Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

There is no such thing as an "ansoc" that is a word made up by caps to describe anarchists. All of the original anarchists considered themselves socialist to one degree or another, and even those today who distinguish anti-capitalism from socialism are still themselves anti-capitalist.

Further, today it is a small number of people who call themselves anarchists that support legal systems. Even amongst that minority, none of them support prisons, none of them support police, and all of them advocate that this "legal" system be entered into equally by all participants, not some joke of a justice system which automatically legitmates the position of private property claimants while over-ruling any dissent against it.


Examples of straw-men engaged in this article:

"But individualist anarchists don't care for authorities who decide who has the right to declare oneself an anarchist."

The implication here is that anarchists are relying on some authority figure or institution to claim that capitalism is incompatible with anarchism. But I have never seen any anarchist, prominent or not, make any such claim. The arguments I have seen are all based on the etymology of the word, the historical origin, the historical precedence, the coherence of the philosophy, and the occasional populist fallacy.

"For instance, left-anarchists consider all property as institutionalized enforced privilege"

A number of individualists consider themselves to be on the left, and some of those individualists advocate a form of possession that is akin to or by some standards identical to a particular narrow kind of property. Thus it is fallacious to claim that left-anarchists in general consider all property to be institutionalized enforced priviledge, even if most believe as much.


"More generally, when talking about governments, justice systems, etc., left-anarchists often think in collectivist terms, and may not understand the stance of anarcho-capitalists, who consider any kind of collectivist decision as oppression of the political minority by the political majority."

The implication here being that anarchists (what are misleadingly refered to as left-anarchists) all support some kind of democratic enforcement. However, the vast majority of anarchists reject legitimate enforced group decisions, relying instead on consensus, arbitration, disassociation, direct action, and dead-lock. Thus the claim that "any" collective decision is the oppression of the political minority is ridiculous, when such "decisions," if there are any, are not necessarily even enforced.

"Anarcho-capitalist criticism of other views:

anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism"

This article is one gigantic straw-man, it shouldn't even be linked to in its current state.

And then there are the representations of "anarcho-capitalism" that are questionable in themselves:

"that considers all forms of express government unnecessary and harmful, including (or especially) in matters of justice and protection. "

Yet capitalists often do support governance institutions such as courts, police, and prisons, even while claiming to be against government. There should be an explaination about why one of these governing bodies is considered to be government while the other is not.

"They reject any kind of government control, taxation or regulation."

Which is entirely misleading, since they endorse the exact same control mechanisms in the hands of businesses, including border enforcement, rent, and policy enforcement. This is identical to government, the fact that you call it a "business" doesn't change the qualitative aspects of the institution itself. A society made up of a series of mini-states, some of them fascist )private business), some of them partially democratic or oligarchic (corporate business) would be qualitatively identical to the "anarcho-capitalist" vision, yet few would claim such states to be anarchist.

"Due to the rejection of any explicit state institutions, Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism,"

Rather, anarcho-capitalism is claimed to be a form of anarchism.

"anarcho-capitalism is based on the notions of individual liberty (including private property)"

This assumes that private property is compatible with individual liberty. Many would claim that the opposite is true.

"Anti-statism is an essential part of the classical liberal tradition"

Not all classical liberals are against the state, even if they are weary of it, so anti-statism can hardly be an essential part of the theory.

"Anarcho-capitalists consider themselves as part of the individualist anarchist tradition."

It must be noted here that a large number of individualists reject this claim. This without mentioning the fact that all the original individualist anarchists themselves explicitly rejected capitalism.

" and defends "negative rights" (such as the "right not to be attacked by anyone else", the "right to not have one's food stolen by anyone else", and the "right not to have any part of one's salary confiscated by anyone")."

These "rights" are only defended insofar as they are in perfect agreement with capitalist values. If an individual freely rejects property relations, and in their free movement through a particular geography they are forcefully restricted, no capitalist is going to "defend their right not to be attacked by anyone else" if the person(s) doing the restricting are themselves so-called legitimate property owners. So it should be made clear that capitalists only support negative rights insofar as the actors are themselves capitalists or hold values identical to capitalists.


"Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think that violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and property."

"defense" of property is only self-defense according to a propertarian ethic. To non-propertarians "defense" of property is often actually aggression.

"They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal" way to promote or impose their views"

Yet capitalists freely engage in violent enforcement to impose their economic views on dissenters whenever that dissent clashes with their property claims. Given that, the above statement is meaningless.

"However, even though they might approve of violence as necessary in certain cases; even though they may concede that governments, having monopolized the means of violence,"

This is also misleading. Within a capitalist system property owners are given legitimate recourse to enforce whatever policy they dictate within the sphere of their property. This is identical to having a monopoly on violence in that sphere of control, thus identical to a state.

"There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others."

Shooting a non-propertarian "trespasser" is a form of violence used to impose ones economic system upon others. Another meaningless claim.


Finally, I have no idea how the NPOV voting works, I have just seen it done on other NPOV pages. Since you declared that you would simply remove the dissenting notice full stop, I suggested a vote instead.

Recent dispute

First of all, I want to note that attacks on anarcho-capitalism belong in the criticisms/arguments sections, not in the definition or introduction, which should describe the beliefs of anarcho-capitalists, regardless of whether you consider such views incoherent or wrong. Besides this point, here are a few other responses:

  • See Landauer quote here for precedent on anarcho-capitalism as anarchism.
  • I suspect most left-anarchists also favor violence in defense of property. An outsider starts destroying the (collectively owned) factory, what then? The notion of self-defense means different things in different systems (e.g., in English common law one cannot use deadly force to avert a minor beating, while some might think this is "self-defense"). I think "self-defense of person and property" is a fair description of ancap beliefs.
  • "History of violence" refers not to the system itself but to the behavior of its ideological adherents; your statement confuses these.
  • Re: objection that a powerful business is like a government. Yes, this is a valid objection to ancap, and similar objections can be made to ansoc (a convenient abbreviation). But others have replies to this objection. Your edits assume that you've won this argument.

I'm removing your inlined comments. Perhaps you could contribute to the criticisms. -- VV 02:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I'm not "attacking" anarcho-capitalism, I am asserting that the descriptions of it should be honest, and that this page should not be used as a covert attempt to attack anarchism itself under the guise of a non-existent "branch" of anarchism.

The Landauer quote is irrelevant. Not only because Landauer is no authority who decides for everyone else what anarchism is an is not, but more importantly because all he was doing was distinguishing between communist anarchism and individualist anarchism. But individualist and communist anarchists have always done this. It is Caplan that imports the assumption that this must be a distinction between socialist and individualist anarchism, and it is Caplan and you who mistake individualist anarchism for the misnomer that is anarcho-capitalism. The individualists are not capitalists, they said so themselves dozens of times, and a lot of modern day individualists who have studied history will tell you this themselves. Don't believe me? Ask Wendy McElroy.

The discussion of supposed violence in defense of property is also irrelevant. First, because almost all anarchists oppose property, but more importantly because this would at best be a criticism of attempts at anarchism, not a reason to consider capitalists to be anarchists. The most such a criticism could point out, assuming it was valid (a big assumption imho), would be that many of those socialists who consider themselves anarchists actually are not anarchists according to their own assertions.

As to the history of violence, are you telling me that no one who has considered themselves an anarcho-capitalist has ever used violence to uphold their property claims?

My edits did not assume that I have "won" anything. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm trying to clarify the issue and let capitalism be portrayed honestly. To remove the points that I bring up about the similarity between states and capitalist business is to simply pretend that no such similitarity exists, or that it is irrelevant.

