Jump to content

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Contemporary Political Ideologies

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

If we're only going to take sources on that basis, this will be like looking through geography textbooks for explicit denials that the world is flat.
At the moment we have many sources (mostly economists rather than political activists) which take at face value the a-c's self-designation as anarchist without giving the matter any consideration; in the converse situation, anarchists who don't think a-c are anarchist either ignore them, very few bother to state that they aren't anarchist because it's the implicit position, as with geographers who don't believe the earth is flat. This leads to unbalancing of sources and a misrepresentative article. Chaikney (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can find many published reliable sources saying that Earth is flat, and only few saying that it's not, then that we would have to represent the round earth view as the fringe view on Wikipedia. The reason we don't, is because there are an extreme shortage of such sources for the flat earth view. It's the same for anarcho-capitalism or any other subject. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The only mention of anarcho-capitalism is see on page 136, where it says, "Even such American anarchists as Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) and Lysander Spooner (1808-87), the forebears of modern 'anarcho-capitalism', agreed with the proposition that..." Richard Blatant (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The other source I removed, which was Peter Marshall, the closest thing he says to anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism is "Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." He says the "might" best be "called" something else, but doesn't say that they're not anarchists. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a polite way of saying "the bulk of their thought and practice is counter to anarchism, all they have in common is rejection of the state", i.e. "these people are not anarchists" to me. Will restore. 86.16.109.28 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (this was me Chaikney (talk))
"Might" is the keyword. Don't read whatever you want to read into a writer's words. Take them at face value. Removing. Richard Blatant (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Marshall is a historian, not an activist. His purpose in the book is a history of anarchism. He barely considers the anarcho-capitalists (spending more time on Taoism, if I remember right) because they have so little in common with anarchist theory and practice. At face value, he says the only connection to anarchism these people have is the name (which they gave themselves) and anti-statism, which they also share with right-libertarians. Ergo, ancap != anarchism. Focussing on "might" taken out of context is misleading. Chaikney (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and Chaikney (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Might best be called.." is a statement what what they "might" best be "called." It's not a definitive statement, and it's not a statement that they're not anarchists. One can be a right-libertarian and an anarchist at the same time, just as one can be a left libertarian and an anarchist at the same time. Richard Blatant (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Chaz Bufe source

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

A third one I removed is the one about Cuban Anarchism, the introduction to the book. It doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. It says: "In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" and religious anarchism are possible. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such shining examples of anarcho-capitalists." Richard Blatant (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of Bufe; he is an anarchist, and by referring to anarcho-capitalism as an absurdity in this sense clearly implies he does not consider it a form of anarchism. Skomorokh 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No, because he said anarcho-capitalism is absurd, yet "possible." He says anarchism is simply rejection of the state. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I've read the entire section now and see that Bufe considers anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism "under [the] extremely narrow definition" of rejection of the state. So, should we add this source to the "Sources which consider anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism" section? Skomorokh 20:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the fuller context: "American "anarchist" journal recently published a book by a fellow egotist consisting largely of ad hominem attacks on actual anarchists"”knowing full well that the "anarchist" author of the book was a notorious police narcotics informant. Such individuals may (mis)use the label, but they're anarchists only in the sense that the now-defunct German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was democratic and a republic. This is what anarchism isn't. This is what it is: In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism"nd religious anarchism are possible. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no such shining examples of anarcho-capitalists. But most anarchists use the term "anarchism" in a much broader sense, defining it as the rejection of coercion and domination in all forms. So, most anarchists reject not only coercive government, but also religion and capitalism, which they see as other forms of the twin evils, domination and coercion." He explicitly says that that's what "anarchism is." Then he goes on to say something about "most anarchists," but I don't see him saying that he's part of "most anarchists." Maybe it should be included in the sources which consider it a form of anarchism. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any way (on this side of the rabbit-hole) that these statements:
  • anarcho-capitalism is an absurdity
  • they are anarchist only in the sense that GDR was democratic (i.e. they have the name but they are not that thing)
  • most anarchists define it as rejection of all domination
...can be made to add up to "Chaz Bufe thinks a-c is anarchism". If he disagreed with "most anarchists", he'd say so. If you disagree with a majority view that you state in an article, then you say so in that article, or (not wanting to propagate the idea) you wouldn't have mentioned it. Restoring. 86.16.109.28 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (this was me - Chaikney (talk))
Anarcho-capitalists are also opposed to domination and coercion, so it fits the definition anyway. Yes, he says anarcho-capitalism is an absurdity but he also says it is possible. He says he is not aware of any anarcho-capitalists. Removing. Richard Blatant (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Except that anarcho-capitalists are the only ones who don't see capitalism as being reliant on or synonymous with domination & coercion.
  • he has never seen an a-c
  • it is an absurdity
  • only possible with an "extremely narrow" definition of what anarchism is
  • this extremely narrow definition is not the one that anarchists use
  • their practice is no more in accordance with anarchism than the GDR was with democracy
"It's possible that the laws of gravity don't work on the surface of AntiGravMoon. Such a thing is an absurdity, against all known about gravity on other planets, and I've never seen it." This is equivalent to "AntiGravMoon does not have anti-gravity, despite what the Moonies might say". Unless you take the phrase "it is possible" out of context.
Back to the subject in hand, our context is that Bufe states "capitalism [is] the mechanism that denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority". Chaikney (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) and 09:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at the sentence again: "This is what anarchism isn't. This is what it is: In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism"nd religious anarchism are possible." He's explicity saying anarcho-capitalism is "possible." And he's also saying that "this is what [anarchism] is: In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government." If that's what "[anarchism] is," then that's what it is. Then he goes one to say most anarchists oppose capitalism. Ok, fine. Anarcho-capitalists therefore are anarchists that are not part of "most anarchists." If the claim that anarcho-capitalist were not a form of anarchism were any more than a fringe view among the sources out there, then there should be no problem finding a plethora of sources saying explicitly that it is not a form of anarchism, like there are saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism explicitly. Richard Blatant (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

