grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:45:23 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 27
>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 25 	Archive 26 	Archive 27 	Archive 28

    1 Misleading and suspect ethnographic information.
    2 Further reading section
    3 Coiner
    4 Molyneux
    5 Taxation
    6 Removal of overlinking to Icelandic Commonwealth
    7 Temp page protection
    8 Thick anarchism
    9 External links modified
    10 History
    11 External links modified
    12 External links modified
    13 grammar
    14 The Greatest Improvement One Could Make To This Page!
    15 Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism suggestions
    16 NPOV
    17 Revert
    18 Recent edits
    19 Victim-Based
    21 ‎Historical precedents
    22 quote in strange context?
    23 "Law merchant, admiralty law and early common law"
    24 Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism
    25 Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019
    26 Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
    27 Removal of unsourced content
    28 Are we fixing this?
    29 An example of issues when relying on primary sources
    30 Yesim Yilmaz source (Private Regulation)
    31 Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism again
        31.1 Rewrite
    32 Classical liberalism
        32.1 Old Right
    33 Hatting
    34 Referencing problems
    35 "Political quadrant" image
    36 Samuel Edward Konkin III
    37 The O'Keeffe quote
    38 Phylosophy is confusing
    39 Why socialism “is when government”
    40 Anarchism sidebar

Misleading and suspect ethnographic information.

Whilst I cannot(and indeed do not have time) to research and correct
much of the ethnographic 'information' presented in this article as
examples 'similar to Anarcho-capitalism', the sections apparently
detailing so called 'primitive' Papuan groups practicing some kind of
'private property' are flagrantly inaccurate. Whilst ideological
disputes no doubt occur over the use of terms and the semantics of
specific terms, this article contains anthropologically and
ethnographically inaccurate and information misrepresentative of
ethnographic accounts. Because of this, and because I am sure that
correction of these failings is beyond the scope of this article,
please somebody take out the supposed 'similar to Anarcho-capitalism'
section all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] have admitted that you don't have time to research the
"issue". And you have offered nothing other than your say-so. Ok.
That's probably not going to work. If you or someone else could
provide some substance to your claim, that'd be great. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having read the ethnography cited(poorly) in the article,
that being 'POSPISIL, L. (1965). A Formal Analysis of Substantive Law:
Kapauku Papuan Laws of Land Tenure. American Anthropologist. 67,
186-214. ' I find no evidence of 'private property' as would be
required for this to be used as evidence of anything 'similar to
Anarcho-capitalism'. From an anthropological, or rather economic
anthropological perspective, there is no evidence in this ethnography
of anything that could be considered 'private property', indeed I
highly doubt that Pospisil would have argued that this was the case,
particular as such a concept scarcely exists in any 'non-Western'
ethnographic examples. What is demonstrated in the ethnography, is
various forms of personal ownership(as fundamentally distinct from
private ownership), where by individuals possess specific discrete
items or objects, a common trait found in other ethnographic examples
see(Fred Myers on the Pintupi) alongside what put into Western
language can only be called 'common ownership' however based upon the
family and kin relationships. Even the examples cited demonstrate that
kinship is the building block of concepts of ownership(Fred Myers
again provides some information regarding this), and could only be
translated into Western language as being akin to the personal
possessions held in common by family members. However even this is a
massive stretching of definitions since Western society does not have
the social structures and kinship relations that are evident in
Kapauku society and are form the basis of property ownership in that
society. Such stretching of definitions risks the types of
essentialising and oversimplification that comes with racism and
colonialist ignorance. The Pospisil example cited, does not even
provide evidence for private property, merely individual ownership,
which cannot be reduced to being the same thing, and certainly not so
when claiming some kind of anthropological credibility. The fact of
the matter is that if we try to force Kapauku society into the
frameworks of Western notions of property(a dubious task for sure)
theirs is a society where individual ownership of land and land
ownership in general, and resources are derived not through private
property rights, but through the physical acts of individuals and
indeed in most instances collective labour(see Pospisil) of kinship
groups, who then claim ownership in common of the land or resources
they have 'developed'.

For further reading of all that's wrong with trying to claim that the
Kapauku have 'private property', as well as why this does not make
sense in an ethnographic context see The gift-Marcel Mauss Stone age
economics-Marshall Sahlins Debt-David Graeber and why'll you're on it
read Argonauts of the Western pacific-Malinowski. Coral gardens and
their magic-Malinowski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And of course, equally, we only have the "say-so" of the IP editor
who only recently added much of this content to the article that, by
contrast, it is relevant and appropriate. The main source relied on is
a paper by Bruce Benson published by the hardly disinterested Journal
of Libertarian Studies which, nonetheless, doesn't even mention
anarcho-capitalism in its body. It's not clear that any of the
original anthropological source material, some of which is also quoted
directly at some length, does either. N-HH talk/edits 11:29, 20
February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the above commentator's claim that Papuans had no
concept of private property but rather all personal possessions were
owned by the family, I would like to point out Pospisil's quote from
the source itself: "Relatives, husbands and wives do not own anything
in common." I think Pospisil has gone to great lengths to put across
the point that neither land nor movables were communally owned,
rather, everything was individually owned. This does count as
proto-capitalist. In fact Pospisil himself used the word "private
ownership" rather than "personal ownership" to characterize the
property system, since personal possessions are usually limited to
movables whereas the source specifically mentions private ownership of
land as being pervasive in Papuan society.— Preceding unsigned comment
added by (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a violation of WP:SYNTH to insert any text based on sources
that do not mention anarcho-capitalism. I removed a bunch of violation
text just now. It had been added by IP This cannot
stand. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        The money quote is from the lead of WP:OR, "To demonstrate
that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable,
published sources that are directly related to the topic of the
article, and directly support the material being presented." In
general, don't say something that hasn't been said before in a
reliable secondary source. LK (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading section

Following on, but distinct, from the endless "anarchism or not"
discussion, this part of the page, which I've only just noticed as
I've never got that far down before, has multiple issues. For a start,
per the relevant part of the MOS, further reading lists should not be
huge and should not be used as a kind of second references section.
This one also seems to be being used as a kind of forum for debating
the "anarchism" point, purporting to be definitive and overwhelming
evidence about it, with divisions and sub-headings for the cited texts
depending on which side of the debate they supposedly fall on, based
presumably on nothing more than a random editor's interpretation. Not
only is this inappropriate in principle, as set up it's utterly
misleading anyway: a brief check suggests that very few of the sources
cited directly address the specific point in quite such a "yes/no"
fashion, nor is it a definitive or representative overview of all the
literature. It needs to be culled to reflect only the significant
texts and to lose the sub-headings. N-HH talk/edits 12:19, 18 May 2016

    I agree with you. By all means cut it back. FreeKnowledgeCreator
(talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For future editor reference, here is what the section was before
the pruning discussed here - in case anyone feels like any of these
items need to be restored. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 22 May 2016


According to Lew Rockwell, the term was coined by Murray N. Rothbard.

According to Mark Thornton, the term was coined by Michael Oliver.

Charles Johnson suggests that Karl Hess may have been the first to use the term.

I have also heard that it was coined by Jarret B. Wollstein.

Why is this so hard to pin down?

allixpeeke (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I noticed that there were some deletes and
reversions concerning Stefan Molyneux's self-published books and
blog/podcast site. I recognize that these are relevant things for the
page to point to, and can't guess at the IP editor's intentions, but I
wonder if their self-published status means that this article should
not be linking to them out of concern for WP:PROMO. Should there be
some discussion here on the Talk page to see if there is some
consensus before more changes are attempted?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs)
06:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the IP only because no explanation was given. If you
are reasonably convinced that the books should not be listed, then
remove them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2016

        No, I'm satisfied to have them here, but I've grown sensitive
to the issue of self-published sources and am still trying to figure
out when they're considered okay and when they're not.  —jmcgnh(talk)
(contribs) 07:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree with this edit by Knight of BAAWA. Yes, it's true that
taxation as normally understood is compulsory, but paying for
essential services such as private defense agencies, police, and
courts, etc, in an anarcho-capitalist society could be considered a
form of taxation that isn't strictly compulsory. So I think
"compulsory" should be restored. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 15
December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to disagree. The notion of "voluntary taxes" is almost, but
not quite, an oxymoron. Market transactions, such as paying for
private defense, etc must not in any way be considered "taxation". In
some sense, you are "required" to either provide for your own defense
or pay someone — but that should be considered the same way as being
required to either grow your own food or pay someone for it.
—jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As with the above: taxation is necessarily compulsory. Hell--even
the wikipedia article on taxation states as such. To conflate taxation
with a purchase is to destroy the very notion of freely-chosen
transactions. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2016

Removal of overlinking to Icelandic Commonwealth

You recently removed some links in anarcho-capitalism to the Icelandic
Commonwealth with the following note: "Reduce overlinks of Icelandic
Commonwealth - one image caption and one in the body should suffice"

Maybe I'm missing something, but now I don't see any links to
Icelandic Commonwealth? Maybe you accidently removed one too many?
IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like they are still there. The first one is piped in
an image caption, so it doesn't show on the rendered page as
"Icelandic Commonwealth". (I generally allow for an extra links in
infoboxes, tables, and image captions, so I can't just mechanically
remove extra links.) The other one appears near the end of the
paragraph that starts off with the link to Subrogation.

    Oh, and thanks for all the work you've been doing.  —jmcgnh(talk)
(contribs) 20:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        Ah, I see now. There aren't any links in the section about
Medieval Iceland being a historical precedent, but I guess that's
fine. Also, I added info about the anarcho-capitalistic
characteristics of the Icelandic Commonwealth to Icelandic
Commonwealth (I copy-pasted it from anarcho-capitalism with some minor
changes). I thought you may be interested. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk)
21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

            Well, I'm persuaded that it would be better to link the
second image caption than the first and the instance in the more
relevant section than the first mention. Thanks.  —jmcgnh(talk)
(contribs) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                [@IWillBuildTheRoads: moved here from my talk page.]
—jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temp page protection

I requested temp page protection until the coordinated vandalism
stops. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thick anarchism

Would it be accurate to say that anarcho-capitalism and
anarcho-syndicalism are "thick" anarchism? And if you just say, "Let's
abolish the state and let the details take care of themselves,"
without specifying whether it's ethical for the workers to seize the
means of production, that's "thin" anarchism? St. claires fire (talk)
22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarcho-capitalism. Please
take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need
the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this
simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    Added archive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the
instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article takes great pains to make anarcho-capitalism look older
than it is. It should be mentioned much earlier that the term came
into use in the mid-20th century, and should be neutral on the subject
of whether anarcho-capitalism is part of a longer tradition. Which
means it should not begin its History section by talking about
classical liberalism and individualist anarchism, as this is a
decidedly non-neutral take on how the ideology came about.

