not pinpoint a
section that is not neutral. He was not offering a compromise. The
currently tagged sections are neutral - as is the article itself.
JLMadrigal (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                            I have posted the
following comment at the link you specified, and it was reverted:

                                            "If you review the article
Anarcho-capitalism as it is written without any prejudice based on the
opinions of editors manifested on the talk page, you will find that
nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the
topic of anarcho-capitalism, and that other schools of thought are
presented in the appropriate section in a neutral way. Please consider
removal of the tags. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014
(UTC)"[reply]

                                            JLMadrigal (talk) 12:41,
12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JLMadrigal: You posted at the wrong place - you need to start a new
section at WP:AN, but instead you posted at WP:ANRFC. Also, you should
probably mention that you are seeking review of my decision in this
edit request, otherwise people might not know what you want. — Mr.
Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request removal of Criticism section
	This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans=
parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting the removal of the section titled "Criticisms." It is
neither informative nor supported by sources. Additionally, criticisms
are best dispersed throughout the article, per WP:CRITS. Thank you. —
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per WP:CRITS. No need for a criticism ghetto, as if
criticism was removed from the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 11
August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deactivated the request template for now. It should only be
activated after a consensus has been found. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk
♪ 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removal of this section in its current format.
JLMadrigal (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree Any criticisms are best dealt with in the rest of the
article. TFD (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes check.svg Done I've removed the section. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪
talk ♪ 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

I propose that voluntaryism be merged into anarcho-capitalism for the
simple fact that the two philosophies are practically identical and
there is almost total theoretical and functional parity between the
two. They are both forms of stateless capitalism in which all goods
and services, including justice, are private commodities purchased
through "voluntary" means. I fail to see any difference between them
whatsoever; at best, voluntaryism would be a subcategory of anarcho
capitalism. Even the Voluntaryism article states that it is "closely
associated with, and often used synonymously with, the
anarcho-capitalist philosophy." It has the same proponents (Rothbard,
Block), the same flag, the same ethical principle of "non aggression"
and is politically and economically identical with anarcho capitalism.
JDiala (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds interesting, and likely, but can you point to any
differences? If there's a slight difference as described in the
sources, then maybe it's best to keep the voluntaryism article. So
let's make sure before we undertake a merge. Argue the opposing side
and see how strong it is. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]

        I'm arguing based on the rules set by WP:Merge. It states
that: "There are several good reasons to merge pages:...2.Overlap:
There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large
overlap.". A slight difference isn't, as the policy states,
necessarily an argument against merging. All we need is "large
overlap". JDiala (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading through libertarian blogs, there seems to be a difference
between anarcho-capitalism, agorism and voluntaryism. Most importantly
agorism appears to be a branch of anarcho-capitalism, while
voluntaryism is a branch of agorism. The only reason to combine them
would be overlap and scarcity of sources for all of them. TFD (talk)
01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        First of all, blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. Secondly, at
least according to the Wikipedia article on Agorism, it is not a
branch of anarcho capitalism, nor is voluntaryism a branch of agorism.
If one assumes the existence of property rights and the non aggression
axiom, both of which are the essences of voluntaryism, agorism cannot
be interpreted as a form of voluntaryism. It's market anarchism.
JDiala (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            Reliable sources are not required for discussion, only if
they are challenged. It is not inspiring that after demanding rs, you
then reference a comment to a Wikipedia article, which is not rs, then
provided unsourced original research. By "branch of" I do not mean the
same thing as but that it differs. IOW their advocates began with
existing theories and branched off by altering them. TFD (talk) 21:12,
28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely do not support that merge. Voluntarism is a philosophy
that stems from the belief that all interactions should be voluntary.
While for many people that philosophy leads to anarchism and
capitalism, those are by no means the only two conclusions. For
example, a small community might choose a leadership counsel for
convenience of handling administrative tasks, but in a voluntary
society, no one is obligated to abide by those leaders if they choose
not to. Even certain small communist communities could be considered
voluntary. -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        That's your opinion. Can you find any evidence of this in
libertarian literature? The majority of anarcho capitalist theorists,
like Block and Rothbard, believe that even in an anarcho capitalist
society, as with a voluntaryist one, one would not be obligated to
abide by those leaders at all. The defining characteristics of both
ideologies (self ownership, property rights, the NAP, privatized
justice, etc.) are identical. Being forced to listen to leaders is, if
anything, a form of statism, which is not relevant to the discussion.
Furthermore, the size of the community has no relevance as to whether
or not it can be classified as "voluntaryist" or "anarcho capitalist".

        You see, voluntaryism is more than "voluntary". Voluntary
implies the non aggression principle. However, "voluntaryists" also,
alongside that principle, include another one: property rights. A
system based on voluntary interaction could be anything, including
left-anarchism. However, left-anarchism isn't considered voluntaryism
by the latter's proponents. It's rooted in property rights, which
would entail capitalism. JDiala (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]

            The voluntaryism article has adequate sources already that
describe the points I'm summarizing here. The origins of a
voluntaryist's adherence to that philosophy doesn't have to come from
agreement with the NAP as usually stated. Some voluntaryist's come to
it via religious teachings. Some come to it from other ancient
philosophy. One potential output from voluntaryist philosophy is an
anarcho-capitalist society, but its cause vs effect... and AnCap is
just one potential effect. As far as property rights, all that is
required for a left-anarchist to be a voluntaryist is to agree that
their interactions with a property owner be voluntary. Wikipedia
itself is an excellent example of a voluntaryist "society" that is not
based on the NAP. No one is required to participate or to work at the
direction of another, and there are controls in place to prevent
unwanted interaction. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 28 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]