then

"the term "libertarian" in its original sense: as a synonym for "anarchist." Indeed, it was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1970s when, in the United States, it was appropriated by the grossly misnamed Libertarian Party. This party has almost nothing to do with anarchist concepts of liberty, especially the concepts of equal freedom and positive freedom"”the access to resources necessary to the freedom to act. Instead, this "Libertarian" party concerns itself exclusively with the negative freedoms, pretending that liberty exists only in the negative sense, while it simultaneously revels in the denial of equal positive freedom to the vast majority of the world's people. These "Libertarians" not only glorify capitalism, the mechanism that denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority, but they also wish to retain the coercive apparatus of the state while eliminating its social welfare functions"”hence widening the rift between rich and poor, and increasing the freedom of the rich by diminishing that of the poor (while keeping the boot of the state on their necks). Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word. Fortunately, in the rest of the world, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries, "libertarian" ("libertario") remains a synonym for "anarchist." It is used in that sense in this book."

And on the point about scarity of sources. Anarcho-capitalists have an interest in being seen as anarchist while most anarchists reject this without giving the matter much thought. So a-c have to make a great effort to try and position their movement, giving us a large number of sources that make that argument. On the other hand, why would social anarchists take time to dismiss a US-based fringe form of anarchism. It gets ignored or cursorily dismissed as irrelevant. If you're going to issue a pamphlet do you deal with capitalism, or those people on the internet who call themselves anarcho-capitalists?
A more appropriate standard to apply to these sources would be to include those anarchist authors who regard capitalism and anarchism as antithetical. That's the elephant in the room here. Chaikney (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're going use authors who regard capitalism and anarchism as antithetical, then you have to make sure that they're referring to "capitalism" the same way anarcho-capitalists are referring to it. If you can do that, great. I think probably the reason that a large number of sources in this artcicle for anarcho-capitalism being anarchism, is because in the past some were trying to represent it as not. So sources had to be brought forth showing that the the claim that it is not a form of anarchism is the actual fringe view among sources. By the way it may be true that most anarchists think anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism but that's not the issue. The issue is whether most reliable published sources consider it a form of anarchism. Wikipedia is not about what unpublished sources consider. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
About your quotes on Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about reliable published sources here, unless you want to define "reliable" as "conforming to anarcho-capitalist notions of correctness". A-c's version of capitalism seems to comprise "Not being exploitative" despite sharing the same features (wage labour, competitive social relations, private ownership of the means of production, enclosure of the commons etc) as what anarchists talk about when they mean capitalism.
If we are to only accept sources that define capitalism as anarcho-capitalists define it, then we have no sources other than anarcho-capitalist sources. Which will tell us about what a-c say but will remove all context regarding its status in the anarchist movement and make for an unbalancwed article. Chaikney (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
How about we just put a disclaimer on the top of the article: "WARNING: Most anarchists, excluding anarcho-capitalists, oppose free-market laissez-faire capitalism and think anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism." Richard Blatant (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The above sentence would be a violation of WP:OR, unless there is some anarchist census of which I am unaware. Any empirical claim in the encyclopedic voice about this would be unverifiable. "Anarchy" means "absence of government," both according to Merriam-Webster and its etymology: ἀν- (an-), “not”, + ἀρχός (archos), “ruler, authority”. Allowing one faction of anarchists to own the term, which has been in common usage for a pretty long time, would be a violation of WP:NPOV. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
And that common usage has been that of anti-authority, i.e. against hierarchy, rather than the narrow not-government definition. This is why most of the writing is now around issues of how those struggles against forms of domination relate to each other. So we have anarcha-feminism prioritising gender oppression alongside struggles in the economic domain which have historically been the focus of the anarchist movement.
Of course the other issue about the suggested disclaimer wording is that "most anarchists excluding anarcho capitalists" is a statement that "wikipedia classes this group as anarchist" Chaikney (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's just that most anarchists are communists, supposedly. That's why they see anarchism as being a situation where everyone is on the same level with equal wealth and stature. That leaves out the whole school of individualist anarchists. That's why people like the anarcho-communist Meltzer source has problems with every individualist from Max Stirner to Benjamin Tucker to Murray Rothbard being considered an anarchist. Most anarchists cannot define anarchism. The definition and what anarchism is and what falls under it has to come from the majority view of published sources, with fringe definitions being treated as such and indicated by the lack of sources. If anarcho-communists who have their own anarcho-communistic definition of anarchism don't have proportionate representation in academia, that's not our problem. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a very top-down approach to defining anarchism. If anarchists aren't allowed to say what anarchism is, how on earth would academics know what it is?! Luckily we can see what anarchism has been in practice, a movement from below.