Oh well, it is clear that an honest portrayal of anarcho-capitalism is not what you want. I will edit the page whenever I feel the urge, but so long as the NPOV dispute warning remains it is not a priority for me. I'm happy so long as visitors understand that the description here does not stand undisputed in terms of its neutrality. - Kevin 11/12/03

I already responded to most of these points. Anarchism means no state. Self-defense almost always refers to the right to defend one's home, and believing in this does not make one "pro-violence". Ancaps do not favor corporate control; they do accept that hiring corporations to provide self-defense service is a possibility. No one is attacking anarchism; the articles makes it clear there are different groups which oppose the state, and both views are described on their respective pages. Using violence to uphold the property claims is not the same as using violence to impose an ancap order; I'm sure those who want to abolish property have also defended their property while waiting for the Revolution. Your points about state vs. business is a criticism of the position, not the position itself, which does hold that there is a distinction. Adding in your own opinion on these matters is not appropriate. -- VV 11:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
(note this was written simultaneous with below, edit conflict)

I think the term leftist anarchist is POV - that is what anarchism is, as far as I am aware. The only people who use the term 'leftist anarchist' are those who think that the libertarian right are anarchists and add the leftist to differentiate between the two. As these libertarian rightists are a tiny minority (I think they only exist in the US) could we use the normal meaning of anarchism? Secretlondon 11:20, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know much about the terminology debate (such as the history of left-anarchist), but it seems both groups regard themselves as anarchists (and this is consistent with the word's formal meaning), so both claims should be respected. Adding "left-" as a specifier allows us to be specific about which kind we mean in a certain context, in the same way that saying (e.g.) "Russian conservatism" and "American conservatism" might spare us from wars over which are the real conservatives (or "neo-" and "paleo-", etc.). I will try to accommodate this by adding more text to the intro about the terminology issues. I think this is a reasonable compromise. -- VV 22:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"I already responded to most of these points. Anarchism means no state."

And you are just going to ignore my response? Anarchism from its conception has meant more than just "no state," and anarchism currently means more than just "no state" and the very root of the word literally translates to more than just "no state." For evidence, note proudhon's use of the word, modern dictionary definitions of the word, and the greek basis of it. You didn't respond to any of these points, you just glanced over them and edited anything that disagreed with your position.

"Self-defense almost always refers to the right to defend one's home, and believing in this does not make one "pro-violence"."

That is debatable, but also irrelevant. Property includes far more than ones home. It can include a field of hay half way around the world, a toothbrush in the sink, or a pound of titanium in a vault in Switzerland. Obviously defending all of these things regardless of how they were acquired is not considered by all people to be "self-defense." Indeed, not even capitalists would view all property claims as self-defense. These needs to be expanded or rewritten to be accounted for. And I never wrote anything that suggested that capitalists were pro-violent, only that they support violence to uphold their property claims.

"Ancaps do not favor corporate control; they do accept that hiring corporations to provide self-defense service is a possibility."

Clearly many capitalists do favor corporate control over the state. If you want to include the fact that some of them prefer private control, rent, and policy over corporate, then do so. That is not a reason to delete my edits.

"No one is attacking anarchism; the articles makes it clear there are different groups which oppose the state, and both views are described on their respective pages."

If we accepted your definition of anarchism from the outset, then sure, no one is attacking anarchism. But the whole point of dissent in this case is that as anarchists we are under no obligation to accept your definition. Anarchism does not mean merely what it is presented to mean in this page, it need to be presented openly and honestly, and that includes describing it as anarchists themselves would.

"Using violence to uphold the property claims is not the same as using violence to impose an ancap order; I'm sure those who want to abolish property have also defended their property while waiting for the Revolution."

This is a non-sequitor. Just because individuals have upheld their property claims using violence in both cases doesn't mean that doing so is not imposing a particular economic order upon those who dissent.

"Your points about state vs. business is a criticism of the position, not the position itself, which does hold that there is a distinction."

Then you have to explicitly tell what that distinction is. As it is, a reader might incorrectly think that there is no similarity. There is a similarity, and it is our burden to demonstrate the anarcho-capitalist position on this matter.

"Adding in your own opinion on these matters is not appropriate."

Deleting everything that disagrees with your opinion is not appropriate either. And lets be clear, you are the one deleting passages here, I am merely adding to them or changing the wording to provide a more neutral POV.

Secretlondon is correct to assert that left-anarchist is a misnomer. However, it is obvious that the biased capitalists on this board will not admit to such, and since this is their page I suggest that they be refered to as libertarian socialists unless there are any anarchists who disagree. Doing this will allow you to side-step the debate about whether or not left-anarchist is an appropriate title for a group of people who universally reject it.

Kevin 11/14/03


"(and this is consistent with the word's formal meaning)"

For the third time, the only way you can continue to claim that is by ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, evidence which I have supplied and you have ignored. It is not a compromise to refer to anarchists as something they are not. What is your problem with refering to them as libertarian socialists anyway? Most of them would agree with that far more than "left-anarchis." Many of them in fact refer to themselves as "post-left" anarchists, are you going to try to claim that they are left-anarchists as well?

Kevin 11/15/03

Edit war

Guys, please stop the edit war. And VV, I don't see what is wrong with Anon's edits; they seem to be reasonable to me and in fact read more NPOV than the version you keep reverting to. Please explain. --mav 03:15, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


I have to agree here. The edit war is dizzying, and the anon edits don't seem so crazy as to be reverted completely. They seem to request NPOV. --Kahn 08:18, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's more like he keeps making dozens of edits, most without merit. I have kept the ones that were reasonable, but he keeps putting all of them back in. That's why it's turned into reversion.

I'll take a few examples from the top:

  • claimed... to be a synthesis. Why is this necessary? It can be pretty clear where a movement originated. What is objectionable about saying it takes ideas from two other viewpoints?
  • express government regulation (etc.). What the hell does this even mean? Versus implicit? It's clear what government means in this context, and in fact the text does refer to "explicit state institutions", which does mean something (institutions calling themselves states). This objection can be in the criticisms section, anyway.
  • free market. Free market is a term in economics with a specific meaning. The verbiage is unhelpful and pointless.
  • corporate enforcement, rent, and policy etc. This is completely wrong. Corporations are a possible place to get self-defense services from, and it's possible you can rent a place, or not. And this is redundant. The text already says, "Anarcho-capitalists promote individual property rights and free markets, as a way to organize all services, including all those that governments claim as their natural monopoly, such as police, justice and the army.... They consider capitalist corporations based on voluntary contracts as a legitimate and efficient way for people to organize." This is a much clearer and far more accurate way of giving this information. The other way is screaming with bias (corporations instead of government, yuck!).
  • individual liberty (with [sic] some claim includes private property) vs. (including private property). The whole point of saying "including" is to distinguish this interpretation from one where liberty does not include private property. Cf., e.g., "all US states (including the District of Columbia) have two senators".
  • There is no history of violence -> There is a history of violence. Are you going to defend this?

I could go on and on. The point about violence to defend one's property versus to impose one's system (and is there any evidence of the former among ancaps anyway?) is also a big one, covered in my Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles blurb. And property as aggression is a fringe view which does not need to be accommodated at every single mention of violence; that view can get its say in the objections section.

In summary, not one of these edits appears merited to me. -- VV 08:39, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


You have not kept all the edits that are reasonable VV. You have kept all the edits the you have personally deemed to be reasonable. Your assumption apparently being that you are the ultimate arbiter of what does or does not count as reason.

"claimed... to be a synthesis. Why is this necessary? It can be pretty clear where a movement originated. What is objectionable about saying it takes ideas from two other viewpoints? "

There is nothing at all objectionable about saying that anarcho-capitalism takes ideas from two other traditions. Please, say so. But just make it clear that not everyone agrees with this claim. Most individualists themselves believe that capitalism is entirely incompatible with anarchism, so we need readers to know that there is more than one opinion floating about here. Obviously this is the capitalist page, so the capitalist opinion takes precedent, but to simply claim that "capitalism IS a synthesis" involving individualism is to pretend like there is no controversy and no dissent at all. That is hardly honest.

"* express government regulation (etc.). What the hell does this even mean? Versus implicit? It's clear what government means in this context, and in fact the text does refer to "explicit state institutions", which does mean something (institutions calling themselves states). This objection can be in the criticisms section, anyway."

I don't understand. You are agreeing that capitalists reject explicit state institutions, or institutions calling themselves states. So what do you find objectionable with making that clear by pointing out that capitalists object specifically to express government regulation?

"* free market. Free market is a term in economics with a specific meaning. The verbiage is unhelpful and pointless."

Sure. It is also a term used by individualists to refer to an economy in which usury is not present. Given that this is page is claiming to be a form of anarchism, it is very important to take into account the fact that most market anarchists (i.e. individualist anarchists) would not consider a capitalist market to be "free." It seems clear that by "free market" you mean a market that is not interfered with by the state, so what is wrong with making this explicit to avoid confusion?

"corporate enforcement, rent, and policy etc. This is completely wrong. Corporations are a possible place to get self-defense services from, and it's possible you can rent a place, or not."