Anarcho-capitalism is a 20th-century invention, and this isn't even
debatable. What's debatable is whether it's part of individualist
anarchism or simply an extreme form of liberalism. Ligata (talk)
09:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see any support for your claims in the text of the
article. In fact, the lede points out that Rothbard was the first
person to use the term, and that in the mid 20th century. That the
history section begins with classical liberalism and individualist
anarchism is proper, as that is where it does come from. Ideas do not
exist in a vacuum; please remember that. Also: you can try to debate
whether or not anarcho-capitalism is part of individualist anarchism
just as much as you can debate whether or not evolution is a fact.
However, it's pretty silly to do either. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
02:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarcho-capitalism. Please
take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need
the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this
simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    Added {{dead link}} tag to
    Added {{dead link}} tag to
    Added archive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the
instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anarcho-capitalism. Please
take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need
the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this
simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    Added archive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the
instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018,
"External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated
or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required
regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification
using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to
delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want
to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic
removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
{{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead
by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves,
you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in the Fiction section, it talks about a book written by thomas sowell
but it is spelled thomas sewell. i dont have time to make an account
and edit and all that jazz so if somebody else could do that that
would be nice. or dont, its not my business. — Preceding unsigned
comment added by (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2017‎

    Sharper Security: A Sovereign Security Company Novel is in fact
written by Thomas Sewell, not Sowell. --Cgt (talk) 16:17, 24 December
2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Improvement One Could Make To This Page!

Simple! Take it down. "Anarcho"-Capitalism is NOT a thing. And would
literally be impossible considering the fact that Capitalism relies on
the State in order to exist. There have been plenty of articles, books
and documentaries and videos debunking Not-Anarchist Capitalism. Out
of respect for the real Anarchists here trying to change the world for
the better, for all, please delete this article, or make it not even
remotely related to Anarchism, and put the term Anarcho in ""s

Thanks, hope you'll see sense and make a change. Stop morons falling
into this trap.

For more information visit and search for
Anarcho-Hucksters, and read the Anarchist FAQ which is on the same
site. Individualist Anarchism is not Capitalistic, and Capitalism is
not compatible with Anarchism.

Tom the Anarchist. 2A02:C7D:801A:5600:496F:DD6B:1B20:ED5 (talk) 11:24,
15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

→ Political disagreement with the subject of an article isn't
generally considered a reason to remove an article. You may want to
familiarize yourself more with the purpose of Wikipedia.
-- (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism suggestions

I do not know much about this topic, which is why I am putting it up
for discussion, but an example of a historical anarcho-capitalism like
system may be pre-monarchical Israel as described in the book of
Judges. They (according to the Bible) had a set of laws that
maintained property rights, but appeared to not have any definitive
state to execute it other than the priests. Electro blob (talk) 06:19,
12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Got reliable sources? Is it a fringe view or a mainstream view? //
Liftarn (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I notice that my edit has been reverted. I feel that the now current
wording of "from other professed anarchists who nevertheless seek to
prohibit or regulate the accumulation of property and the flow of
capital." is unacceptably POV. For one, the use of "professed" and
"nevertheless" implies that left-anarchists are not "real" anarchists
- an interesting role reversal, but still POV. And for another, the
idea that left-anarchists seek to "regulate" anything is antithetical
to the ideas of anarchism. While anarcho-capitalists may believe that
the view of property espoused by left-anarchists amounts to
"prohibiting or regulating", this is also not a NPOV viewpoint. If I
were to edit the left anarchist page to talk about "other professed
anarchists who nevertheless seek to perpetuate capitalist hierarchy",
that would also be an unacceptably POV statement. Thank you, Eeidt
(talk) 03:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eeidt here. "professed" and "nevertheless" present the
clear implication that non ancap anarchists take a view of private
property that is in opposition or contradiction to anarchism
generally, and thus are anarchists in name only. It's very clear POV
and should be modified. I also feel that it would be helpful for "the
accumulation of property" to be changed to "the accumulation of
private property" to clearly distinguish between capital goods/private
property versus collective property or collective ownership. In sum
I'd like to propose changing the wording to "from other anarchists who
seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of private property and
the flow of capital." I'll leave reasonable time for discussion, then
proceed with these edits. Thanks, Plesiosaur~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 3
August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:, User: You have made this revert (and
for the second IP this edit, I don't know whether it has something
concretely to do with he content), re-adding the Libertatis
Æquilibritas to the article. When I Google "libertatis æquilibritas OR
aequilibritas", I get only 5.470 results. The first one claims "It is
not a symbol of capitalism in the general leftist sense [...]". The
third one is an article from the Esperanto Wikipedia, which claims it
to be an anarcho-capitalist symbol. The source is the private website
of someone (although it claims the article to have been originally
published on, which also does not seem very relevant),
who seems to have invented it by himself. In difference to this
article, none of the this two pages claim it to be a symbol of the
Austrian School, but only of anarcho-capitalism. There seems no
important place where the symbol is used. Also, the claim of this
article that the Austrian School is "the school of economics of
anarcho-capitalism" is wrong, as, for example, David D. Friedman and
Bryan Caplan are anarcho-capitalists without being adherents of the
Austrian School, and Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are adherents of
the Austrian School without being anarcho-capitalists.

The first IP also made this revert. But the symbol does not have much
to do with "any metaphysical or psychological system that assigns to
the will (Latin: voluntas) a more predominant role than that
attributed to the intellect" or "the doctrine that will is the basic
factor, both in the universe and in human conduct", much more with
what is described in voluntaryism. Voluntarism (philosophy) does also
have a section about political voluntaryism, but the link wasn't even
directed on this section. --Zupanto (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2018
Recent edits

@SpeedRunnerOfPersia:, you are making many edits to this article
without discussion. Multiple editors - myself and @Knight of BAAWA: -
have objected to them. I do not believe that your edits are in accord
with WP:NPOV, and you are behaving wrongly by restoring them without
seeking consensus on the talk page first. You simply cannot continue
to revert multiple other editors who disagree with you, with no
attempt to resolve disagreements by discussion. If you keep up this
pattern of editing, I will report you for edit warring.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract
law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment
under political monopolies, which tend to become corrupt in proportion
to their monopolization.[3]

What does it mean by victim based? Mslayer122 (talk) 11:39, 4 January
2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently contains the following sentence:

    Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary
trade of private property and services (in sum, all relationships that
are not caused by threats or violence, including exchanges of money,
consumer goods, land and capital goods) in order to minimize conflict
while maximizing individual liberty and prosperity.

It seems to me that the highlighted part seems to unequivocally state
that the relationships mentioned (exchange of money, consumer goods,
land etc.) are not caused by threats or violence, while this is just a
belief held by anarchocapitalists and some right libertarians.
Moreover this is precisely explained further down in the article in
the Criticism section. I tried to remedy this situation twice by
simply rewording the sentence and specifying that it's "all
relationships that they believe are not caused by violence", however
Knight of BAAWA keeps making unjustified reverts of this. When I've
confronted them about it, they said that I need sources (???) and that
I'm attempting to marginalize (???). It seems to me crystal clear that
we cannot make statements on Wikipedia as if it were true, when they
are merely a belief held by a group, hence attributing the belief to
the group is a small yet needed improvement in the article. The same
user seems to also revert some of my other changes attempting to
properly attribute beliefs to anarcho-capitalists, consequently
violating WP:NPOV. Out of respect I have not yet reintroduced the
initial edit until a further discussion is concluded including other
editors, however I will not let Knight of BAAWA revert other
improvements and necessary attributions, as those changes are
necessary to improve the neutrality of the article. At the same time I
recommend @Knight of BAAWA: to read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV,
the latter being the aspect of our policy they are violating. BeŻet
(talk) 11:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm violating nothing. I justified the reverts. Please remember to
assume good faith, which you clearly aren't doing. And also remember:
you do need sources/citations/references for what you put in.
Otherwise, it will just get tagged with {citation needed}, because
that's how Wikipedia works. If you're unfamiliar with that: you need a
refresher. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        Again, you're not making a lot of sense: why do I need a
source to claim that it is a belief held by anarchocapitalists? Isn't
that absolutely clear given the sources that describe
ANARCHOCAPITALISM? Please readdress this issue. BeŻet (talk) 09:46, 5
June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

            It makes complete sense, as I'm talking about you needing
to provide sources for what you add. This is Wikipedia 101, nothing
more. Please remember to assume good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
12:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

                What does need to be sourced? That anarchocapitalists
believe that exchange of money etc. is devoid of violence? What are
you talking about, you are not being clear enough. We are merely
stating that this is what they believe. Are you saying that I need to
provide a source that those transactions may in fact be caused by
violence? If so, there are tens of thousands of books explaining that,
but that's besides the point, because we are not stating here whether
they may be caused by violence, but what anarchocapitalists believe.
This is Wikipedia 101. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‎Historical precedents

Examples of "‎historical precedents" that are not clearly described as
"anarchocapitalist" by sources should be removed, otherwise they would
be considered as original research and synthesis of published
material. BeŻet (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The first three examples should be removed (sources don't
explicitly claim those societies were anarcho-capitalist). BeŻet
(talk) 11:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quote in strange context?

Why put a Noam Chomsky quote about the impracticality and potential
consequences of anarcho-capitalism in a section about rights? Either
the section should have a different title and idfferent content
introducing the quote, maybe "practical possibility and implications",
or just drop the quote, which is pretty vague and lacking any real
information? The sentence before the quote is "Some critics, including
Noam Chomsky, reject the distinction between positive and negative
rights." This would lead the reader to expect a quote where Chomsky
either discusses the irrelevance of the distinction between positive
and negative rights, or the invalidity of the ancap case that only
negative rights count. Instead, he just basically says he thinks ancap
is stupid and will never be implemented and would cause a disaster if
it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
19:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Law merchant, admiralty law and early common law"

This section seems to be WP:OR as none of the quotes referenced
mention anarcho-capitalism; furthermore, some sources placed there
that I've checked don't either. I've tagged it with a template for
now, but might need to remove the section if it's not improved. BeŻet
(talk) 12:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I've removed all content in Somalia's section that doesn't
reference anarcho-capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2019
Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism

What's the point in stating in the lead that anarcho-capitalism is a
"modern school of anarchist thought" when there's a note that
literally states "The wider anarchist movement rejects
anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, see Anarcho-capitalism and
other anarchist schools"? It should just states "Anarcho-capitalism is
a political philosophy and economic theory". There're Anarchism and
capitalism and Issues in anarchism that can discuss that with more
informations and better clarifications; we don't need to put
anarcho-capitalism and anarchism everywhere, especially when "[t]he
wider anarchist movement rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of
anarchism", which reliable sources generally agree/support. Anyway,
this article still has multiple issues, @Czar: maybe you can do
something about it?--Davide King (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2019
Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019
	This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following referral does not lead to dispute resolution
organizations, but instead to

Top of this URL then reads:

"Stefan Molyneux From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected
from Dispute resolution organizations)"

CHANGE dispute resolution organizations TO dispute resolution
organizations Lolileinchen (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Lolileinchen:, the Dispute resolution organizations redirect
makes no sense and so I will arrange for it to be deleted. Thanks,
Fish+Karate 12:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
	This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


I propose the addition of some words in the opening frase of the article:

Please change: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and
economic theory that advocates..."

to: "Anarcho-capitalism is one of the neoliberal schools of thought
that as political philosophy and economic theory advocates..."