It's not an "anarcho-communistic definition" to say that the majority of anarchist activity has been inextricably linked with anti-capitalist working class struggles against domination in the economic domain. The syndicalists, the communists, the mutualists and the 19th century individualists all identified as part of working class struggle against capitalism. This is historical fact that the anarcho-capitalists find themselves in opposition to. If the wikipedia article doesn't reflect this fact because of lawyering over each word in each source then it is sacrificing accuracy for the letter of the rules. Chaikney (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production and market without government regulation. The 19th century individualist anarchists did not oppose capitalism, as I've just defined it. Maybe you're defining it some other way. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Their describing themselves as "socialist" shows exactly where they would define their position vis a vis capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
From the Benjamin Tucker ariticle (and sourced): "According to historian of American individualist anarchism, Frank Brooks, it is easy to misunderstand Tucker's claim of "socialism." Before "socialism" was monopolized by Marxists, "the term socialism was a broad concept." Tucker (as well as most of the writers and readers in Liberty) understood "socialism" to refer to any of various theories and demands aimed to solve "the labor problem" through radical changes in the capitalist economy." That would make anarcho-capitalists socialists too. Anyway, what does it matter? There is no rule that says all anarchists have to agree with other to be anarchists. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
So socialism isn't just Marxism, yep. Hence the Marx-Bakunin split in the First International Workingmen's Association. It also includes the forms of anarchism current at that time and lifestylist experiments like the New Lanark guy's. What was their attitude on rent and wage labour, didn't Rothbard reject it as too socialist? Can talk economic theory but it doesn't mean that you can say the individualist anarchists would be anarcho-capitalists today and it doesn't make socialism=capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Benjamin Tucker didn't oppose wage labor. Individualist anarchists ARE anarcho-capitalists today. That's what the sources say. For example Kevin Carson, "most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics." Richard Blatant (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
not the 19th century individualists, they are dead. Historically, anarchists have been anti-capitalist and part of the workers' movement. This applies also to the individualist anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists claim a lineage, fine. But there's no historical continuity, their ideology is a such a massive break from anarchist writing and practice that most sources dealing with anarchism don't consider them significant enough to mention. Yet you're demanding that this insignificance be used as evidence for their being part of anarchism because nobody bothers to prove the negative? (And if they do, then they are disallowed because they must be using the wrong definition of capitalism, be unreliable because they are anti-capitalist, or not an economics professor.) I'm no expert on wikitheology but this seems to me like using the letter of the law to push a point of view. Chaikney (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I wasn't claiming a lineage. Even if there is zero lineage, most individualist anarchists today are anarcho-capitalists. In response to your other point, I can turn around and say you're assuming that because a source does not mention anarcho-capitalism that they don't think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchistm. You can't make that assumption. There are lots of forms of anarchism, and not all sources have the space or interest in talking about all of them, or think that all of them are important enough to mention. Richard Blatant (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't referring to you but to the article. Rothbard claims the lineage by claiming to synthesise austrian economics with individualist anarchism.
  • There was no a-c before Rothbard ergo a-c claims lineage from individualist anarchism.
  • The specific source under discussion is clear that capitalism is antithetical to anarchism. Even if a-c redefine capitalism, that's not Bufe's view of capitalism but someone elses. A-c might think the criticism is unfair because their capitalism is nicer, but that doesn't change Bufe's view.Chaikney (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
He says "most anarchists reject not only coercive government, but also religion and capitalism..." That complement of that is that some anarchists accept religion and capitalism. Richard Blatant (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That's referring to self-defined anarchists. No-one would write "everyone who says they are an anarchist thinks this". No-one's disputing that folk self-define as anarcho-capitalist, folk can self-define as anarcho-fascist or anarcho-nationalist; the question is does Bufe support this as a form of anarchism. On the evidence of the article he does not, calling it absurd, only possible with a narrow definition of anarchism that is not the one that he uses, and labelling capitalism as antithetical to freedom.
Now you can choose to quibble that he's using the "wrong" definition of capitalism, or that a particular sentence has a loophole because he uses "most" instead of "all" but it doesn't make the intention unclear to anyone who isn't determined to find reasons to reject its inclusion. The source does not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist. Why such obfuscation and blocking over such a minor issue? Chaikney (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a minor issue. The encyclopedia has to be honest. Aparently, it's not a minor issue to you either for some reason or you would have dropped it. He points out his definition of anarchism: "...This is what anarchism isn't. This is what it is: In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism"nd religious anarchism are possible." He says that that's what anarchism is in it's narrowest sense. He accepts that definition. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
One source is a minor issue, repeated bulk deletion of sources that you disagree with, that is not. I tried to help improve an overlong, unbalanced and poorly written article. I tried to maintain a belief in good faith on your part, I failed on both counts. Chaikney (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that's interesting, because I think you have good faith. We just disagree on what the source says. I could be mistaken, as could you. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