If corporate enforcement, rent, and policy is a possible outcome, then why is this "completely wrong?" Perhaps you should mention that it is not the only possible outcome, and I did that myself when I refered to "corporate OR private" replacements for some state institutions.

"The other way is screaming with bias (corporations instead of government, yuck!)."

Are you telling me that you do not seek private propertarian and corporate propertarian alternatives to current government institutions? If so, please just say so. I can quote from just about every prominent "anarcho-capitalist" that I can think of saying otherwise, if you would like evidence that this is in fact the case.

"* individual liberty (with [sic] some claim includes private property) vs. (including private property). The whole point of saying "including" is to distinguish this interpretation from one where liberty does not include private property. "

Fine. Then to be neutral it seems to me it ought to read "which they claim includes private property" rather than "which includes private property." The second makes it sound like private property simply is compatible with liberty full stop. This may or may not be the case, but it is contested by many if not most of the people who call themselves anarchists, so this should be reflected in the language by removing the assumption that it necessarily is compatible.

"* There is no history of violence -> There is a history of violence. Are you going to defend this?"

I already have. To claim that there is no history of violence by anarcho-capitalists amounts to a claim that no anarcho-capitalist has ever upheld their own personal property claims with violence. Given that anarcho-capitalists endorse such uses of violence, and given that anarcho-capitalists living and dead have owned property and many of claimed to at some point in their life used violence or threat of violence to maintain their claim to it, I find it hard to believe that all of these individuals are lying or deluding themselves. As such, I think that the claim "there is no history of violence on the part of anarcho-capitalists to promote or impose their system" should be done away with altogether. But out of respect for the position I instead altered it repeatedly to "with the exception of private property enforcement, there is no history of violence." Since you deleted that several times with no comment, I simply reverted it to a more simple claim "there IS a history of violence" because frankly my hands are getting sore of constantly typing new edits in the face of your cut-and-paste reverts.

"And property as aggression is a fringe view which does not need to be accommodated at every single mention of violence; that view can get its say in the objections section."

A fringe view? What, and anarcho-capitalists, or anarchists themselves, are now mainstream? The merit of a position is not determined by the quantity of its subscriptants, and it turns out that the vast majority of anarchists today (libertarian socialists if you prefer) believe that property as it is concieved by capitalists amounts to legitimated aggression in certain instances. That hardly makes it a fringe view in the context of anarchist discussions, and that is the context we are dealing with.


Out of respect to wikipedia, Maveric, and Kahn, I'm going to refrain from editing this page further until I recieve a response from you, assuming one is forthcoming. I don't want to disrupt wikipedia, and I have had severe reservations about continuing to re-insert my edits. However, I don't accept that my edits should be removed without even a comment, nor that VV determines what is or is not acceptable on this page. Finally, I honestly feel that I am morally obligated to contest what appears to me as a heavily biased page which asserts anarchism to be something it is not. And that is all I'm trying to do, contest it, not dictate what the page may or may not be. Anyway, I do apologise for the disruption and hope we can move forward on this VV. Kevin 11/16/03


"Left-anarchism" is a misnomer, and should not be used with regard to traditional anarchists. The vast majority of people with a knowledge of government and politics understand anarchists as being historically socialist; usually, the term "left-anarchism" is used by anarcho-capitalists to distinguish their ideology from opposing ones. However, many traditional anarchists are by no means "Leftists," and the left-right political spectrum is too far out of date to be used in this fashion, especially with an ideology so unrelated to any form of government.

The term "traditional anarchist" should be used so that people who are knew to anarchism do not become confused - and so they understand that anarcho-capitalism is still disputed as a form of anarchism. -AaronS 11/17/03

Okay, this is a reasonable objection to the term left-anarchism. It is not a reasonable defense of the edit removing the claim that this view "may be known as left-anarchism or libertarian socialism", since the former term is used, misnomer or no. The fact that it is used by ancaps only makes it all the more relevant, since this is the Ancap article. And my introductory paragraph that it was merely being used to "avoid confusion" after mentioning the objection that most anarchists have to this classification I think removes the assumption that the term is a anything more than an article-wide shorthand. As I said above (if anyone noticed), "Adding 'left-' as a specifier allows us to be specific about which kind we mean in a certain context, in the same way that saying (e.g.) 'Russian conservatism' and 'American conservatism' might spare us from wars over which are the real conservatives." But if left-anarchist is a misnomer, it should still be noted in the intro as a term in use, but might defensibly be a poor choice of shorthand. Traditional anarchism is I think too POV. My objection to libertarian socialism is that it (the term) is not derived from anarchism. Perhaps socialist anarchism? Or maybe libertarian socialism cannot be improved upon. -- VV 05:56, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"The fact that it is used by ancaps only makes it all the more relevant, since this is the Ancap article."

Except that the article should be directed toward people who are not familiar with anarcho-capitalism, or, more broadly, anarchism in general. Giving such weight to a term that is clearly a misnomer and is not used by the majority of anarchists or people familiar with anarchism is misleading, and offers the wrong impression.

As for the shorthand argument, I don't think that "traditional anarchism" is terribly burdensome.

"Traditional anarchism is I think too POV. My objection to libertarian socialism is that it (the term) is not derived from anarchism. Perhaps socialist anarchism? Or maybe libertarian socialism cannot be improved upon."

Traditional anarchism is not POV, it is fact - much more so than left-anarchism, which is a term used only by anarcho-capitalists, usually as a means of disparaging or willfully misrepresenting the positions of traditional anarchists. With that respect, left-anarchism is much more POV than traditional anarchism could ever be, considering that the former is a term that was literally invented by anarcho-capitalists, whereas the latter is merely a modifier that is both historically and factually accurate.

The same goes for socialist anarchism, and I agree that libertarian socialism is not specific enough.

-AaronS 11/19/03

The introductory comments should already make it clear to the casual reader that terminology is a point of contention, and my "confusing" sentence made it clear that left-anarchist was merely a local convention. No, I'm not satisfied with traditional anarchism, regardless of whether it is "better" than left-anarchism (questionable, and I don't believe it's about "disparaging or willfully misrepresenting"). Libertarian socialism may be the only acceptable choice, despite its weaknesses. -- VV 06:39, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What is so unnaceptable about traditional anarchism, and why would you not be satisfied with it if you yourself feel that it is a better term? It is both historically and factually accurate, whereas left-anarchism is neither, considering that traditional anarchists are by no means leftists. Libertarian socialism is far too weak - I don't see the reasoning behind the neutering of the term. -- AaronS 20 Nov 2003
B/c anarcho-capitalists do consider themselves part of the anarchist tradition, rightly or not. What's wrong with using a term, even a temporary coined one, if it spares us having to make this judgement? Perhaps anarcho-socialist, which is used too, might be specific enough and useful for this article (with the caveat I had before it was removed). -- VV 03:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


They may consider themselves part of the anarchist tradition, but that doesn't change the fact that people who are proponents of the kind of anarchism that was espoused by the likes of Bakunin and Proudhon are traditional anarchists, whereas the adoption of anti-statism into classical liberalism is simply an example of a political movement branching off of another. It's not like there's any ambiguity, here. First, there were anarchists. Then, anarcho-capitalists came along. The original anarchists are traditional anarchists; members of the newer branch-off are not. They may adhere to the anarchist "tradition," but that's something completely different altogether. The adjective traditional is a modifier that makes it clear that anarchism is traditionally a socialist philosophy (actually, Marx developed his anti-private property stance from anarchism's anti-property stance) and continues to be so today. Anarcho-capitalists are part of the anti-statist tradition, insofar as explicit government is conernced, by they are not part of the socialist tradition, or the anti-property tradition.
Where is the ambiguity?
AaronS 20 Nov 2003

Latest as of Nov 21

In order to accomodate the concerns of others I have voluntarily ceased to edit this page while awaiting VV's response to my own objections. He has done nothing to move the discussion forward in that time, yet continues to edit the page to his own personal tastes. As such, I would like to reiterate these objections, and note that I my concern for the stability of this page will not indefinately outweigh my concern for sincerety and honesty in its presentation.