I believe it whould make the article more acurate since the terms
"libertarianism"-"anarchocapitalism" are both invented and promoted by
the austrian school. Such the "austrian school" as "libertarianism"
are already part of the "neoliberalism" article in wikipedia. And
that's correct since the main carachteristic of neoliberalism as
described in wikipedia is practically the main principal of
"libertarianism" (pro free market and private initiative against state
control and market regulations)

Borodin bonobo (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change
you want to be made. Given the controversial topic of this article, I
would also want to see consensus supporting this change before
implementing it via an edit request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:27, 20 April
2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Responding to the updated request, you still haven't pointed to
reliable sources that use this description. I recommend starting a
discussion of sources here below. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:02, 21 April
2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unsourced content

Since it has been a year since the templates went up, and there
doesn't seem to be anyone interested in backing up the original claims
inserted in this article (and it's not the job of other editors to try
and figure out where specific claims have originated from), I will be
soon removing paragraphs that are missing sources. I think it will be
better for the article to be shorter but with more sourced material,
rather than longer with a lot of unverified information. In general,
I'd like to remove:

    The Economics subsection that has no citations bar one primary
source for one sentence, which talks about Rothbard and his opinion on
Cold Warriors.
    Sentences that use the Don Stacy "source" (which is a review of
the book), as nearly all of them, if not all of them, failed
verification. If the editor who added this source was trying to
reference the book itself, a full citation is needed.
    Unsourced content in the Common Property section, including the
content that failed verification.
    Unsourced content in the Contractual Society section
    Unsourced content in the History section, including the paragraph
that failed verification.
    The two unsourced claims in Medieval Iceland
    The non sequitur statement in the Criticism section (which is also
    The whole of the literature section - there are no sources nor
criteria explaining why any of the books there belong in this article.
The fiction section is lacking citations.

If anyone would like to "rescue" this content, now is the time to add
sources. Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Literature section is fundamentally a MOS:FURTHER reading
section, and doesn't strictly require citations (like other External
links) especially where its just a simple list of works. If further
commentary is made, such as in the Literature>Fiction section, then of
course citations are needed. I'd really prefer also if we could focus
efforts on one section at a time. There is WP:NODEADLINE and I get the
feeling that we're going to have too many hands in the pot trying to
make a lot of changes at once. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 14 June 2020

        I don't want to remove everything in one go, but rather do it
over the course of a week or more. In terms of the literature section,
it still required justification – for instance, who decides whether a
1885 text or a 1935 book has anything to do with anarchocapitalism,
considering it was "invented" in the 50s or 60s? Any text that is not
clearly and unequivocally about anarchocapitalism should include a
justification/citation. BeŻet (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            Some of those early books are listed because of their
strong influence on the development of AnCap and because they express
similar sentiments (without calling themselves the precisely same name
as was later developed). I certainly think prose is better than a
simple list, but I don't think its an urgent priority. -- Netoholic @
13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                Ok, who says so? Does the body of the article talk
about it? I don't see that. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2020

        Moreover, the opposing view is Wikipedia:The deadline is now.
Misinformation can spread quickly. BeŻet (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2020

            Well, since the questioned parts are tagged with {{cn}} or
{{failed verification}}, the problem of misinformation being spread is
minimized because readers are alerted. Some of those tags are very new
and we need to give time for the problems to be addressed. --
Netoholic @ 13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                The main tag complaining about unsourced information
has been here for nearly a year. The individual inline tags may have
been introduced later, but that doesn't change the fact that this
information has been unsourced for quite some time without anyone
willing to provide the missing citations for the original claims. We
should slowly start removing the content now. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 15
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                    How about improving the content? It could be that
the original citations or link between citation and text has been lost
due to prior mass removals. It could also be that simple searches
could be found to cite content. Now I know you're next reply is going
to say "the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to include disputed
content", but that's a bit narrow thinking. I think if people see a
large number of blanket removals by editors not likewise putting in
effort to improve where possible, that would be seen as
counterproductive. And yes, if inline tags were recently added, then
those should be given enough time to be remedied. The main tag is not
license to remove specific content which was only recently challenged.
-- Netoholic @ 19:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                        It is not other editors' responsibility to try
to locate the source of specific claims. I am in fact trying to
improve the content, but I am not going to spend hours researching and
searching for a source that fits a specific sentence. If a quick
google search doesn't return anything, it's justified to remove the
content instead. Finally, the content wasn't "only recently
challenged": all content on Wikipedia needs citations. When the main
template went up, it was challenging all unsourced content. Feel free
to update the content that is planned to be removed, like you did with
common property (appreciated). BeŻet (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2020

    @BeŻet: You're proving what I said about the undesirable effects
of too-rapid removal of content. It becomes a confusing frenzy of
back-and-forth, not affording people a chance to fix and respond.
Let's chill out a bit and focus on one section at a time - you seem to
have some disagreements over my rewrite of "Common property", so let's
hash that out before moving forward. Why exactly do you think that
section needs attribution, when Holcombe is not putting forward novel
ideas, but rather summarizing the ideas put forward by AnCap writers?
-- Netoholic @ 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        First and foremost, the WP:STYLE of the text is not
encyclopedic: things like "the question then becomes" and "the
solution might be" are not acceptable. Secondly, you are saying
yourself that Holcombe is summarizing ideas put forward by ancaps.
That's why the easiest way to solve this is by attributing this
pondering to anarcho-capitalists. I am not sure why you reverted my
changes that were trying to remedy the situation? Finally, the
"solution" presented is not self-explanatory - it is suggested that
ownership could be transferred into private hands, but there is no
mentioning of what does that achieve. It can be deduced that ancaps
simply think that "private is better", but without attributing these
thoughts to ancaps it comes across as something that should be obvious
to the reader, while it's not. BeŻet (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020

            Holcombe in his paper is doing the work of attributing
lines of thought to specific other writers. We are citing Holcombe as
a summary of AnCap thought on the subject of common property. We don't
need to attribute (to specific writers or to unnamed
"anarchocapitalists") these ideas, only summarize them. If there are
more works on common property & anarcho-capitalism, we can incorporate
them. Direct attribution is only done when a primary source is being
used, but Holcombe is secondary. It sounds like you feel, though, that
Holcombe's work isn't explaining the details you're looking for, and
that's irrelevant. We present the source as it is, not how we want it
to be. I took the content and summarized it for our purposes, but if
you have a better summary of Holcombe's paper, then put it forward. --
Netoholic @ 14:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                So how do you propose we address the WP:STYLE issues
of that fragment? BeŻet (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what happened, I believe always more it should be
rewritten. I do not mean this literally; I mean that we should act
like this is a new article and start from the scratch by searching
what reliable sources, especially academic ones, say. Because even if
we find sources for those uncited claims and other issues, they may be
undue or not really discussed. On the other hand, we may find new
information that is actually due but it is not in the main body. Only
after we have done this, only after we have actually searched on the
topic and sources, making a list and discuss them, can we see whether
the article needs to be totally rewritten, almost or very little, or
whether we just need to add the refs and avoid edit wars. That is why
I still hope Cinadon36 and Czar can help us in doing exactly
this.--Davide King (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ample time has been given for the sourced to be added to
the article, and it is not unreasonable to remove unsourced content.
Reverting such changes back to unsourced versions is not a valid thing
to do. There are no rules regarding how quickly unsourced content can
stay in the article, and such content can be removed at any time.
Unsourced content is often marked and left in the article if there is
a chance that someone will come back and add appropriate references.
But since this hasn't happened for a long time, it seems unlikely now.
I tried to behave fairly and give a final warning on the discussion
page before removing the content (and keep the deletion pace at a
reasonable rate), but having said that, there really isn't any valid
reason to revert removal of unsourced content. As explained in
WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the
editor who adds or restores material" and "Any material lacking a
reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not
be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" - the
rules are pretty clear. BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason to hold off on editing the article. The
points made above re: burden of verifiability and the state of the
article are valid. There are some sections that can be
improved/rewritten and there are others that are based solely on
affiliated sources that need TNT. The points I made last week about
lack of independent, secondary source analysis and over-reliance on
primary sources still stand. As for other/new sources, I need to keep
digging, but I know I at least have some passages from Radicals for
Capitalism I can use. Pretty amazing it's not already in the article,
but also a sign of how much work remains to be done. czar 07:09, 19
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Another argument for paring it down is that it's so leviathan
and messy that I'm sitting here with multiple sources and there's
nowhere to even begin. The article starts with Ethics but ends up
being mainly about Rothbard without explaining why we're hearing so
much from him, but it's really more a tour through a series of primary
sources. It reads like an essay when this overview should be about
what secondary sources summarize about anarcho-capitalist thought. The
long block quotes are jarring/overkill, as are the separate sections
on History/Historical precedents: Again, why are we citing Rothbard's
claims about the historical precedent for his thought? If Rothbard's
self-analysis was vetted, an independent, secondary source would
analyze it without the conflict of interest. There's just a whole lot
to be excised before the real work can even begin. If you'd prefer to
go section by section, we can do that, but realize that a lot of what
is here is unusable. czar 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            One of the major sources of bloat in this article is from
editors adding an WP:UNDUE amount of content related to the historical
anarchist viewpoint on how anarcho-capitalism is "not real anarchy".
This is a fairly minor point of debate overall and comes down to
definition of terms. AnCaps use the strict definition of the term
"anarchy" (ie "no rulers") and believe that only thru coercion can you
stop the free market, anarchists use it to mean "no hierarchy" and
believe that the free market is coercion. This point need not be
covered all over the place as it is currently (the lead, and
Philosophy, "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism", History, and Criticism
sections, etc). The Criticism section should be eliminated per
WP:STRUCTURE. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" is massively
WP:UNDUE as we wouldn't dedicate sections to the views of other -isms
(note that an article on this topic at Anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism was a massive failure). Rothbard's analysis to the
topic is just as valid as Einstein's analysis of General relativity -
there is no conflict of interest as Czar calls it - but of course if
secondary sources quote Rothbard, as they often do, then we should
also. But it need not be a requirement where Rothbard himself is
giving the secondary analysis, like in the "Historical precedents"
section. -- Netoholic @ 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                I don't understand how the discussion of what
anarchists think of anracho-capitalists is undue if anarchocapitalists
literally decided to use "anarcho" as part of their name. I disagree
that ancaps understand anarchism as "no rulers", since they support
wage labour and private property. But I digress; your opinions about
the matter are not important here, because we have to follow what the
sources say, not what you personally believe. The existence of the
Criticism section is completely justified, and such sections are
present all around Wikipedia: Capitalism, Fascism, Socialism,
Anarchism and so on. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is
very due because it discusses why anarcho-capitalism includes
"anarcho" in its name despite being rejected by anarchists, a quite
significant talking point. I think it's farcical to compare Rothbard's
lofty ideas to Eistein's general relativity - we are after all talking
here about Rothbard's ideas, and that's why a secondary source is
useful to talk about them (and that's something that we, nota bene,
also do in the article about general relativity). Also it's worth
noting that general relativity is a scientific theory while
anarcho-capitalism is a political idea: the former attempts to
describe physical reality, while the latter talks about someone's
opinions about how the world should look like. Finally, I am not sure
you understand the need for WP:SECONDARY sources: once again, we are
talking about Rothbard's ideas, opinions and thoughts - that's not
"secondary analysis" as you put it, that's a WP:PRIMARY source. This
is exactly why we don't base biographies on autobiographical texts,
but rather secondary sources that have at least vetted the statements
to some extent. Likewise when we are talking about Rothbard's ideas,
if we only base the text on primary sources, we perform our own
interpretation of what he is saying (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR)- this is why
we need secondary sources that we can refer to, so that such
interpretation can be attributed to someone via citation. BeŻet (talk)
13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                I think a helpful example might be Democratic People's
Republic of Korea - despite its name, we don't go ahead and state that
it's a democratic country, despite it holding elections; we don't
dismiss any discussions about it as a debate over definition of terms.
BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                    I laughed when you said ""I disagree that ancaps
understand anarchism as "no rulers", since they support wage labour
and private property."", but then in the very next sentence said
""your opinions about the matter are not important here, because we
have to follow what the sources say, not what you personally
believe"". Your refusal to accept that many people can correctly use
"anarchy/anarchism" in the simple primary meaning of no rulers/no
government shows that you are unable to hold multiple views and
definitions in your thoughts, revealing your own bias. That bias I
think prevents you from being an objective participant in this
re-write. The rest of your claims related to UNDUE weight of outside
anarchist views is likewise biased in favor for that ideology, not
based on relative weight in sources that discuss anarcho-capitalism,
where its often, at most, a minor aside. -- Netoholic @ 14:05, 20 June
2020 (UTC)[reply]