References

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

Skomorokh 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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

  • "lr40" :
    • Long, Roderick T. "Rothbard's "Left and Right": Forty Years Later". Retrieved 2008-07-07.
    • Ibid.
  • "fpc" :
  • "maass" :
  • "cvttm" :

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As a label

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

Refimprove?

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

27 meters of bovine waste!

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

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

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

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

Only very small countries like Singapore plan to back their national money with 100% gold, it is not suitable for large nations. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Devolution of anarcho-capitalism into statism

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

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

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

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

Copyrights

Rothbard was no fan of copyrights in general (for example state guaranteed copyrights). He meant contract based copyrights. And he only described situations in which a copyright note was on a found object. He never stated that copyright is somehow inherent in books or other cultural works. Therefore it is not true to present him as a supporter of copyrights in general. 88.117.79.145 (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup-restructure

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

Reason why entire talk: page should be deleted

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." when it is clearly being used as one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.130.2 (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

first paragraph

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

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

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

Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism

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

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

Are you aware of any sources that says it's not an individualist form of anarchism? If not, there is no sense in this. There are tremendous amount that say it is. Jadabocho (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Please check the two I have included above. Sunray (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see Long saying that at all. The other source is not even a reliable source according Wikipedia policy. Jadabocho (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Long says:

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

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

I wasn't suggesting that we use the geocities reference as a source. However, the writer does provide citations and it is a good overview. Sunray (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Note that he says "the 19th-century individualist anarchists." Why do you think he prefix it with "19th-century"? It's to show that when he uses the term "individualist anarchists" without the prefix in the rest of the article that he's referring to those in the 19th century. That's not him saying that anarcho-capitalists are not 20th century individualist anarchists. And in your second quote, he says "most of THOSE individualist anarchists." He's just saying the19th century individualist anarchists are different in ways from anarcho-capitalists. That's not saying that anarcho-capitalists are not also individualist anarchists. Jadabocho (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection to referring to 19th century individualist anarchists. The central tenets of individualist anarchism were, after all, articulated by Benjamin Tucker in the 19th century. Sunray (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's more (from the geocities paper:

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

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

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

I could go on, but think it should be clear by now that there are some problems with conflating individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Sunray (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You still don't get it. People use "individualist anarchist" to refer to those in the 19th century because there is no other words for them. Anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists too but they have a special name to distinguish them from other kinds of individualist anarchism. If you refer to the individualist anarchists in the 19th century as individualist anarchists and individualist anarchists in the 20th century as anarcho-capitalists, this is not saying that anarcho-capitalists are not also individualists anarchists. And yes they have some different beliefs, but that doesn't make them both not individualist anarchists because what defines an anarchist as an individualist anarchists is simply that they're individualists. Jadabocho (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You are right. I don't get it. How have anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists resolved differences regarding the land question? There are also fundamental differences in the way that anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists view labor. How have these been differences been resolved? Sunray (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, your question assumes that all individualists anarchists of the 19th century agreed with the "occupancy and use" standard. Lysander Spooner didn't, for example. The "occupancy and use" thing IS an individualist anarchist idea, but it's one of many individualist anarchist ideas including ideas that disagree with that (both in the 19th century and today). Ninteeth