And here are my responses, in most cases yet again, indented thus. (I've been responding on various other talk pages, but much is repetitive.) -- VV

The following are standing objections that have yet to be put to rest:

  • "Anarcho-capitalism is a view that draw ideas from both individualist anarchism and classical liberalism" Given that individualists deny that any form of capitalism is compatible with their theories, and given that "anarcho-capitalism" draws ideas from many sources, the emphasis on individualism is bound to lead to the misconception that "anarcho-capitalism" does in fact spring from individualist ideology. Since this assertion is currently debated, this sentence should be changed. "Anarcho-capitalism is claimed to be a synthesis of individualist and..." would be one possibility, as would "Anarcho-capitalism is held by its proponents to be..." I should note that several people have made this edit throughout the history of this page or brought up this concern in one form or another. Furthermore, this is the language used elsewhere in the document, and is thus consistent with the whole. Note for example this passage which has stood uncontested this entire time: "Anarcho-capitalists consider themselves as part of the individualist anarchist tradition."
The objection to both the "synthesis" claim and now this even weaker one is incomprehensible. It does draw ideas from anarchism. Maybe you don't think it takes all of anarchism's ideas, but if it did it would just be anarchism and not a different view. The New Left draws ideas from the Old Left, but can still be hated by the latter. In this case, this is completely clearcut because it synthesizes or draws ideas from two different views and thus cannot possibly mean has all the same beliefs as. The "consider themselves as part" claim is different; you can draw ideas from a viewpoint but (by your admission) have radically diverged from it.
  • "which considers all forms of government unnecessary and harmful," At some point in the article, not necessarily here, there should be an explaination of how institutions of enforcement such as a judiciary, penal system, and police enforcement, which are all supported by many "anarcho-capitalists" are considered different from "government" or "governing institutions." Without such an explaination, there is no way to know how such a claim could be valid, and absent any explaination it should be changed to "express government" or "which considers some forms of government." Similarly: "They reject any kind of government control, taxation or regulation." requires an explaination of how rent is qualitatively distinct from taxation, or how regulation is qualitatively distinct from corporate/private policy enforcement.
Everyone knows what a government is. The article already explains the alternate vision ancaps have. If you wish to expand on it in a neutral way, do so, although probably an actual ancap should do so. In the case of police, they think people should defend themselves or hire someone to defend them. This is not the same. Several different defense firms could provide services in a given area. This is not government in any normal sense. There is no need to explain the difference between rent and taxation, this distinction is already familiar to the entire non-cave-dwelling world.
  • "They consider capitalist corporations based on voluntary contracts" At some point in the article it should be made clear what is considered voluntary in this context. The contracts which "anarcho-capitalists" support are involuntary by several standards, so until this distinction is made the claim should be changed to "ostensibly voluntary" or just drop the "voluntary" part altogether. This problem also occurs further down in the article, "born out of voluntary contracts." However, this problem was avoided in this case, which might point to a good solution, "To anarcho-capitalists, contracts in general, and employment contracts in particular, are but a particular case of voluntary exchange of property." Note that the claim is "to anarcho-capitalists" thus NPOV.
They do not consider corporations based on ostensibly voluntary contracts legitimate, they consider corporations based on actually voluntary contracts legitimate. Yes, defining voluntary is tricky, as is defining truth. But I think the account given makes it clear: you have certain rights, and you may act within them. That is basically a feature of all systems.
  • "Due to the rejection of any explicit state institutions, Anarcho-capitalism is often considered a form of anarchism" "Often" in this context is POV, it should be changed to "sometimes" or "considered by some" or "claimed by anarcho-capitalists to be" in order to remove this bias.
How many times does it have to be so considered to constitute often? More than a hundred times a year? Often does not mean usually, mostly, primarily, or almost always.
  • "claiming that the historic use of the word anarchist is inconsistent with this or even any form of capitalism" This or even? The anarchists who claim that capitalism is incompatible with anarchism do so universally, so it should be changed to simply "inconsistent with any form of capitalism"
This makes the connection to anarcho-capitalism. It's strange you oppose this slight softening but want to heavily handicap often.
  • "some even count Lao Tse and Aristotle as early classical liberals" Given that VV required evidence that Caplan was in fact a capitalist before allowing the claim to stand, I now require evidence of anyone claiming that Lao Tsu was a classical liberal. Again, libertarian sure, anarchist even, but I've never heard of anyone claiming he was a liberal.
I did not put in the Lao Tse claim, but whoever did must believe that some do count him as a classical liberal (possibly the author), and I have no reason to disbelieve them over you.
  • "and that individuals should be free from any form of collective coercion" Just to be clear, is corporate enforcement of local policy being claimed not to be a form of collective coercion? If so, then what kinds of collective coercion is this being constrasted against?
Clear from context. And it's what they are "convinced" of, not what you are.
  • "In any case, they agree that in a free society, people should be free to organize in any economic way they like, whether in capitalist businesses or in collectivist cooperatives" So those who choose to organize in a way that violates capitalist claims will not be put down with force? This should also be made clear, that capitalists will not enforce their claims against counter-claims. (though, I have never heard of a single prominent capitalist who has said this) This problem also applies to this passage, "but won't impose upon others"
Presumably, "free to organize in any economic way they like" is meant to preclude death squads.
  • "Many traditional anarchists and individualists consider the socialist views of some individualist anarchists as essential to individualist anarchism, and reject anarcho-capitalist claims to belong to the individualist anarchist tradition" To be clear, ALL of the original thus traditional anarchists considered the socialist views of all the individualists of that time to be essential to individualist anarchism. "Many" and "some" are in fact "the vast majority"
Again, it's odd to oppose softening here. What's wrong with many? It means a lot, and saves us from having to rely on surveys.
  • "Individuals may take any legitimate steps within their property" This needs to be explicated, what is considered legitimate in this case?
In any legal system, legitimate means within one's legal rights (or something nearly that). Thus, its meaning is understood within the system being developed. This sentence could probably be made clearer (probably not by you), as now it seems redundant, but anyway the whole thing is in the context of "To anarcho-capitalists" anyway.
  • "Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think that violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and property." Until some argument is offered in the context of the article that posits property as a part of the self, this claim needs to be changed to "defense of person and property."
Self-defense is a legal term which applies to just this situation.
  • "They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal" way to promote or impose their views" So capitalists would not enforce their property claims unto those who do not hold capitalist views? If not, then this passage is A-ok. If so, then this claim is bogus.
  • "There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others." It is clear that many "anarcho-capitalists" acting in full accordance with their express beliefs have in fact enforced their particular brand of property claims onto others on an individual basis, thus this claim is also bogus. If it is meant to express that "anarcho-capitalists" have never engaged in a revolution, then that should be said instead.
We've been through this. First, one usually defends property to keep it, not to create a new world order. And anyway protecting property rights already protected in the current legal system cannot possibly be imposing one's views, since that particular view already reigns. Again, by this reasoning you can derive anything: proponents of tort reform can be accused of using violence to impose their views, because under their proposed legal code they would also have the right to defend their property.
  • "Also, misunderstanding about the nature of private (or public) protection" The critics in this case have a different understanding, not a misunderstanding. This is POV and should be rewritten.
I agree this should be changed. In fact, I thought I had done so myself but apparently not.
  • "and may not understand the stance of anarcho-capitalists" Another POV. Many of them do understand quite well, and still disagree. Should be rewritten to "and may not agree with the stance..." - Kev 11/21/03
"May not" seems NPOV; misunderstanding is a possible source of disagreement. -- VV 20:09, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kev 11/22/03 My responses follow:

The number of personal attacks has reached the point where I'm considering not responding, but I'll add some brief counters here to the non-insulting parts anyway, indented thus and marked. -- VV 22:55, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"The objection to both the "synthesis" claim and now this even weaker one is incomprehensible. It does draw ideas from anarchism."

No, it doesn't. It draws ideas from another parallel field called classical liberalism, and arguably libertarianism. But anarchism is an offshoot of libertarianism, not the other way around, and since one of the main distinctions between libertarianism in general and anarchism is anti-capitalism, to claim that it draws ideas from anarchism rather than libertarianism is simply false. Again, this would be more clear to you if you bothered to learn about the history of anarchism before changing edits just because they "don't sound right" to you.
VV How do you know they don't draw any ideas from anarchism? I don't find this claim credible; your only evidence is that they believe different things than "anarchists", but that is not the same.

"Everyone knows what a government is."

Then it must be clear to you that these are governing institutions, and the claim is without merit. If not, then obviously not everyone has the same conception of what is or is not a government.