                        My opinion about anarchism and
anarchocapitalism also doesn't matter when it comes to the content of
the article. I said that, if we consider anarchism to mean "no
rulers", then anarchocapitalism isn't anarchism, because it supports
private property and wage labour (thus, land owners & rulers and the
employer/employee power structure). I said that I don't think
anarchocapitalists use this definition, because afaik they say
anarchism is "lack of coercion", which is what the sources seem to
say. (Also, as a sidenote, the link to the definition you shared also
states "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority",
which again is incompatible with anarchocapitalism because of the
aforementioned reasons) But neither your or my interpretation of
anarchism matters in this case (although I should point out that I
never disagreed with "no rulers", which could be one way of putting
it). I am not sure what you mean by implying that criticism of
anarchocapitalism or denying that anarchocapitalism is anarchism is a
minor aside when we have empirical evidence that's not the case. I
also don't understand what is the general point you are trying to
make. Several editors have pointed out issues with the article, the
main one being lack of sources and/or relying on primary sources too
much, and this is what we are trying to fix. BeŻet (talk) 16:56, 20
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                            You still aren't able empathize with the
differing viewpoint because you are using one rigid definition of
terms, and that taints your view and causing you to state things as
fact using phrases like "incompatible" - it is not incompatible if you
use an alternate definition. AnCaps base the root "anarcho-" on the
meaning of "no rulers" as in "no government" (which is the primary
meaning given in "anarchy/anarchism" dictionary definitions). Again,
it comes to definition of terms and the problem is that anarchists of
your ilk have long forced your "no hierarchy"/"employers are rulers"
meaning as a way to interpret anarcho-capitalism, but that is not a
majority view within the wider breadth of anarcho-capitalist coverage.
In fact, your definition of "anarchy", as resulting in an
"incompatibility" with land ownership and employer/employee
relationships, is basically absent from dictionaries. An explanation
of this difference in term usage between AnCaps and "anarchists" is
certainly worthy of inclusion, but it is WP:UNDUE to soak this article
in the anarchist view as it is now. I've already had to remove as
WP:OR "anarchist" sources used to make those arguments because they
failed to even mention anarcho-capitalism - and there are more to
remove, including these two you recently added that, while briefly
mention anarcho-capitalism, do not clearly support the statement they
precede. This WP:OR use of anarchist sources has been a constant
problem in this article's history. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 21 June 2020

                                I can empathize with the "alternative
viewpoint" that having a boss or "owning" land is "anarchism", but
it's a WP:FRINGE belief. If you're arguing that the discussion about
whether anarchocapitalists are anarchists should be trimmed, editors
can entertain the idea. If you're arguing that we should assume in the
article that anarchocapitalists are anarchists, that's unacceptable.
BeŻet (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                                    What an astoundingly misinformed
invocation of FRINGE. Your entire reply here (especially stamping your
foot down on what is "unacceptable") proves why you are not objective
and flexible enough to work on this article. -- Netoholic @ 11:30, 21
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the major sources of bloat in this article is from editors
adding an WP:UNDUE amount of content related to the historical
anarchist viewpoint on how anarcho-capitalism ...

This is a blip in the article compared to the amount of primary source
material, which I've now twice established as the main issue. I think
the single section in question can be pared down too, but this is a
straw man.

    Rothbard's analysis to the topic is just as valid as Einstein's
analysis of General relativity

Count the number of primary source citations of Einstein in that
article. Compare it with this one. Rothbard should only be cited under
conditions as a source writing about oneself; i.e., such citations
should be kept to a minimum and fill in vital supporting detail. There
is enough coverage of this subject that we should be able to
paraphrase from secondary, independent sources.

I recommend that above participants focus their efforts on
drafting/rewriting rather than debating here, which has only resulted
in stalling the rewrite.

On the subject of rewrite, there are a few sources I've found helpful.
First, there are a number of related encyclopedia articles (search
Google Books), a chapter in Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, a
passage on Rothbard in Radicals for Capitalism, and I've yet to really
comb through Sciabarra's multi-chapter treatment of Rothbard in Total
Freedom, but there is a subsection on ancap starting on page 322. I've
found some other sources, including an interesting French source cited
in Marshall, but not worth mentioning yet. czar 02:36, 21 June 2020

    That there are too many primary source usages does not mean that
the anarchist viewpoint problem can't be discussed also. The article
is currently protected, so all we can do is discuss because we can't
re-write. I think its important also to address the POV bias issues I
think are present in Bezet's work here because I don't think he can
objectively tackle this topic while holding such rigid anarchist
viewpoints as unquestioned fact.
    The only issue with the quotes is whether they are being used in
lieu of summarization, or if they are oft-quoted by others and so are
important for us to also quote. As to Rothbard's analysis - applying
one's views to analyze other subjects (such as the historical
precedents or the flaws in other ideologies) is not ABOUTSELF - it is
in fact the core of what we look for in secondary sources - we want
people to analyze subjects from their perspective. I've got a copy of
Radicals for Capitalism on the way, as I agree it looks to be a good
base source for the article. I also have to raise concern that you are
looking for "passage on Rothbard"/"multi-chapter treatment of
Rothbard" rather than about anarcho-capitalism - the topics are not
one-in-the-same... Rothbard is a major figure, but he is not the whole
of it. Just want to make that point clear. -- Netoholic @ 03:26, 21
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I have repeatedly stated that my beliefs mean nothing here,
and we should go with what the sources say. Anarchists rejecting
anarchocapitalism is a verified fact with multiple sources confirming
it. I'd recommend adressing things I say rather than attacking me.
Czar has raised excellent points and suggested ways to improve the
article, and we should focus the discussion on them. BeŻet (talk)
11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            Quite correct - it is the things you say (seen in sections
just above) which are evidence that you hold a strongly-biased view
and cannot write in a balanced way. -- Netoholic @ 11:30, 21 June 2020

                Since the article is locked until July 2nd, how about
you take a WP:BREAK too cool down and come back when you're ready to
discuss the issues in this article. BeŻet (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2020

BeŻet, Cinadon36, Czar, there was this discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents also involving
Netoholic. Apart from wanting to retrieve this discussion, I think it
is relevant since it caused a protection of this page due to edit
warring which slowed down discussion about improving the article and
stopped edits. Here, Czar added more well-sourced content about
anarchism and anarcho-capitalism which I believe it seems to confirm
BeŻet's point.--Davide King (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It also seems that Netoholic has been tbanned in 2018 while
arguing about ideaological bias on Wikipedia. I think they need to
establish a more careful approach when contributing to Wikipedia,
avoid personal attacks and stick to sources rather than personal
opinions sold as WP:BLUESKY.
    I think Czar's additions are excellent and well sourced, and we
could also use them to improve this article. BeŻet (talk) 11:28, 28
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we fixing this?

It seems to have been a while since this article was first tagged as
in need of improvement, is anyone actively working on it? SwiftestCat
(talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: apologies, I'm new to Wikipedia and thought that the top part of
the page was the newest posts. 2 days ago was the last time the
article's talk page was updated, so it's safe to assume it's being
worked on. Thanks folks. SwiftestCat (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2020

    Currently the page is locked due to an edit-war, but we are
already discussing improvements that could be made to the page. It
will reopen in the next few days. BeŻet (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2020

An example of issues when relying on primary sources

I wanted to show an example of what makes editing this article
difficult, and how reliance on primary sources makes it harder. The
article has the following sentence: " Some libertarians propose a
restitution system of justice in which the right to restitution
created by the violation of the victims' property could be homesteaded
by bounty hunters that would bring criminals to justice, thus creating
the incentive for people to work defending the rights of victims that
otherwise would not be able to pay for the service." - this is
supported by a primary source pointing at an article written by a
Matthew O’Keeffe. Because this comes deep from the mind of an
anarcho-capitalist, this poses several issues:

    It is completely unclear how the "right to restitution is created
by the violation of the victims' property" – perhaps it makes sense to
other anarcho-capitalists, but if a secondary source was used, it
would be more likely that some context would be given. In other words,
because it's based on so many layers of ancap beliefs, it is simply
not clear to someone reading about the ideology for the first time.
(I'll be honest, I've read the article, and it is still unclear to me
what would force the killer of a homeless person to pay money, and
what decides the due amount)
    A phrase like "homestead the right to restitution" is not
self-explanatory - how does one homestead the right to something?
    The sentence itself is an attempt at a summary of what is being
said in the article, and thus is an interpretation of whomever added
that sentence. It would be better to use a secondary source so that
interpretation can be attributed to someone.
    The significance of the opinion and/or the author is unclear.

This problem permeates through the article. Articles on Wikipedia
should be written for everyone, and not just for supporters of the
ideology in question. This is why secondary sources help, because they
often achieve a more neutral approach where certain things are not
taken for granted. BeŻet (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yesim Yilmaz source (Private Regulation)

The Yesim Yilmaz source used in the lead does not make any reference
to anarcho-capitalism whatsoever (or even libertarianism). I propose
it gets removed, and content marked as in need of a source, as it
seems unjustified to use this source for this topic (unless a
secondary source explaining this association is produced). BeŻet
(talk) 18:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tried looking for some sources talking about
anarcho-capitalism and business regulations, but could not find
anything that wasn't a niche blog post. I propose that fragment simply
gets removed until a source is found which can be used to discuss this
topic. BeŻet (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed that fragment as I could not find any valid source
for that information. Please feel free to reintroduce that content
once a valid source is found. BeŻet (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2020

@PrideAndPolitics: I've already raised concerns about the source you
used - it doesn't mention anarchocapitalism, so I'm not sure if it's
adequate. BeŻet (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism again

Knight of BAAWA, you reverted me, claiming "WP:POV. Sentence reads as
if anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. Which they are" which could
be argued to be pushing a POV the other way around. As I noted here, I
was merely making the lead conform to the main body (the lead is
supposed to be a summary of the main body). The main body does not
support your rationale for your second revert ("WP:POV. And we can't
marginalize people. And, since anarchocapitalists are anarchists, we
must use the word "other""). It is not supported by given references.
The relevant section, titled Anarchism and capitalism, also does not
support your view and then it merely quotes Rothbard at large first
claiming that anarcho-captalism is the only true anarchism and then
that they are not anarchist but nonarchist. Furthermore, neither
Anarchism nor History of anarchism, both of which are good articles,
make mention of anarcho-capitalism or other disputed schools like
national-anarchism. Anyway, in my first revert I actually removed the
comma. The phrase "and from anarchists who support personal property
and oppose private ownership of the means of production [...]" is
perfectly fine because it says that anarcho-capitalism is
distinguished from anarchists who oppose the private ownership of the
means of production which is undoubtedly true, so there is no need for
the "other" qualifier which may imply that anarcho-capitalism is
anarchist when there is no consensus that it is as you wrote. Contrary
to your claim, without the comma, it does not imply that it is
distinguished from all anarchists, yet you reverted me again with the
same misleading rationale, so I suggest that you self-revert.--Davide
King (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It does read as if anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. And we
have sources which show they are, in fact, anarchists. As you should
be aware: SOURCES MATTER. Verifiability matters. And the sources
verify that anarchocapitalists are anarchists. So please: abide by the
spirit of Wikipedia. Abide by the sources. Thank you. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        No, without the comma, it does not; and it also goes the other
way around, like anarcho-capitalists are undoubedtly anarchists when
this is not a fact. Merely talking about sources does not mean much;
please show us.