Support: Voluntaryism is not a philosophy except insofar as it is a
synonym for anarcho-capitalism, which is more often than not; vague
rejection of state activities, i.e. non-voluntary activities, would
fall under (an ignorant appeal to) libertarianism/anarchism more
generally. Of course, voluntaryism doesn't use traditional libertarian
symbols like the black flag, circle-A, etc., but a black-and-yellow
(i.e. anarcho-capitalist) V. The designer of the symbol states that
"[y]ellow is a reference to gold, which was the market chosen money.
So it's a reference to free market money, and by extension the free
market and capitalism. Black is a reference to anarchy. Anarchy, or
an-archy, means no rulers." ("The Symbol") It is also clear that
voluntaryists support private property and free market economics: Carl
Watner writes that voluntaryism demands, "that the resultant
[economic] system be voluntary, which already implies a respect for
self-ownership and just property titles. A regime of proprietary
justice allows all economic systems to compete on a voluntary basis
and there is no reason why voluntary cooperatives could not exist side
by side with voluntary communes or voluntary capitalist companies."
("The Voluntaryist Spirit") In other words, he is explicitly tying
voluntaryism to anarchism (without adjectives), but because he bases
this belief on "self-ownership and just property titles," i.e.
capitalism, it is clear that even his voluntaryism is simply a synonym
for anarcho-capitalism. As for genealogy, Watner recently wrote that,
"graphically displayed [as an Euler diagram], there would be a large
circle labeled 'libertarians.' Then there would be a smaller circle
within the libertarian circle, which would be labeled 'anarchists,'
and within the anarchist circle would be yet a smaller circle labeled
'voluntaryists,' for those anarchists who reject electoral politics
and embrace peaceful change." ("What Voluntaryism Means to Me") In
other words, voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism that eschews
parliamentary politics... which is already common to
anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 29 August
2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The line containing "there is no reason why voluntary cooperatives
could not exist side by side with voluntary communes or voluntary
capitalist companies" is enough evidence to suggest that voluntaryism
as a topic goes well beyond AnCap. The voluntaryism article probably
needs more expansion on the topic of non-capitalist economic systems
working in the context of voluntaryism, but merging the topic here
would greatly diminish our ability to do so. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 29
August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        But a "voluntary commune" that adheres to "proprietary
justice," i.e. property rights, is still capitalist: "The
determination of property titles is highly critical because, in the
deepest sense, all property is ultimately private." "Individualist
anarchism is the logical outcome of the proprietary theory of
justice." "As Spooner has demonstrated, such [political] arguments
must ultimately reduce themselves to either an acceptance or rejection
of the self-ownership and homesteading axioms; that is, to either
individual sovereignty and the principle of private property or to
slavery and absolute communism. There is no middle ground of
compromise possible between these premises." ("The Proprietary Theory
of Justice"). So, again, voluntaryism is exactly anarcho-capitalism. —
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            So why stop at merging with AnCap? According to this line
of reasoning, voluntaryism and AnCap should be merged into
libertarianism... which should then be merged into political
philosophy, and so on and so on. We maintain separate articles for
similar topics all over the place... the reason we do so is because
each topic is used in distinct ways, such as in the very examples you
used above. Classical liberalism vs libertarianism is another
example... very similar philosophies, but the terms have distinct
origins and usages. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                There is a difference between A ⊂ B and A = B. —
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                    So you agree that all the subset articles should
be merged into political philosophy. Should you not, I would expect
you to understand the idea of subsets you just invoked, and how you
can't want it in one case and not in another lest you be guilty of
special pleading. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                        Please permit me to assist you with your
reading comprehension: "So, again, voluntaryism is exactly
anarcho-capitalism." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 September
2014 (UTC)[reply]

                            Please refrain from making uncivil
comments or you will be reported (Notice how I'm using your tactic
against you. Think you should have never tried it in the first place
now?). And I'm still waiting for you to show that voluntaryism is
exactly anarchocapitalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:13, 2 September
2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Voluntarism, as a concept it only belongs to this particular
position and maybe to the wider US neoliberal scene. It is something
mostly alien to anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary association is alien to anarchism? So I guess anarchism
is all about forcing others to associate or not associate? So much
then for the so-called "libertarian socialism"; that clearly is an
oxymoron. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]

Deny: The two are different enough to warrant it. - Knight of BAAWA
(talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools

How can we satisfy editors enough to remove the remaining tag from the
"Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section? What should
be added and/or removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_and_other_anarchist_schools

I see no reason to keep this tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:36, 5 September
2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Introduce anarchism first so readers understand why most
anarchists believe anti-capitalism to be integral to their ideology
    Remove Per Bylund (he's not notable)
    Remove most of the fifth paragraph, starting with "In short, while
granting that certain non-coercive hierarchies will exist under an
anarcho-capitalist system..."
    Combine the first sentence of the fifth paragraph (which would
then stand alone) with the last paragraph
    Remove a lot of the parenthetical asides which are severely
overused in the last paragraph

    — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was bold and edited the article according to my points above. I
imagine it will be reverted, but if not, I think it's a huge step
forward. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:21, 5 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]

    The tag never should have been in the article in the first place.
If those who wish there to be a government have a problem, it is
theirs alone. The article was neutral before they started trying to
take it over. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014
(UTC)[reply]

Economics

The section Economics has two paragraphs and the second of them
discuss only Rothbard's biography rather than explaining anything
about anarcho-capitalist economic theory. What is the point of this
section at all? - Alumnum (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support eliminating the biography, and replacing it with a
brief discussion of your cited analysis by Friedman, and economic
analyses by other ancaps. JLMadrigal @ 13:10, 2 October 2014
(UTC)[reply]

        Seems reasonable. - Alumnum (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]