"The article already explains the alternate vision ancaps have."

Not explicitly enough.
VV Perhaps you should encourage ancaps to come and elaborate. Your "elaborations" are all just not-so-subtle broadsides.

"In the case of police, they think people should defend themselves or hire someone to defend them. This is not the same. Several different defense firms could provide services in a given area."

This is true in a state, where private firms operate under the jurisdiction of public firms. If you mean that no single firm will have a monopoly on defense of a given locale, then you are simply wrong. The claim to a given piece of property is a claim to exclusive control of it, the firm that directly controls it or is hired to control it would be the final authority of that property, even if smaller firms were allowed to operate under its jurisdiction. I would be happy to quote Rothbard himself on the subject, since you obviously haven't read him.

"There is no need to explain the difference between rent and taxation, this distinction is already familiar to the entire non-cave-dwelling world."

Please forgive me then, if a complete lack of an argument from someone who admittedly isn't very informed on this subject does not convince me. If the differences are clear, then they should be easily explicated by anyone, even you.
VV As in government, rent and taxation are standard, familiar words. There is nothing wrong with using them in the summary. Later paragraphs do elaborate on the ancap vision.

"They do not consider corporations based on ostensibly voluntary contracts legitimate, they consider corporations based on actually voluntary contracts legitimate. Yes, defining voluntary is tricky, as is defining truth. But I think the account given makes it clear: you have certain rights, and you may act within them. That is basically a feature of all systems."

You make my point very well. Currently this could easily entail a justification for fascism or state communism, but that is clearly not what is intended. As such, it is imperative that a definition of what they consider to be voluntary is offered. Lacking that, these contracts are nothing more than superficially voluntary at best, we might as well call a man with a gun to his head to be making voluntary decisions (and in a purely existential sense, without defining our terms carefully, he is).
VV This does not answer my point as to what ancaps "consider".

"How many times does it have to be so considered to constitute often? More than a hundred times a year? Often does not mean usually, mostly, primarily, or almost always."

No, but it does mean often, and there is no reason not to change it to the more neutral "sometimes," unless you prefer the bias. You made this exact same change yourself in modifying a number of other pages from political viewpoints you obviously disagree with, I would be happy to cite the examples for you as your double standard in this case is telling.
VV This claim has already been substantially weakened from the original "is a form of anarchism". I don't see further demotion as helpful, especially when the present one is accurate.

"This makes the connection to anarcho-capitalism."

Fine, then I only need evidence of a single anarchist who has EVER objected to anarcho-capitalism but embraced some other form of capitalism for this counter to stand up to scrutiny. One example VV, that is all.
VV My understanding is most that would tolerate smaller forms of trade (of personal possessions or services).

"I did not put in the Lao Tse claim, but whoever did must believe that some do count him as a classical liberal (possibly the author), and I have no reason to disbelieve them over you."

You are going to feel pretty damned sheepish about this if you ever educate yourself on the matter. Heh. Don't you even know that fascists and state communists are currently intentionally trying to misrepresent anarchism on wikipedia? I can give examples if you'd like. I've talked with far more anarcho-capitalists than you, and none of them would let such a claim stand given the overwhelming evidence against it, and given that it could in fact have been made for any number of purposes. Regardless, your ignorance of the subject is not a compelling reason for me to allow a false claim to stand, if the author of that claim wants to step up to bat then let them, I see no reason for you to play as a blind proxy when you don't even know the truth behind the matter and are only making more obvious your personal grudge.
VV The false claim that some count him as such? I'll pass the personal grudge accusation, although it's true you have in my mind tarnished your credibility badly with some of your edits (the American Revolution and history of violence ones particularly), which makes me inclined to side with the status quo.

"Clear from context. And it's what they are "convinced" of, not what you are."

So it is clear from the context that they are convinced that corporate enforcement of policy is not collective coercion? Then why not just say so, we don't have anything to hide right?
VV The imagined role of corporations is already explained earlier. The collective coercion claim is about what they are convinced of, and does not require another inserted discussion of corporations. You want to mention "corporate control" over and over (usually misleadingly) to make it sound as bad as possible.

"Presumably, "free to organize in any economic way they like" is meant to preclude death squads."

I see no reason to presume when the answer can be stated directly and clearly. If they are not going to use force to impose their claims, then using force against those who hold different claims is not an option. If they are going to use force to impose their claims, then the page should say so.
VV Any economic way means within property rights.

"Thus, its meaning is understood within the system being developed. This sentence could probably be made clearer (probably not by you), as now it seems redundant, but anyway the whole thing is in the context of "To anarcho-capitalists" anyway."

Great, good, fine. It needs to be explicated. If you don't like my edits, go educate yourself or find a proxy to replace you. Right now I'm arguing about the color blue to a person who admits he is blind, you need to take the time to step up properly, find someone else to do so, or simply realise that you are not the designated "defender of truth even when he doesn't know what the truth is" on wikipedia. This page doesn't need you to survive VV, there are lots of anti-state capitalists on wikipedia and they would be far better suited to respond if you only gave them the time to do so.

"Self-defense is a legal term which applies to just this situation."

Then refer to it as "legal self-defense" as the law does not yet have a monopoly on the use of the term, and the use is actually currently contradictory to philosophical self-defense.
VV The "of property" part makes clear the intended scope.

"We've been through this. First, one usually defends property to keep it, not to create a new world order."

I've never claimed otherwise. But you are assuming that the claims by the capitalists are necessarily valid, that the case is open and shut right here in the context of this page. It is not, and "defending property to keep it" for one value system is in fact the same act as "violently enforcing property upon the unwilling" to another. Both are ideological filters placed over the actions themselves, so we should make it clear that we are talking about an ideological filter, or simply refer to the actions themselves without the bias. I do not propose that we endorse either viewpoint in the concept of a neutral page, I propose that we remove the bias that claims that capitalists will never impose their system (which again, assumes their position). This can be done easily by writing it as "capitalists claim that they will never impose" or "according to capitalist standards their actions will never impose" or "capitalists will use force to uphold their claims, but they believe this force is justified according to the rights of self-defense." All neutral language, all stuff that I'm blown away you object to so vigorously, especially given your similar edits on dozens of other pages (mumia, fox news, cambodia, anti-americanism, etc, etc). The difference here being, seemingly, that this neutrality doesn't agree with your explicit bias.

"And anyway protecting property rights already protected in the current legal system cannot possibly be imposing one's views, since that particular view already reigns."

This is the worst argument you've made yet. You are saying that the status quo is neutrality by definition, you might as well be making the argument that it is neutral to claim all jews should die because we happen to live in the middle of Nazi germany. If so, then how could anyone, wikipedian or not, stand by neutrality in good conscience? But there is no reason to worry, because that isn't the neutrality that wikipedia claims.

"Again, by this reasoning you can derive anything: proponents of tort reform can be accused of using violence to impose their views, because under their proposed legal code they would also have the right to defend their property."

This is misleading. Proponents of anarcho-capitalism are directly making claims to the legitimate ability to enforce their claims with violence, even right here on this page, and as an essential part of their philosophy. To call them on this in such a context is completely relevant.
VV But they are the same as rights they already have, and so can't be seen as part of a scheme to change the system of rights.

""May not" seems NPOV; misunderstanding is a possible source of disagreement."

A different understanding is also possible, far more likely even in my experience, so why is one suggested in the absence of the other? The context is what makes this a NPOV violation, not the statement taken in a vacuum.
VV As you'll note, I changed this anyway. Yet another compromise for which I've been called names.

"Again, it's odd to oppose softening here. What's wrong with many? It means a lot, and saves us from having to rely on surveys."

As if anyone is going to pretend that it isn't the vast majority. Fine fine, if it means so much to you I won't try to give a more accurate picture here so that you can pretend that neutrality is actually your interest.
VV I'll note in comparison that I've tolerated the "most modern-day anarchists" claim early on, in addition to all the other weakening. But even that seems not enough to spare me these sorts of accusations.

My God. The changes that you made, VV, have made the entry more biased than I have ever seen it before.

"arguably traditional form of anarchism also known variously as libertarian socialism, left-anarchism, or anarcho-socialism."

It isn't arguably traditional - it's traditional, plain and simple. This is ridiculous. Rather than discuss a compromise, you went and edited everything to your tastes. Reading back in the discussion on this page, I can see why people have become frustrated with you.