“ 	Some argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist
anarchism,[1][2][3] although this has been contested[4] or
rejected,[5][6][7][8] including an individualist–socialist divide.[4]
Many others deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at
all,[9][10] or that capitalism is compatible with anarchism,[9][11]
seeing it as a form of New Right libertarianism.[9] 	”

    Bottomore, Tom (1991). "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist
Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference. p. 21. ISBN 0-63118082-6.
    Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social
Thought, Anarchism entry, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, p. 13: "Their
successors today, such as Murray Rothbard, having abandoned the labor
theory of value, describe themselves as anarcho-capitalists".
    See the following sources:
        Bullosk, Alan; Trombley, Stephen (ed.) (1999). The Norton
Dictionary of Modern Thought. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 30.
        Barry, Norman (2000). Modern Political Theory. Palgrave, p. 70.
        Adams, Ian (2002). Political Ideology Today. Manchester
University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135.
        Grant, Moyra (2003). Key Ideas in Politics. Nelson Thomas. p.
91. ISBN 0-7487-7096-8.
        Heider, Ulrike (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green. City
Lights. p. 3.
        Avrich, Paul (1996). Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of
Anarchism in America. Abridged paperback edition. p. 282.
        Tormey, Simon (2004). Anti-Capitalism, One World. pp. 118–119.
        Raico, Ralph (2004). Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th
Century. École Polytechnique, Centre de Recherche en Épistémologie
Appliquée, Unité associée au CNRS.
        Busky, Donald (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey.
Praeger/Greenwood. p. 4.
        Heywood, Andrew (2002). Politics: Second Edition. Palgrave. p. 61.
        Offer, John (2000). Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments.
Routledge. p. 243.
    Franks, Benjamin (August 2013). Freeden, Michael; Stears, Marc
(eds.). "Anarchism". The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies.
Oxford University Press: 385–404.
    Rothbard, Murray (1950s). "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?". Lew Retrieved 1 April 2020.
    Wieck, David (1978). "Anarchist Justice". In Chapman, John W.;
Pennock, J. Roland Pennock, eds. Anarchism: Nomos XIX. New York: New
York University Press. pp. 227–228. "Out of the history of anarchist
thought and action Rothbard has pulled forth a single thread, the
thread of individualism, and defines that individualism in a way alien
even to the spirit of a Max Stirner or a Benjamin Tucker, whose
heritage I presume he would claim – to say nothing of how alien is his
way to the spirit of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta,
and the historically anonymous persons who through their thoughts and
action have tried to give anarchism a living meaning. Out of this
thread Rothbard manufactures one more bourgeois ideology." Retrieved 7
April 2020.
    Peacott, Joe (18 April 1985). "Reply to Wendy Mc Elroy". New
Libertarian (14). June 1985. Archived 7 February 2017 at the Wayback
Machine. Retrieved 7 April 2020. "In her article on individualist
anarchism in the October, 1984, New Libertarian, Wendy McElroy
mistakenly claims that modern-day individualist anarchism is identical
with anarchist capitalism. She ignores the fact that there are still
individualist anarchists who reject capitalism as well as communism,
in the tradition of Warren, Spooner, Tucker, and others. [...]
Benjamin Tucker, when he spoke of his ideal "society of contract," was
certainly not speaking of anything remotely resembling contemporary
capitalist society. [...] I do not quarrel with McElroy's definition
of herself as an individualist anarchist. However, I dislike the fact
that she tries to equate the term with anarchist capitalism. This is
simply not true. I am an individualist anarchist and I am opposed to
capitalist economic relations, voluntary or otherwise."
    Baker, J. W. "Native American Anarchism". The Raven. 10 (1):
43‒62. "It is time that anarchists recognise the valuable
contributions of individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of
its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the
capitalist libertarians, whose claims on Tucker and the others can be
made only by ignoring the violent opposition they had to capitalist
exploitation and monopolistic 'free enterprise' supported by the
state." Retrieved 7 April 2020.
    Marshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of
Anarchism. Oakland, California: PM Press. p. 565. ISBN
978-1-60486-064-1.: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the
'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share
a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their
self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of
practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists,
even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called
right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."; Sabatini, Peter
(Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A
Journal of Desire Armed (41). "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard
represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total
elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is
quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the
public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with
each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else
purchasing these services from capitalist venders. [...] [S]o what
remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in
hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of
Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."; Meltzer, Albert (1
January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against. AK Press. p. 50.
ISBN 978-1-873176-57-3. "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism"
dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with
Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."; Goodway, David
(2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool Press. p. 4. ISBN
978-1-84631-025-6.: "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently
employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism',
largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative
connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been
vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of
anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing
laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray
Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words
'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become
necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the
left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."; Newman, Saul (2010).
The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN
978-0-7486-3495-8.: "It is important to distinguish between anarchism
and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by
the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism).
There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like
Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard
who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all
transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist
perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist)
and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of
economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies,
oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in
a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no
truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it
neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in
practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The
individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow
economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which,
as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".
    See the following sources:
        K, David (2005). What is Anarchism?. Bastard Press.
        Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the Impossible. Chapther 38.
London: Fontana Press. ISBN 0-00-686245-4.
        MacSaorsa, Iain (2009). Is 'Anarcho' Capitalism Against the
State?. Spunk Press.
        Wells, Sam (January 1979). Anarcho-Capitalism is Not
Anarchism, and Political Competition is Not Economic Competition.
Frontlines 1.
    See the following sources:
        Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn
Rand. Chapter "Government". Dutton Adult.
        Doyle, Kevin (2002). Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate
Utopias. New York: Lexington Books. pp. 447–448.
        Sheehan, Seán M. (2003). Anarchism Reaktion Books. p. 17.
        Kelsen, Hans (1988). The Communist Theory of Law. Wm. S. Hein
Publishing. p. 110.
        Tellegen, Egbert; Wolsink, Maarten (1998). Society and Its
Environment: an introduction. Routledge. p. 64.
        Jones, James (2004). The Merry Month of May. Akashic Books. pp. 37–38.
        Sparks, Chris. Isaacs, Stuart (2004). Political Theorists in
Context. Routledge. p. 238.
        Bookchin, Murray (2004). Post-Scarcity Anarchism. AK Press. p. 37.
        Berkman, Alexander (2005). Life of an Anarchist. Seven Stories
Press. p. 268.

        Anarcho-capitalists as part of anarchism seems to be the
minority and remains a controversial and contested view, so "we cannot
objectively call them that given the contentious nature of them using
that label" as argued by BeŻet.--Davide King (talk) 08:51, 11 June
2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Cinadon36: @Czar: I ping you again because I believe this article
really needs improvement and rewrite; and I believe that, since you
worked at Anarchism and other anarchist-related articles which became
Good articles, you can probably do a good job, maybe not to make it a
Good article at once but at least to better explain what
anarcho-capitalism is because I do not think is clear. Is it simply
anarchism and free markets? Or is it radical neoliberalism? Because
there may well be individuals, who use or have used the
anarcho-capitalist label, who may well be closer to mutualism or to
anarchism without adjectives or pan-anarchism and thus may well be
anarchists and anarcho-capitalism in this sense would be part of
anarchism, but in my understanding that is not what the
anarcho-capitalist movement is about. Some anarcho-capitalist may see
it simply as voluntarism and accepting all other anarchist schools,
but anarchism is not voluntarism; it is about free association which
is different from voluntarism (see Voluntary slavery). In other words,
the anarcho-capitalist movement seems to want to abolish the welfare
state, any regulation and privatise everything, i.e. radical

Furthermore, there are clear issues or differences on economics and
property between anarcho-capitalism and the wider anarchist movement
which makes communists and individualists closer to each other than
anarcho-capitalists are to the individualists (admittedly, the
individualists are often conflated, in my opinion wrongly, with the
anarcho-capitalists). Anarchists oppose capitalism, including
interest, profit, rent, usury and wage slavery (which is different
from some form of wage labour that anarchists may support; those who
do, they support the worker receiving the full value of their labour
which again is different from profit), anarcho-capitalism does not
seem to have issue with at least one of that. In other words,
anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to capitalist and landowners as long
as property was justly acquired which puts it at odd with the wider
anarchist movement.

One thing to consider is that anarcho-capitalism seems to be mainly
and largely an American phenomenon and that it did not developed or
came out from the anarchist movement but rather from the Old Right and
19th-century liberal tradition. Whatever influence anarchists such as
Tucker or Spooner may have had on anarcho-capitalism and people like
Rothbard, their normative claims and related socialist doctrines were
rejected. Like national-anarchism is considered to be a far-right
trojan horse, anarcho-capitalism seems to be more related to
neoliberalism than anarchism, with its emphasis on privatisation,
hence radical neoliberalism that wants to privatise everything,
including the state. While it may not be as easy to discount as with
national-anarchism, I do not believe it is just as easy to take it at
face value that anarcho-capitalism is part of anarchism. Unlike both
anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism, anarcho-primitivism,
another controversial anarchist school, did developed and came out of
the anarchist movement, even as an anarchist critique of anarchism, as
part of the post-left anarchy development, hence why I would consider
it part of anarchism and the wider anarchist movement.