century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker even changed his ideas on land to the idea that if something is stolen it becomes the thieves property as long as he can hold on to it. Individualist anarchists do not all agree with each other. It's not a specific philosophy. It's just a broad category of anarchism. It means nothing more than an anarchist that is not a collectivist - that he's an individualist. That allows for a diversity of ideas and disagreements among individualists. Jadabocho (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with what you have said. Individuals have divergent views and individualist anarchists hold a range of views. However, when we write about a school of thought, or a political philosophy, we have to find the common tenets in order to have a coherent article. Individualist anarchism is certainly the broader term (and I think the article on that subject reflects the range of views). However, the fact remains that there have been questions raised about whether anarcho-capitalists are truly individualist anarchists. Most say they are. Some say they are not. Does not the current wording in the lead do that justice? If not, how should we revise it? Sunray (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok but I think the number of those who say they aren't is so miniscule relative to the sources that say they are, that you're giving these extreme minority of sources undue weight when you changes the sentence to state to say "frequently" rather than just asserting it. So far the only source I've seen that actually tries to make such a point is that FAQ you've been quoting. I think it may be the only source out there that explicitly makes the claim that they're not individualist anarchists, or maybe one of just a couple. I think it's like changing "the Earth is spheroid" to "it's frequently considered to be spheroid" because of a couple flat Earth theorists. Jadabocho (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have time to do a library search right now and the above to sources are the best I could find that are freely available on the internet. However, there has been previous discussion of the subject on this page. My sense is that while many individualist anarchists accept anarcho-capitalism as related, others in the anarchist community do not. I doubt that this can be dismissed as merely a fringe point of view, but have no more time to devote to the matter. Sunray (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Well yes there are many in the "anarchist community" that do not believe anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all. I understand that. But their opinions is notw what matters in regard to writing a Wikipedia article. We go by the opinions of those whose work has actually been published, as in scholars, not by anarchists who are simply chattering on the internet. 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not talking about people "chattering on the internet." Everything in those links I've given is sourced. Sunray (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The Long source is not saying that anarcho-capitalism is not an individualist form of anarchism. The only source you have is that FAQ. I don't think there are any more besides that except perhaps one or two. On the other hand, there are lots of sources for anarcho-capitalism being individualist anarchism. Jadabocho (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The Long source is saying that there are differences between 19th century individualist anarchism and 20th century anarcho-capitalism. The differences have not simply vanished. I think it would be best to discuss this in the article or put a note on the statement in the lead. Sunray (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
OF COURSE there are differences between 19th century individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's not in the slightest dispute! But having differences from 19th CENTURY individualist anarchists does not make you not an individualist anarchist. You don't have to be like the 19th century individualist anarchist to be an individualist anarchist, and Long is not arguing that anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists ARE individualist anarchists. They're just not 19th century individualist anarchists. They're 20th century individualists anarchists and have some different viewpoints from 19th century individualist anarchists. Do you have any real sources claiming that they're not individualist anarchists? Jadabocho (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Have you not been reading my replies? I replied to this earlier. He talking about "THOSE individualist anarchists." That's not saying that anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. It's just saying anarcho-capitalism is just not THAT genre of individualist anarchism. When I discuss anarcho-capitalism, I refer to it as "anarcho-capitalism" too, rather than simply "individualist anarchism" because the latter term is too broad. That doesn't mean I think anarcho-capitalists are not individualist anarchists. Of course they are. We refer to the 19th century individualist anarchists as simply "individualist anarchists" because there is no specialized name to distinguish them from other individualist anarchists. Long makes it clear when he's using the term that he's referring to the 19th century individualist anarchists. To your second question, that's not relevant to whether or not they're individualist anarchists. If you want to know that information you can read this article. 17:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Simply put, interpreting Long's words to mean that A/C is strictly separate from I/A is WP:OR. I agree with the rest of the commenters that Long was simply differentiating for the sake of being unambiguous, not because he wants to assert that the two are unrelated. —Memotype::T 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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