1. The anarchism of the 19th century precedes the anti-state liberalism of the 20th century. This is a fact, for Christ's sake, not a point of view. In this respect, the anarchism of the 19th century is traditional - there is no room for any ambiguity.

2. Anarchism is not known as left-anarchism or anarcho-socialism, except by proponents of anarcho-capitalism. They are misnomers, and they are misleading.

This sort of unilateral editing ruins the very premise of Wikipedia. It's sad and childish.

-AaronS 11/23

What's wrong with "arguably traditional"? It keeps the recent addition of the word "traditional" while being neutral as to its applicability. Are you denying that it's arguable that it's traditional? As for the names used, yes, those are used, by your own admission by proponents of anarcho-capitalism. Thus, mentioning these terms is completely appropriate in this article. The hated (by you) left-anarchism is not used anywhere else except for to note its meaning. And of course I included considerable caveats about the terminology issue, giving both sides. I also don't see why anarcho-socialism is misleading. And anyway people claim anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer, so these misnomer arguments can't really be relied on in this entry. "More biased than ever", how? -- VV 21:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As for "sad and childish", and "edited everything to my tastes", my effort was in fact yet another attempt to compromise, giving more ground on several points. If you have indeed read back in the discussion and history, you should recognize this. -- VV 22:22, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Insults? This from someone who has refered to my edits as "absurd" "ridiculous" "idiocy" and so forth when he doesn't even know the subject he is editing so extensively?

As to the points, which you don't even seem interested in giving proper objections to anymore:

First, I know that "anarcho-capitalism" does not draw ideas from individualist anarchism because all the ideas it draws are founded in classical liberalism and at most arguably identical to those of libertarianism with one exception: that of anti-capitalism. Given that, it would be appropriate to say that "anarcho-capitalism" is a minsomer altogether, and that it is actually neo-classical liberalism or even anti-state capitalism. But "anarcho-capitalists" refuse this on the grounds that "they should be able to call themselves whatever they want, regardless of the contradiction present in the label." Thus, a compromise, in the context of their page they can call themselves whatever they want, monkeys from mars for all I care, but to claim to draw ideas from individualism when they are actually drawing those ideas almost exclusively from liberalism with a sprinkle of libertarianism is just plain false.

Second, I have invited several caps to come here. They have for the most part refused because this encyclopedia is open to the public and represents for them "the tragedy of the commons." They demand the right to dictate the status of this page and refuse to "waste time" on a page where people who know nothing about anarchism or disagree with them can change their edits. Others have said that they will when they have the time, still others have said that they will once folk like you stop reverting any and all changes that don't meet your misconceptions. But all of this is a side point, if you don't know the answers, then you shouldn't be editing this page at all VV, regardless of how wrong the answers might sound from your uninformed POV.

Third, yes government and rent and taxation are all standard words, that is why it is so easy to see the qualitative similarities between the standards being contrasted. You claim that later paragraphs elaborate the "ancap" vision, but none of them explain what makes rent qualitatively different from taxation in a capitalism system, or what makes corporate policy enforcement different from state policy enforcement. When they do, since that is all I have asked, I would happily drop the objection.

I DID answer your point as to what ancaps consider. What they consider should definately be on this page, in as simple and explicit terminology as possible, but it should not be presented in such a fashion as to make it appear that what they consider is in fact the case.

The use of the term "often" is not accurate, it is ambiguous. "Sometimes" is accurate and leaves room for either interpretation. Sometimes is neutral, often is not. This is not a "further demotion" it is a necessary clarification.

"My understanding is most that would tolerate smaller forms of trade (of personal possessions or services)."

This is entirely irrelevant. Individualists support trade but reject capitalism, because capitalism is more than simple trade (or if it is not, you should make this somewhat silly claim explicit and watch yourself as anarcho-capitalists remove your edits for misrepresenting them). You have yet to give me a single example of an anarchist, even one, who claims to reject anarcho-capitalism but support some other form of capitalism. By your own standards, that means I'm well within my scope to remove your edit.

And yes, it is false to claim that anyone counts Lao Tsu as a classical liberal in the absence of a shred of evidence. At least, it is false until someone can offer evidence of such, and you have apparently refused to even try. It will be changed until it can be supported, again this is according to your own editing standards.

"The imagined role of corporations is already explained earlier. The collective coercion claim is about what they are convinced of, and does not require another inserted discussion of corporations. You want to mention "corporate control" over and over (usually misleadingly) to make it sound as bad as possible."

No, I want to limit the claims that they object to collective coercion when coercion by a corporation would actually entail a form of "collective coercion." The fact that they don't consider it coercion should be noted and even emphasized, the fact that they don't consider it coercion should note be expressed in such a way as to imply that it isn't coercion in fact, as that is explicit bias.

"Any economic way means within property rights."

Given that many people propose systems of economics but reject the application of "rights" or even "property" this claim is not some kind of universal truth that you can use to over-ride any dissent. So the objection remains.

"The "of property" part makes clear the intended scope."

No, it does not, because there are many conceptions of property in which the property is not considered to be some meta-physical aspect of the self, thus not considered to be self-defense.

"But they are the same as rights they already have, and so can't be seen as part of a scheme to change the system of rights."

The fact that there are currently existing "rights" does not mean that they are not upheld and imposed in order to maintain their applicability and broaden their scope. Another irrelevant tangent you are going off on.


If you are now going to argue that capitalism is a traditional form of anarchism, then please tell me which of the original anarchists were capitalists, or even felt that capitalism was remotely compatible with anarchism, or even refrained from flat out rejecting capitalism. If you can't demonstrate this, then I have no idea how you can claim that it is a traditional part of anarchism, the most that you could claim is that it has its own tradition, which is an entirely different subject. - Kev 11/23/03


VV has tried to make the entry more fair, certainly more than kev. there's a difference between presenting a different pov in an article and turning it into a forum for enemies of the ideology to criticize it.

Then please, by all means, address my concerns. Show me where any of the points I brought up above actually criticize the ideology rather than try to explicate it. Do you think it is "fair" that VV has reverted several neutral edits that are identical to the neutral edits he imported to other pages himself? Do you think it is "fair" to remove edits when one doesn't even know the truth value behind them, simply because they "seem wrong?" As I was from the start, I am open to discussion, but I won't be dictated to by someone who doesn't even know the matter well enough to properly explicate the philosophy. Again, please point out which of my standing objections would be a critique of the ideology itself, rather than a further explaination of it. -Kev 11/23/03

Several people have now made the same edits that VV consistently reverts. I have done everything in my power to explain and uphold the legitimacy of those edits, VV doesn't even seem to care about the explainations at this point. I have also put on hold all of my own edits for 2 weeks to discuss this issue and educate VV on that matter, and instead of respecting this VV simply used that time to revert back to all of his edits in my absence. As such, I feel justified now in moving forward on one of my above points, which I will do in the next day or so. I will edit the page in accordance with an objection brought up by myself and several others, and while I will remain open to discussion with anyone, I will not allow VV to dictate this page anymore. After that point has stood for a few days, I will move onto the next and repeat the process, until all the points have been put to rest on the discussion page or adequately accounted for on the encyclopedia page itself. If anyone has any suggestions for how the concerns of many on wikipedia can be addressed without devolving into the editwar that VV is already engaged in, please take the time to offer up such suggestions here. - Kev 11/29/03

Nov 30

Most of your responses are the same as before,

Yes they are, that is because they were sufficient to begin with, and your only arguments against them amounted to a declaration of your ignorance of the subject. - Kev

with new broadsides against me thrown in.

Please A, point out these "broadsides" so that I can apologise for them if they are not in keeping with your own admissions and B, tell me how this is relevant given your direct insults to me long before I even became frank in this discussion.

Your objection to the "draws" claim is still between incomprehensible and bizarre.

That isn't an argument VV, it is a personal opinion. I have explained it several times, that you don't understand it even now is not something I feel responsible for. And bizarre is all a matter of perspective, it certain doesn't invalidate a given viewpoint.

The "almost exclusively" part of what you say seems to concede this, as ancaps do draw at least one idea from anarchism, abolishing the state.

No. They almost exclusively draw their points from liberalism. The one idea they draw of abolishing the state is from libertarianism (many libertarians have suggested that the state be abolished), not anarchism.