The fact that anarcho-capitalists seem to use capitalism for free
markets, which is at odds with the wider anarchist movement usage
which is that of the actually existing class system, seems to further
confirm that anarcho-capitalism may have some general overlaps with
anarchism but that it did not developed out of the movement or came
out from it. Several conservatives may also label themselves
anarchists based on their opposition to the state, but they still
support unnatural, man-made or otherwise coercive hierarchies, hence
why they may be called akratists rather than anarchists and the same
may apply to anarcho-capitalists. I hope Cinadon36 and Czar can share
their thoughts, feel free to correct me and hopefully do an analysis
of sources to improve the article and better explain what
anarcho-capitalism is.--Davide King (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2020

    I think where you are getting tripped up is in the idea that you
are interpreting this topic in relation to the "wider anarchist
movement" (you use that phrase a lot) and want to define it using a
word salad of other -isms, which themselves can have muddy
definitions. Treat the topic as a thing unto itself. This article does
not need a radical rewrite. It does not need more commentary about
what it isn't. -- Netoholic @ 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Those templates, which I have not put and go back to July
2019, respectful disagree.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2020

            I've removed the templates from your post as those are for
articles and don't need to be literally seen here. BeŻet added those,
but has since done some editing, so we'll have to ask him whether he
thinks some/all of those issues have since been addressed. --
Netoholic @ 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                Netoholic, sorry about that and thanks for removing
that, I should have shown a diff. which is what I did now. Anyway,
Czar pretty much wrote below what is wrong with the article and why
the templates are still valid.--Davide King (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2020

Anarcho-capitalists are not objectively anarchists. They might
consider themselves anarchists, but we cannot objectively call them
that given the contentious nature of them using that label. We already
have whole paragraphs about how anarchists don't consider
anarchocapitalists to be part of their movement, and we list many of
the reasons why. Therefore, if we want to adhere to WP:NPOV, we
shouldn't call them anarchists outright, but explain why
anarchocapitalists think they are anarchists, and why others disagree.
I haven't reviewed the article in a while, so would have to do that
first, but from what I remember this was already clearly outlined in
the text. In terms of saying "other anarchists", since
anarchocapitalists are not clearly defined as part of anarchism, and
anarchism has quite clearly defined boundaries, saying "other
anarchists" is wrong in this context, and I have reverted it. BeŻet
(talk) 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They are objectively anarchists. And sources confirm it. This is
Wikipedia; that's how things work. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:09, 11
June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            I'd like to understand what you mean by "sources confirm
it". Do some right libertarian and anarchocapitalist writers refer to
them as anarchists? Without a doubt. Does the vast majority of
anarchists (if not all of them) disagree with labelling this political
movement as such? Also, no doubt about it. Like I said, we should be
writing that anarchocapitalists see themselves as anarchists, and
provide their justifications, however we cannot objectively state that
they are, because it's a fringe view held predominantly by
anarchocapitalists themselves, and therefore requires attribution.
BeŻet (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        Merely writing this does not mean much without actually
providing some sources in support of this view.--Davide King (talk)
08:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At first blush, the sourcing is severely lacking throughout the
entire article. Many primary sources, not enough independent (read:
non-Mises) secondary source commentary about anarcho-capitalism (and
not specifically Rothbard). As a tertiary source, WP cares about what
secondary source analysis has been done on the subject, not what
anarcho-capitalists write about themselves, and to focus
disproportionately on the latter creates undue weight. Davide, I
suggest discussing specific passages/claims that need better sourcing
and/or posing specific questions for focused discussion. Many
paragraphs certainly need to be rewritten and some sections might be
better off revised from scratch if better sources are available. (not
watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        @Czar: I think BeŻet can probably tell you better about such
specific sections and passages since BeŻet added those templates, but
I believe your comments are spot on. My issue was with "and from
anarchists" ---> "and from other anarchists" in the lead.--Davide King
(talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I took upon myself to try and improve the article some time
ago, as there were a lot of issues present. Since I've added the
templates, a lot of content has been rewritten and/or removed, however
I still believe a lot of the issues remain. The main issue is, a lot
of fragments in the article were written from the point of view of an
anarcho-capitalist, and thus with their understanding of terms and
interpretation of facts. There is a reason why we have a glossary that
someone helpfully added to aid in understanding of what
anarchocapitalists are talking about. Because of this issue, we had a
huge case of WP:OR and portraying opinions as facts. An example of
this issue was present in the Historical precedents section, which
listed examples of anarchic societies that were not described as
"anarchocapitalist" anywhere in the sources (inclusion of which only
makes sense if you assume that any example of anarchism is an example
of anarchocapitalism). There are also a few non sequitur statements
that seem to only make sense to anarchocapitalists (and with their
understanding of the world), and a lot of opinions presented as facts
without attribution (I've fixed most of those now). For certain
statements to make sense, you need to understand the
"anarchocapitalist context", that is, all of the assumptions and
beliefs held by ancaps. For example, anarchocapitalists don't see wage
labour as hierarchical, a view not shared with probably every other
political philosophy. Finally, there are a lot of unsourced statements
that need citations. BeŻet (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            BeŻet, thanks for your comment. I think this is a fair
analysis. Another issue is that it took for granted that it was
anarchist, for example referring to anarchists as left-wing anarchists
(a page which was actually deleted and turned into a redirect to
discuss the issue) and which I changed to those anarchists or simply
anarchists. This was also reflected in the use of terms such as
traditional anarchists which are not really used by scholars (they use
classical anarchism and they use it to refer to a specific period, not
to social anarchism as anarcho-capitalists seem to imply) and is
really only used by anarcho-capitalists in another way to imply that
they are anarchists, just not traditional anarchists or whatever that
means. Apart from left-wing people like Bookchin, it is also mainly
anarcho-capitalists that draw a sharp difference between communists
and individualists or make it such bigger issue of the debates and
issues between the two schools than they really were.
            I believe even Rothbard wrote that the economics of
19th-century individualist anarchists were still "socialist doctrines"
and thus "nonsense", so I dispute how much influence Tucker and
Spooner really had on Rothbard and anarcho-capitalists, for example
noting that "the individualist anarchists laid great stress on their
nonsensical banking theories, their political order that they
advocated would have led to economic results directly contrary to what
they believed"; i.e. the individualist anarchists believed that their
free-market theories would lead to equality of condition, equality of
access to the means of production and equal opportunity which would
counteract any potential tyranny in a market society, so they did not
advocated market means for market means' shake as anarcho-capitalists
may do because the latter do not seem to care about its results
whereas the individualists did care and that is why the communists and
individualists were closer than it is assumed and many communists were
individualists and vice versa; they wanted very similar ends, they
simply had different means to achieve that. I believe this is
something that makes anarcho-capitalism diverge from anarchism and
that is why it may be seen more as radical neoliberalism than
anarchism.--Davide King (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            BeŻet, you are also right about wage labour. Several
liberals also viewed wage labour as wage slavery.--Davide King (talk)
11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                I also agree that "radical neoliberalism" is a lot
more apt descriptor than "anarchism"; however I won't be pushing for
including this term, unless a significant portion of sources talk
about this. What is important here however is distinguishing sources
that come from within the political "movement", and those from outside
of it. Anarchocapitalists are free to identify as whatever they want,
but in an encyclopedia we need to follow the general scholarly
consensus on the matter, and thus not unconditionally include them in
the anarchist movement. It seems clear to my that a WP:NPOV approach
is to say that, while anarchocapitalists consider themselves to be
anarchists, this opinion is not mutual, and the justification for both
stances should be included. I guess this is a long-winded way of
saying: yes, I share your concern regarding the phrase "other
anarchists". BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                    BeŻet, I agree with your comments. The point is
that even anarcho-capitalists have recognised this. Rothbard wrote
that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. Of course, Rothbard meant
that anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchism, but since
anarchism refers to those left-wing anarchists, anarcho-capitalism is
not anarchist. I do not think this has changed; as shown by our
Anarchism and History of anarchism, anarchism is still those so-called
left-wing anarchists and anarcho-capitalism is not really discussed.
Some searches to start may be "anarcho-capitalism "neoliberalism"" on
Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR; "anarcho-capitalism "radical
neoliberalism"" on Google (we may also get different results if we
change ""neoliberalism"" to ""neo-liberalism"" since some works may
prefer the latter usage); and "anarcho-capitalism" on Google Scholar
and JSTOR.--Davide King (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Davide King for pinging me and I am really flattered by your
nice words. Unfortunately, I can not contribute significantly in this
interesting article. Real life is consuming more and more of my free
time and I have already undertaken another wp article (not related to
anarchism). I 've had a look at this specific article and I agree with
the template that there are multiple issues that need to be addressed.
Most pressing problem in my opinion is the weak verification of the
text. Sources are not the best available, most of them are not
third-party or even secondary. Cinadon36 07:08, 11 June 2020

    Cinadon36, thanks to you for your response. That is really
unfortunate (and I hope everything is fine) because I truly believe
you could greately improve this article. I agree about those issues
that need to be addressed. Anyway, I also pinged you and Czar because
the issue on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist or part of the
anarchist movement came out again and I thought you two could probably
do a better job on searching sources, what they say and what is the
consensus on the issue. One thing I forgot to add in my post above is
that anarcho-capitalists seem to be more like that Herbert Spencer's
associate (I do not remember the name) who claimed to be anarchist and
anarchists lambasted him, including the individualist Tucker, who
pointed out how they defended capital and land's owners and I believe
also criticising Spencer for emphasizing welfare for poor and
working-class people but not for the rich and monopolists of capital
and land. I wish I could remember this British self-professed
anarchist, it was literally written and sourced on his Wikipedia page,
I hope you can help me find it. Just to show this was nothing
new.--Davide King (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        I agree that the quality of a lot of the sources leave a lot
to be desired. A lot of them are blog posts or references to primary
material - what we need is good quality secondary sources. BeŻet
(talk) 17:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

            Yes, I think that is obvious by now. Did you find anything
interesting in the Google Scholar and JSTOR links I wrote
here?--Davide King (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

                Those search links would likely result in
WP:CHERRYPICKING, since you have a foregone conclusion as to the
relationship between the terms and that search will only deliver items
which would confirm it. -- Netoholic @ 13:45, 13 June 2020

                    Sorry, but this makes no sense because the links
were about ""anarcho-capitalism"" and I merely added those about
anarcho-capitalism and neoliberalism (I may add those about
anarcho-capitalism and anarchism or libertarianism too) because BeŻet
wrote "however I won't be pushing for including this term, unless a
significant portion of sources talk about this" and I thought those
links could be useful in verifying how many sources talk about that,
if it is significant, due, etc. I even asked if BeŻet found anything
interesting in the links specifically because I wanted to avoid
bias.--Davide King (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Anarcho-capitalism doesn't seem like an end goal, Either you
establish working functions through federation and syndicalism, or
through corporatism, Anarcho-Corporatism makes more sense because the
Corporation owns Sovereignty and not a 'public' state. Stateless Free
Market Capitalism still technically has a hierarchy does it not? No
matter what this Sovereignty will exert the same role as a state. But
what is sure is that Anarchy and Anarcho-capitalism are not the same
thing Anarcho-capitalism is Neoliberalism, without cherry picking it's
not different then Neo-Feudalism. When the "Ruling" Class is fighting
amongst itself in a dystopian wasteland it will offer it's mean of
production for the production of violence to protect itself. The Means
are still coercive but doublespeak implies that it isn't. This would
result in militia societies with sovereignty who's interest is to
protect the ruling class (also with separate sovereignty.) for
survival because the ruling class owns all the means of production.
Technically speaking the Non-aggression Principle in this society
would only apply to their ruling Bourgeois class. Renkei (talk) 14:39,
19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's quite right. Several sources have highlighted the
ideological inconsistencies of anarchocapitalism, and how following
these ideas you can have neither an anarchist nor a capitalist
society. "Neo-feudalism" or "corpo-fascism" seem like more adequate
terms. Nevertheless, those are just our opinions; however (as I said
before) there are more than enough sources questioning the "anarcho"
part of the name for us to not be able to unequivically describe
ancaps as anarchists. BeŻet (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        BeŻet, Renkei, if academic or other reliable sources use the
terms corpo-fascism, neo-feudalism and similar to criticise
anarcho-capitalism as "private statism" or "neoliberalism", a sentence
may be added about under "Criticism", but we need to find those
reliable sources and weight them to see if they are notable. Davide
King (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classical liberalism