I don't think they're not synonymous terms. The article points out a source for Tucker being a free market anarchist, but I haven't seen any sources call him an anarcho-capitalist. Jadabocho (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't think they are or you don't think they're not? A previous version of the free-market anarchism article at market anarchism focused on all market-friendly anarchist schools of thought, but it was superseded by the anarcho-capitalism-lite version. Skomorokh 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they're always synonyms. I mean sometimes free market anarchism is used as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism and sometimes it's not. It's like the Anarchism article where "libertarianism" is sometimes a synonym for anarchism and sometimes not. Just now searching on Google, I found another source, Kevin Carson, referring to Benjamin Tucker as a free market anarchist: "It was for this reason that the free market anarchist Benjamin Tucker--from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow--regarded himself as a libertarian socialist." http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html Jadabocho (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is an indication of the ambiguity of the whole situation. The question is whether it's possible to have a separate, unambiguous, and accurate article on "free-market anarchism" that does not overlap significantly with this one. I doubt whether it is. Skomorokh
Well it would have to overlap with this one, because market anarchism is most associated with Rothbard and Friedman. Tucker is a somewhat obscure figure as far as scholarship is concerned. Not a lot of people are aware of market anarchists existing prior to Rothbard. Free market anarchism was a very obscure forgotten philosophy until Rothbard revived it. So it's USUALLY equated with Rothbard's philosophy, but not always. Jadabocho (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that you wouldn't learn much from reading that article after having read this one, individualist anarchism and anarchism in the United States. I think the anarchist schools of thought article (and its all-too-infrequently-updated-summary in Anarchism) does a good job of outlining the link between 19th century market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Skomorokh 04:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


  • I disagree. Market anarchism is the genre, and anarcho-capitalism is a specie (other species from same genre could be mutualism, agorism, anothers individualist anarchism like voluntaryism, etc.) --Nihilo 01 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but the market anarchism article which described those different "species" was moved to free-market anarchism and stripped of the majority of its non-anarcho-capitalist content a long time ago. Skomorokh 22:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Free market anarchism and market anarchism are the same thing. Looking at that article, there is not much anarcho-capitalist content in it. Rothbard and Friedman are only briefly mentioned. Jadabocho (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is a shame, but it seems like the appropriate way to deal with that is by editing free-market anarchism to make it more inclusive, not by smashing it together with a separate article about a different topic. Radgeek (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I assume that by "this article" you are referring to free-market anarchism' not anarchocapitalism? Are are you referring to a merged article? Using the term anarchocapitalism for a merged article certainly invites trouble and violates NPOV by privileging anarchocapitalism over anticapitalist market anarchisms. 71.191.213.197 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal withdrawn

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive_19&oldid=1047742354"