They do consider themselves anarchists for this reason, and the rejection by others is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? So it doesn't matter at all how we represent individualists in the context of this article? Remember that whole neutrality thing?

Misnomer talk is pointless. Are Protestants not real Christians?

I dunno, do you have some kind of argument to back up such a claim, or do you just want to throw about specious analogies as some kind of scare tactic so you don't have to address the matter at hand?

This will go nowhere.

Indeed it will. Are fascists now anarchists? When they claim as much on wikipedia, can we not even demand that they use neutral language to make it clear that their claims are disputed? That is all I'm asking for, neutral language. This is not a huge request, unless we are trying to give a blatantly biased representation.

They do draw ideas from anarchism.

No, they don't. All their ideas are from liberalism, with arguably the exception of a few drawn from libertarianism. (I say arguably because not everyone accepts even that.

You just don't want this said because they don't draw all ideas.

No this is not the case, and I have said so before, so this is a straw-man. Anyway, I will skip over the rest. If you don't like the way I have written it, I invite you, AGAIN, to rewrite it in such a way that the objection is accounted for. I have explained why your previous rewrite did not account for it, so I am not convinced yet that your position is correct just because you have said so over and over. BTW, I can't help but note that this is the first time you have discussed a change before modifying the text on this page, I find your willingness to discuss this rather than dictate it an improvement. I only hope it holds. - Kev 11/30/03

But the fact that they don't and the nature of the dispute is already outlined in the text of the entry. I would in fact favor the return of the synthesis claim, but I dumbed it down to "draws ideas from" precisely to deal with your objection. Your rewrite is clearly awful. The meaning is not really in dispute. And saying the view most often held by proponents suggests that.... How many qualifiers is that? I think what the previous author wrote is correct, you just want to attack anarcho-capitalism on its own page. -- VV 20:58, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re: your patronizing comments at the end. Perhaps you've forgotten that you started out with edits which bordered on vandalism, that is, edits which made it impossible to AssumeGoodFaith. Nevertheless, I have done what I can to incorporate your objections. Your comment makes it sound like I have just been ignoring and reverting, when in fact I have been constantly rewriting in an attempt to adapt to what you've said. This contrasts with bad faith edits made by you and others. I also have been discussing this almost constantly. The new intro is awful and should be changed. Do you not recognize this? Are you just waiting for me to make a change so you can change it back? -- VV 04:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Give the world a break VV. We now have three different people making the exact same changes, and you the only one reverting them back. I haven't even tried to help with their reverts given your behaviour. You are apparently using the fact that two of them are anon and not taking part in discussion as an excuse to enter into a revert war with them, but it is clear that they agree with Aaron and you have yet to put to rest his own objections. I think they are good objections, and I agree with Aaron on the issue, so you'll have to find a new excuse. The next time someone makes those changes and you revert it back without even inviting discussion I will be very tempted to lend them a hand myself. - Kev 12/02/03

I'm with Kev on this one. You don't own this page, VV. You can't simply ignore the thoughts, ideas, suggestions, and changes of others. It's clear that people have attempted to engage in discussion with you, and what you call compromise is simply you giving up little bits of an entire entry that you have held hostage.
I reverted the page back to the changes that the majority of us agree upon. In order to incorporate your minority position, it is clear that a consensus must be reached. Before that happens, however, discussion must take place. - AaronS

Actually there are two people, and they are making completely different changes. One is an anon reverting a proposed terminology compromise to a biased version, also thoughtlessly removing many other unrelated fixes I made to the page, without, I should add, discussion (in contrast with my proposal which I did explain in Talk). The other is this nonsense about the intro. While now I'm the only one defending the page, there were others. I'm not even going to respond to the other accusations (beyond what I said above). -- VV 04:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not even going to respond to the fact that you continue to try to dictate the status of this page, showing no respect for the others here? Well whatever number it is, you can now add me to it. Actually it is pretty clear there were 3. This person from 68.169, Aaron, and 129.170. You apparently confused the 68 with me, but I'm 68.13. - Kev 12/04/03

I'm not dictating, I'm proposing compromises, as I've been doing for weeks,

"Compromises" that completely rule out the position of others, that you edit into the text before discussion, that you imply are some kind of base-line the rest of us have to work from.

and the alleged "three" people (probably all the same person, when I said two I was counting your edits) are simply reverting,

Yes, its all one big conspiracy by a single individual. If you are including me, then the page history clearly shows 4 people. Resolve the IPs if you want, it appears that all 4 of them are on the history page somewhere. It is simply slander to claim that all of these individuals are the same person without a shred of evidence to back it up. It would be like me claiming that the only individual who has ever agreed with you on this discussion page (an anon whose very first post to wikipedia was apparently here) must be you. This is specious, anyone could make that claim at any time to make it appear that they are not working against a clear majority. And I have done a grand total of two reverts in the 4 months I have been here, as compared with dozens you have done on this page alone in less than a month.

including (as I mentioned, if you're reading what I write at all) undoing many unrelated fixes,

I have not undone a single unrelated fix, but if you have a problem with particular "fixes" that others have reverted you should mention them here, I have only heard vague referances to this from you so far, so maybe they don't know which ones you are talking about

to the version prior to the compromise I offered and explained the reasons for on this page.

all of which I responded to several times before even considering a revert, as opposed to your "revert first, discuss later" tactic

This too borders on vandalism. You told me I should make a counter-offer on the intro; well, I did, and, as I predicted above, it just got reverted.

What are you talking about? Your "compromise" consisted of stating, without any qualification, that anarcho-capitalism incorporates views from individualism. That doesn't in any way account for the objection by individualists, so how could it possibly be a compromise?

Yay for you reasonable, respectful, discussion-oriented people! -- VV 21:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You say all this as though you have been remotely reasonable, when you have been reverting the article this entire time from clearly neutral language, even during the two weeks when I ceased to edit in order give you time to think over your "compromises." - Kev 12/04/03

Obviously I disagree about the "clearly neutral" language. No, it's not a conspiracy, it's the same person using different IPs for whatever reason.

Your evidence?

I didn't say you'd undone an unrelated fix, I was (obviously) talking about Aaron etc., although by reverting twice today you did in fact undo these fixes.

Since you included me as one of these alleged people, and infered that there was only one, it wasn't outlandish for me to conclude that you were claiming that I am all of the individuals who are disagreeing with you here.

My use of incorporate instead of draw was to address your assertion of lack of causality: surely ideas from individualist anarchism are included, even if they weren't initially drawn from it.

As I said, ideas from individualist anarchism are not incorporated into anarcho-capitalism. Ideas from classical liberalism and arguably libertarianism are. The fact that there is some overlap does not indicate that anarcho-capitalism incorporates the ideas of individualism.

Of course, Aaron (or whoever) just undid it. I see you've made another attempt, with new alterations, a good deal of which did involve again erasing my fixes, which is of course not acceptable.

But it is acceptable to erase all of my edits, quite often without even a comment?

I'll make an another attempt to address your concerns. The only reversions I have done of late have been to my last rewrite which has been being blindly reverted by you and Aaron.

As I said, I have reverted it a grand total of two times. You have reverted it at least a dozen in this month alone.

I did not start the reversion cycle. No, you never responded to what I said about terminology.

You've made several points about terminology, and I can't find any that I did not respond to. If there is something I am missing, please point it out rather than making vague referances to the text above. If you want me to point out the very large number of my own arguments you have done nothing to answer, I would be happy to. I can only find one paragraph in that text that has been added since my last responses.

You can look above to verify this. Perhaps you haven't noticed my comments that were added to existing text instead of put at the end. -- VV 04:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you've forgotten that you started out with edits which bordered on vandalism, that is, edits which made it impossible to AssumeGoodFaith.

First, I was new to wikipedia at that time, and ceased to make those edits after the second time. This was all many months ago, before you even began to enter into discussions here, and many of the edits where nowhere nearly as biased as the page still exists now. Second, the page as it stood was not in good faith, it was a complete mockery of anarchism in most of its forms, including numerous blatant straw-men and a bias so overwhelming as to be almost unbelievable. It has improved since then, but you seem to want to stop the improvements half-way, insisting that a good compromise is to leave in the bias toward capitalism and only a moderate misrepresentation of anarchism. That isn't a compromise, and it flies in the face of the neutrality policy of wikipedia. As I've said twice already, you have made some identical edits to the ones I have made on other pages in the name of neutrality, your double standard here only belies your extreme bias. You never commented on this fact, apparently you think the evidence of your double-standards is irrelevant to my own ability to assume good faith on your part.