Do we have any sources associating classical liberalism with
anarcho-capitalism? This whole section could be removed because it
seems to be completely WP:SYNTH. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2020

    BeŻet, I agree. Here and here were some recent comments that
raised similar issues. This link between anarcho-capitalism and
classical liberalism seems to be an American libertarian invention to
conflate classical liberalism with their ideals or with a liberalism
that is more right-wing than it actually was (that is conservative
liberalism, not classical liberalism). As far as I know and as we
write there, "classical liberalism has often been applied in
retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social
liberalism", which is exactly what I knew about it, i.e. it is used to
discuss 19th century liberalism in relation to 20th century
liberalism. For example, there were classical liberals who were very
left-wing, anti-capitalists and/or opposed wage labour (e.g.
Jefferson, Paine, Gesell, etc.) but classical liberalism seems to be
conflated with Hayek, Mises and the Austrian School, or at least to
their own interpretation of classical liberalism. No mention on how it
influenced the left with anarchism, communism and socialism, despite
their criticism. Davide King (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Right

BeŻet, I see you removed this text: "In the early 20th century, the
mantle of anti-state liberalism was taken by the Old Right. These were
minarchists, anti-war, anti-imperialists and (later) anti-New Dealers.
Some of the most notable members of the Old Right were Albert Jay
Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett
and H. L. Mencken. In the 1950s, the new "fusion conservatism", also
called "Cold War conservatism", took hold of the right-wing in the
United States, stressing anti-communism. This induced the libertarian
Old Right to split off from the right and seek alliances with the (now
left-wing) antiwar movement, and to start specifically libertarian
organizations such as the Libertarian Party." While unsourced, it does
not seem to be ouright false, but it does need to be verified with
sources; are there really no sources that say or mention this, maybe
about Rothbard? Because that is the movement where anarcho-capitalism
came from, merely with some wording and pivotal leftist terminology
and symbolism from anarchism; and is one reason why it is not
considered part of the anarchist movement (it did not came out from
it, but from the liberal right-wing).--Davide King (talk) 16:18, 9
July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm all for keeping that paragraph if we can find a source talking
about it - I did a quick search but couldn't find it, perhaps someone
else will have better luck? BeŻet (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020

        BeŻet, I hope someone can find reliable sources for that. It
can provide more context to the origin of anarcho-capitalism and
further confirms that it came out from that tradition rather than
anarchism, or that it was much more influenced by them than anarchism,
merely taking the philosophical anarchist position regarding the
state. Davide King (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Should we toss the needs more citations hat up there?

I feel like, given the conclusions some members have made, we might
want to stick that, or a weak citation hat if that's a thing, on the
page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkynetPR (talk • contribs)
14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing problems

I've removed some recent additions here because they're poorly
sourced. The offered "M, Elijah, Individualist Manifesto" reference
anchor is not previously defined, and generates an error message
rather than a viable reference. The referenced "manifesto" is, as far
as I can tell, as self-published book and not a viable reference. If
this material can be substantiated by third party independent
references, then it has a place here ... but until then, it should be
excluded. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Political quadrant" image

@Flixq: I have removed the image you inserted into the article. This
was your first and only edit on Wikipedia, so I'm not even sure if
you're planning to continue working here, but in case you need a
justification for the removal: everything about the image was
questionable, and either shows a complete lack of understanding of
many fundamentals, or some extremely fringe interpretations/beliefs.
This violates WP:OR. BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, acting like you own the article now? Ignoring your
off-putting, unwelcoming remark towards a new Wikipedian, polcomp
counts as a secondary source, all he needs to do is link it and it's
totally useable. The least you could've told him instead of accusing
him of breaking a rule. pest (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2020

        I disagree on several counts:

            The Political Compass (which I assume you refer to as
polcomp) uses the X axis to define economical differences (Left-Right,
so roughly Collectivist-Individualist), while the Y axis to define
social differences (Authoritarian-Libertarian). Flixq's image wrongly
labels the axis as Authoritarian-Liberal and Socialist-Private
Property (?????).
            The image places Nazism in the top left quadrant, quite an
extraordinary thing to do and possibly a result of the teenage
argument that Nazis are called "National Socialists", therefore they
belong on the left. The Political Compass clearly places Hitler in the
top right quadrant, because, quite obviously, fascism and Nazism are
right-wing ideologies. Since Hitler privatized state industries,
following the diagram's own logic Nazism should be placed on the far
            The "explainer" on the left implies some incredibly odd
things. For instance, it implies that abolishing private property
means that "the government owns everything". It also uses some
strange, arbitrary definitions of what each "value" represents (e.g.
"make people moral", "make you wear a helmet"). Additionally, it seems
to imply that anarchists want the government to control everything,
quite an extraordinary claim.

        To sum up, the image does not represent anything that a
secondary source says, but instead is an original image representing
someone's fringe, controversial opinions, which can be easily
debunked. It therefore constitutes original research and improper
synthesis, and cannot be used as it breaks the rules. What I would
suggest is having a blank political compass and just showing where
anarcho-capitalism would be placed, because this way you won't imply
other things. If you want the diagram to show other ideologies as a
reference point, make sure you place them in uncontroversial areas,
and use the proper, established labelling for the axis. Using the
image I linked above as a reference point could work, as it shows
where The Political Compass places certain people representing
different ideologies. However, an additional source would be needed to
then place anarchocapitalism in the correct area. BeŻet (talk) 12:19,
20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

            There are many different versions of the Nolan Chart.
There is always an economic axis and a civil liberties axis. The
actual labelling is not set in stone and the left-right axis is
nowadays rejected as it was precisely to fight against the left-right
spectrum simplification that Nolan invented the chart. Also I'm sure
you are aware of the different uses of "Liberal" and "Libertarian"
outside a US-centric perspective. You need only go to the Nolan Chart
wiki page to see a version with "Personal Freedom" and "Economic
Freedom" axis.

            The scoring given for the chart is admittedly somewhat
colloquial but there's nothing out of the ordinary in it. Certainly
not in the scoring of the economic freedom axis which is just a
percentage of State control of the economy, that is absolutely
standard for measuring economic freedom. As for the civil liberties
axis the ordering might vary but freedom of speech, protection of
property, the non-aggression principle, drugs, having control of your
own body... those are always part of the debate and very appropiate in
this wiki page on anarcho-capitalism.

            As for the "how much economic control the nazis had"
debate... I've seen very heated arguments between historians, but it
is definitely not a fringe view to argue that they subordinated
private property to state control and strategic central planning even
before 1939. You could argue they are a 2 or a 4 in the economic
freedom axis, but it would be completely non factual to score them
anywhere above a 5. They definitely centrally controlled police,
pensions, education, all heavy industry, transportation, most of
agriculture had quotas and prices imposed, they had rationing and
price controls... So no, it might be debatable but calling it "fringe"
is an indication of bias on your part. Flixq (talk) 13:05, 25 November
2020 (UTC)[reply]

                The Nolan chart is not any more useful than one with a
"good" and "bad" axis in any of its forms, as it is always going to be
using arbitrary definitions of concepts like "personal freedom" and
"economic freedom" which do not mean the same thing for everyone and
therefore including it, along with an equally arbitrary placement of
ideologies and people, is not WP:NPOV. The reason Nolan invented the
chart is to paint his ideology in the best possible light by giving
the impression that it is the "most free" and any of such attempts at
making a political compass don't belong outside internet forum
roleplay circles and propaganda outlets. Oqwert (talk) 02:49, 26
November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Several issues here:

        The Political Compass and the Nolan Chart are two different
things. If you are somehow combining them, you are performing original
research. If you want to use the Nolan Chart, just use it then without
any of the additional controversial flull.
        "Percentage of State control of the economy" isn't a "standard
for measuring economic freedom" – I have no idea who told you this.
Clearly the Index of Economic Freedom places Singapore at the top,
even though it has a larger public sector than Venezuela, United
States, United Kingdom etc.. Denmark scores highly in the economic
freedom charts despite having a large public sector, universal
healthcare and free education.
        The Nazis didn't have direct state control over industries.
They privatised most of them and gave them fantastic deals as to
encourage them to support the war effort, while suppressing the labour
and union movements for them. They glorified private property. That's
a very right-wing government. Placing them on the right side of the
Political Compass is completely standard, as I indicted in the source
above. Placing them on the left hand side is a fringe opinion.
Regardless, this is not the topic of this article, and it's pointless
to discuss it here. Consult literature on this topic if you have any
        Things like protection of property and the non-aggression
principle are right-libertarian talking points, and do not fall within
the Y axis but the X axis.

    To sump up, feel free to use a Nolan Chart and place
Anarchocapitalism there (without including any of your controversial
opinions), but clearly label it as a Nolan Chart, because it isn't a
frequently used chart and it's only popular amongst
right-libertarians. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

even from an ancap perspective, that image should as well be removed,
since we do not believe that it is possible to control society without
controlling the economy, so the blue quadrant would be contradictory.
we also believe that it is not possible to control the economy without
controlling society, so the green quadrant would also be impossible,
turning the political compass into a line that ranges from pure
liberty to complete state control.

So while yes, nazis are “conveniently” placed next to communists,
other property aggressor ideologies that are away from it in the blue
and green quadrants, making it inaccurate. Iron Capitalist (talk)
15:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Edward Konkin III

Currently, the article identifies Samuel Edward Konkin III as an
anarchocapitalist, while as far as I know he was the creator of
agorism, which is considered by Konkin himself a part of left-wing
market anarchism (agorists see capitalism as an exploitative system
based on privilege backed by the State, and Konkin himself wanted a
world without wage labour and boss-worker relationships). Does any
source state that he was indeed an anarchocapitalist? BeŻet (talk)
17:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've now removed him from the article. BeŻet (talk) 10:24, 11
November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agorism is a branch of ancap, the only difference is that they differ
on the means they use to get rid of the state

while ancaps do support a political action to prevent the state from
doing more damage to themselves, like making a political party,
agorists says that you should try to “live without the state” and
boycott anyone that associate with it in the process

for example, if you buy food but food is taxed, then grow your own
food tax-free food in your backyard

so yes, konkin can be included in the article without any ideological
conflicts Iron Capitalist (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The O'Keeffe quote

Is someone able to clarify what does the O'Keeffe quote mean: "the
right to restitution created by the violation of the victims' property
could be homesteaded by bounty hunters". How does one homestead a
right to restitution? Where does this right originate from in a
contract-only world? Since only a primary source is used, is there a
secondary source that explains this? If not, we should probably remove
this as it's quite unclear. BeŻet (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2020

I don’t know if “homesteaded” is the proper word, since “homesteading”
refers to resources that has no owner

but the logic is correct, someone that is harmed can sell their right
to reparation to a bounty hunter if the victim doesn’t have the means
to go after the criminal themselves Iron Capitalist (talk) 17:47, 13
May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phylosophy is confusing

I believe would be better to clarify the phylosophy section if the
phylosophy is explained before presenting who was the creator of the
phylosophy, it is stated twice along the article that rothbard based
ancap on the natural law Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2021

thinking better about it, maybe having a section where the phylosophy
is presented and then a historical section attributing the ideas to
the authors would better organize it Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:51, 1
June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeZet shouldn't work on this article. Reading their comments, its
clear they have no real understanding of AnCap
Why socialism “is when government”

I have read both of the resons of why you removed the section and none
of those is really a good reason to remove the section, hoppe is a
reliable source of the ideological body of ancaps and it is not really
possible to say that including his work would be a form of “promotion”

if that’s the case, then rothbard’s work should also be removed from
the entirety of the wiki page Iron Capitalist (talk) 18:56, 1 June
2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iron Capitalist: I'm sorry but your change had to be reverted,
because it basically constituted an essay piece expressing your
opinion, and it was essentially original research - you have
referenced a primary source, but provided your own interpretation of
it. What we need is good quality secondary sources, so that the
interpretation can be attributed. You have also made a lot of
statements that are questionable opinions but were presented as facts.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Moreover, the change does not follow the
manual of style, as, like I said before, is essay-like. Finally, a
sudden introduction of a section called "Why socialism “is when
government”" is non sequitur - it could be a good title for an op-ed,
but doesn't logically follow anything in the article itself, nor is of
encyclopedic style. If you want to present Hoppe's ideas, you have to
present them as such: e.g. "Hoppe's interpretation of socialism states
that..." or "Hoppe believes that seizing the means of production means
non-producers taking from producers" (side note: even though it's
literally the exact opposite!) or "Hoppe believes that taxation is a
form of control of someone else’s property without any prior contract"
etc. and bear in mind that he expresses fringe opinions, which may not
be WP:DUE. BeŻet (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

don’t be sorry, that’s okay, that’s part of the game, anyone can edit
the wiki page

“you provided your own interpretation of it”

I did not provided my own interpretation of it, it is literally what
is argued in his book

“questionable opinions as facts”

like what? it is not my opinion, it is what is argued in the source

“it’s essay-like”

fine I can take that critic because I am new to wikipedia editing, let
me know what can be changed

“doesn’t logically follow anything in the article”

the article itself needs serious revision, that section is meant to
present ancap’s views and arguments

“if you want to present hope, you need to state “hope’s interpretation
of socialism” (side note: it’s the exact opposite)”

have in mind that we are talking about the ancap wiki page, not any
socialism page, and like you told me, a statement, right or wrong,
needs to be sourced to be in an article

what is being sourced is what ancaps, including hoppe, one of the main
heads on it, advocate for and believe, you should not include your
personal views into this if you believe socialism means the opposite
of what is argued for, you would be making it a soapbox Iron
Capitalist (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is what's argued in the book, you have to attribute all
statements to Hoppe; but then we need to establish whether his opinion
should be included in the article, as it's an opinion about his
understanding of socialism, and not about anarcho-capitalism. In other
words, we are presenting the viewpoint of one anarchocapitalist about
a specific topic that is a different ideology, but it's unknown
whether this opinion is shared by others, or even significant. To help
establish this, we need to use secondary sources. We also need to
write the article from a neutral point of view, not from an
anarchocapitalist point of view, hence my suggestions regarding the
sentences, for instance instead of writing "This means that “workers
taking over means of production” implies that any non-producer taking
over production from producers would fit the very definition of
socialism" we should write "Hoppe argues that any non-producer taking
over production from producers would fit the definition of socialism",
or instead of "(...) it has become private property and therefore it
must be seized by others that did not produced it/did not owned it
prior to production" we should use something like "(...) Hoppe
believes that in socialism that property would have to be seized by
others who did not produce it or own it prior to its creation". Also,
please bear in mind that phrases like "many people often criticize",
"indeed it’s not obvious why" or "one might argue" are so-called
weasel phrases and should be avoided. BeŻet (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2021

thanks for the recomendations, I’ll see what I can do

side note:(yes, the page is about ancap, but ends up being about
ancaps as well in my understanding, so even though that section would
talk about socialism, it’s point would not be to talk about socialism,
but to present the ancaps’ view-point of the subject socialism

also yes I understand your point that “do not include what one, and
only one, person believes in the article”, I took the liberty to
include the section from my own experience of seeing people arguing
about this over and over in multiple discussion circles over the
years) Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that we can't write things simply "out of our own
experience", we always need sources for everything, otherwise we do
original research. Even if a scientific expect logged in to Wikipedia,
they couldn't add any scientific facts without providing adequate
sources, because anyone can claim to be an experienced person, but we
always need a way to validate information. BeŻet (talk) 11:25, 3 June
2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism sidebar

I know an-coms are very protective of their property, the word
"Anarchism", they 'own' the word, but the Anarchism sidebar does
mention Anarcho-capitalism so does merit inclusion here. Jason
Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you say "it doesn't mention it under schools", go read
the talk page for the sidebar where they argue that because
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't include the sidebar it shouldn't be listed
under schools. It's a circular argument - it can't be here because
it's not there, and it can't be there because it's not here. Jason
Harvestdancer | Talk to me 23:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Being mentioned in the sidebar doesn't automatically merit
inclusion. Things like cooperative, gift economy, anti-war movement,
counter-economics, spontaneous order, Independent Media Center,
freeganism etc. are all mentioned in the sidebar, yet they don't
include the sidebar itself. As discussed several times now,
anarcho-capitalism has a lot more to do with Capitalism and Liberalism
than with Anarchism, hence why those sidebars are preferred. BeŻet
(talk) 08:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        It has to do with Capitalism AND Anarchism, thus the name. But
if you prefer the circular argument, go for it. It doesn't belong here
because it isn't there, it doesn't belong there because it isn't here.
Anarcho-communists, who don't believe in property, are very protective
of their ownership of the word "Anarchism". Jason Harvestdancer | Talk
to me 13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

            I'm not making the circular argument you refer to, nor am
I an anarcho-communist, I'm just saying that the anarcho-capitalist
ideology has hardly anything to do with anarchism apart from its name,
and it's more of a radical chic than anything (buffalo wings are not
made from buffalo). Moreover, anarcho-communists (and all other
anarchists for that matter) reject private property, not every form of
property, so they don't reject things like personal property or
collective property. BeŻet (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                So is the word Anarchy private property, personal
property, or collective property? I like how you said
"anarcho-communists(and all other anarchists for that matter)" because
it assumes the conclusion.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:44, 13
April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                    Words are not property. The correct usage of a
word is determined by both historical and contemporary factors having
to do with descriptive usage facts and logical coherence. I’m not
entirely sure what clever argument you think you’re making here, but
the implied “Anarchists say our historically recent semantic
revisionism is a serious confusion, therefore, they’re not actually
leftists, since they believe in private property” is disruptive and
foolish. Please stop. Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2021

                It is an undisputed fact that certain
anarcho-capitalists describe themselves as "anarchists" - nobody can
stop them from doing so; they can call themselves whatever they like.
But in an encyclopedia, where we are talking about the wider history
of Anarchism, Anarchism as an ideology and schools of anarchist
thought, we are talking about a specific meaning of the word and not
just about people who label themselves as such. North Korea calls
itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but we won't go and
categorize the country as a democratic state. Likewise,
anarcho-capitalists who have barely any overlap with Anarchist
ideology (even their anti-statism differs from that of anarchists,
because anarchists reject the state while anarcho-capitalists want to
privatise the state) don't get automatically bundled up with
anarchists simply because they call themselves that. Talking about
ownership of words here makes no sense. BeŻet (talk) 11:40, 14 April
2021 (UTC)[reply]

                    It is also an undisputed fact that since
Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists, therefore "all other anarchists"
do not reject private property and some accept it.Jason Harvestdancer
| Talk to me 17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                        No, it is a highly disputed fact with hundreds
of sources questioning capitalism's compatibility with Anarchism. All
forms of anarchism, including individualist anarchism, reject the
system of private property. Even Rothbard himself said
anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of individualist anarchism, and
admitted later on that anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism and
should be called "nonarchism" instead. BeŻet (talk) 18:25, 14 April
2021 (UTC)[reply]

                            BeŻet is entirely correct. There are very
few scholars in history, philosophy, or political science (to name
just a few relevant fields) who describe anarcho-capitalism as an
actual form of what has, since William Godwin, been described as
anarchism, and from a quick look at anarchism-related articles
published in the relevant fields’ top peer-reviewed journals, the view
that anarcho-capitalism is an actual type of anarchism is, at best,
treated as WP:FRINGE and is, at worst, treated as sophomoric
foolishness. I know that a few Americans coming along fairly recently
and intentionally muddying the semantic waters by saying “Let’s use
this word in a completely new way that is directly at odds with the
way it’s been used for 200 years, not because we have an argument for
redefinition, but just because we like the word” is confusing to many
Americans who aren’t familiar with the vast scholarship on anarchism,
but stomping one’s feet and complaining that it’s just not fair that
right-wingers can’t make up their own meanings for important words
isn’t how actual academic scholarship works, especially not when
capitalism requires class hierarchy and anarchism denies the
legitimacy of any such hierarchy. WP:COMPETENCE, not merely complaints
borne of a refusal to read the actual scholarship in WP:RS is required
here.Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

                                One thing to highlight here is the
"US-centricism" of anarcho-capitalism - right-libertarianism and
anarcho-capitalism are things that mostly exist in the US. A lot of
people outside the US still view libertarianism as a synonym of
anarchism, and anarchism as something that is predominantly
anti-capitalist. Libertarianism had nothing to do with economical
liberalism and capitalism until the term had been co-opted by American
laissez-faire capitalists around 50 years ago. However, the view that
anarchism is compatible with capitalism in any way is already a fringe
view in the USA, let alone outside that country where hardly anybody
thinks that. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with the socialists in this one, despite the “anarcho”
in our name, it’s just by accident that we ended up in anarchism.

A “consented government”, where people consent to all the rules and
consent to pay all fees, is a legitimate institution under ancap,
while other forms of anarchism would reject it entirely.

The main core of “ancap” is consent, from consent you arrive in
capitalism (do not confuse with corporativism) and from capitalism you
conclude that the best way to operate a society is if we allow
capitalism to operate in all it’s sectors, this means that capitalism
would be providing schools, roads, healthcare, security, and
jurisdiction services.

Because of this “let capitalism take care of everything” the state
becomes inexistent, but not by principle, but by accident, it’s simply
a conclusion, not a principle.

So while yes, that’s a form of anarchism, no, ancaps are not
anarchists, we are capitalists. Iron Capitalist (talk) 16:21, 13 May
2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, I believe a section making that distinction
should be included, I can write something and update there Iron
Capitalist (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There already are two sections showing the distinction between
anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, unless you're talking about a
different distinction? Could you explain? Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:26,
1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, the word is the PROPERTY of the ancoms and ancaps aren't
PERMITTED to use it. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:00, 3 June
2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ancaps can call themselves anarchists if they want, but they are
distinct from what anarchism is generally understood to be - and this
is what we write in the article, that they label themselves as
anarchists but do not fulfil the generally accepted definition of
anarchism. Nobody's preventing them from describing themselves as
whatever they want. BeŻet (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @BeŻet: well, I probably didn’t fully read the wiki when I wrote
that, so forget what I said about adding a distinction section Iron
Capitalist (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jason Harvestdancer: what Bezet said, we are technically
anarchists but not because we think any form of giving and receiving
orders is bad, or because we think that private property is bad, we
want all interactions to be consented, including interactions with the
gov, that causes us to be radical capitalists if you want to put that
way, we are first capitalists, remember that Iron Capitalist (talk)
01:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list