Nevertheless, I have done what I can to incorporate your objections.

By and large, you have done what you could to ignore my objections. The fact that you occasionally give a little ground after I pour hours of effort into this page in the face of your constant quick reverts doesn't impress me.

Your comment makes it sound like I have just been ignoring and reverting, when in fact I have been constantly rewriting in an attempt to adapt to what you've said. This contrasts with bad faith edits made by you and others.

First, you have reverted far more than rewritten, so this claim of "constant rewritting" is simply false. Futher, do you actually consider reverts done to neutral statements identical to your own work on other pages as a sign of good faith on your part? Get off your high horse VV, your behavior in the last two months on this page has been atrocious. The fact that others here have begun to respond with the same sort of revert behavior that you began with would not gall you so much if you were able to witness your own actions in the matter.

I also have been discussing this almost constantly.

You have been reverting it constantly, and discussing it only when your reverts face numerous challenges, both on the page itself and on the discussion page.

The new intro is awful and should be changed. Do you not recognize this? Are you just waiting for me to make a change so you can change it back?

I am waiting for you to offer up a valid change that actually accounts for the objection, or to finally be satisfied with any of the literally dozen intro edits I have suggested myself. - Kev 12/04/03

Dec 5

Re reversion. I made a series of changes on Nov 22 which I did discuss and defend, and which were an attempt at compromise as usual, even after we'd already been discussing terminology points. However, Aaron (or whoever) reverted and reverted and reverted my changes, as now you have done, to a version that also lacked numerous unrelated fixes (such as wikifying, fixing a broken link, and changing "great french anarcho-capitalist" to "renowned French anarcho-capitalist" (my bias, huh?)). The record is clear and unambiguous. My reverts since then have all been restoration from this unjustified and overkill reversion.

You neglect to mention that your reverts before then undid a great number of minor edits on my part that you often did not even comment on, and even more often had absolutely no justification for reverting (someone made this claim, and I trust them more than you, so revert)

It is the two of you who have been acting in bad faith, not me.

Should I point out the exact instances in which you changed non-neutral terms like "often" into "sometimes" and then reverted my own changes of "often" into "sometimes?"

Your judgement of "atrocious" or claim that my restoration "deserves revert" mean nothing to me, certainly in light of these facts.

Your claims of "majority" are dubious. On your side is you and Aaron (no evidence of multiple people),

There are multiple IPs from a broad range of addresses, that is evidence. What you are apparently mistaking is a presence of evidence for a lack of, especially since you accuse these people of all being the same person when there is NO evidence of this other than your speculation.

who is acting inappropriately. On mine is primarily me, but in the past Duns0014 (as well as an unknown anon lending support). This is not a clear majority for you, and certainly not anything like an overwhelming consensus.

No one claimed a consensus

Re: terminology. Traditional is a POV term. On this page the claim is made that "Most anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, claim that their own anti-statist tradition is at least as old";

No one is disputing that. As I have said from the begining, anarchism is more than anti-statism and has been since the word was first used as a self-descriptive (in fact, it was more than that even when it was previously used as a vindictive). Yes, capitalists have a very old anti-state tradition, but that is not the same thing as an anarchist tradition.

on Historical origins of anarchism the past history of anarchism is portrayed as cloudy and not sharply definable.

Its pretty darn easy to know who the first person to called himself an anarchist was, Proudhon. If you have any evidence against that, offer it, you would be the first in more than a 150 years. It is also pretty easy to learn that all the people who followed in Proudhon's tradition to even a small degree were expressly anti-capitalist, including but not limited to Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tucker, Spooner, de Cleyre, Malatesta and Stirner. In other words, all of the people who refered to themselves as anarchists before Murray Rothbard were expressly anti-capitalist.

Of course you will not agree, but perhaps you should read the NPOV dispute policy: "It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." By contrast, my phrasing arguably traditional is not only NPOV, but it is fairly generous to your position. If our roles were reversed, you would probably want "is sometimes claimed by its proponents to be more traditional".

This flies in the face of your attempt to revert any qualifiers brought into the text. I would have happily settled for lib soc if you had not spent two weeks reverted very minor changes like "anarcho-capitalists believe themselves to be a part of the individualist anarchist tradition." "Anarcho-socialist" is completely biased, there are no anarchists who would accept that title as it is redundant and has false implications that there is any form of anarchism other than anti-capitalist varieties. I understand Aarons worry that lib soc when contrasted with "anarcho-capitalist" has the wrong connotations, so I supported his changes. Further we are allowing the term "anarcho-capitalist" to be used throughout this page without even quotes or a warning at the very top because we are accepting the possiblity that anti-state capitalist claims to the title are valid, right? Then we should use a term for anarchists that accepts that their claims may also be valid, to use "anarcho-socialist" assumes the capitalist position. Thus, if we use the term anarcho-capitalist to refer to anti-state capitalists, we should use a term that anarchists would use to describe themselvse that does not make them sound even more foreign to anarchism than capitalists when used in comparison. So I see nothing unfair about using "traditional anarchist" in assuming the anarchist position, we can even indicate expressly that it is used because of the objections on their part, not because they are universally accepted to be the only ones following in anarchist tradition.

What is wrong with anarcho-socialism, anyway? You at one time favored libertarian socialism, but this was condemned by Aaron as "not specific enough" (search the text above if you want, yawn). Anarcho-socialism is a clear strengthening of lib-soc, and seems like an excellent choice. Plus, I have added very strong language to the intro saying that most anarchists (again, roles reversed, you'd say some) reject capitalism and do not feel qualification of anarchism is necessary, and now even added language that some terms are used primarily by opponents. What could be clearer or more fair? The term functions as a valuable placeholder to avoid confusion and conflict on this touchy and controversial issue.

Re: massive qualifiers.

What massive qualifiers? Below the only example you give is a blatant exaggeration of anything I have written. Yes, if you attribute to me edits that I never made, then you can justifiably call them massive qualifiers. Back in reality, these "massive qualifiers" have actually been the bare minimum required to maintain the neutral policy you so desperately pretend to care about above.

There is no need to proliferate qualifications. "Ancaps consider as legitimate contracts which are voluntary" does not need to be "Ancaps consider as what they see as legitimate what they regard as contracts which are what they believe to be voluntary". In cases where the phrase is in the context of what ancaps believe, consider, or are convinced of, piling on qualifiers is unneeded and serves to denigrate the position.

Agreed, but quite often there is no indication given that this is something restricted to what anarcho-capitalists believe.

Yes, your past history, new or not, is relevant.

I never claimed otherwise. My only claim is that your own behavior on this page is also relevant, and that you have acted in bad faith for some time.

I am much more distrustful of your edits after your early near-vandalism, such as presenting a laughable socialist interpretation of the American Revolution as though it were fact,

At that time a laughable capitalist interpretation of the american revolution was presented as though it were fact, but I didn't see you jumping up to correct it

and furthermore in the context of connecting it to the ancap belief system, and then calling these absurdities neutral. The page may have been biased when you found it, but you were not improving it, and me meeting you halfway is not a matter of keeping bias but of seeking true neutrality.

Your repeated attribution to me of a double standard is just silly.

Then call me to post the evidence. I would be happy to, because it is as blatant as it can be. - Kev 12/06/03

I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but I want it portrayed fairly, and have now been dragged into defending its page. My standard for this page is the same as others, why should it not be? No, wait, that just invites more of your theories. I'll work on the page yet more now. -- VV 21:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Re: terminology. Traditional anarchism is not acceptable.

Then why is "anarcho-capitalism?" Because you say so? Because they believe it is? Neither of those explainations will suffice for anarchists, but you seem to think they work just fine for capitalists. But I'm happy to let them call themselves what they want, if you will allow anarchists to be described as they so desire. What do you find this inappropriate, other than because you assume your take on anarcho-capitalism is the correct one?

It is POV, and there are clearly better terms that avoid that problem. This same issue came up at the libertarian socialism article, and various ideas were bandied about. Would you prefer anarcho-communism, anarchist communism, whatever?

That would not account for individualists or egoists

Anarcho-socialism still seems very fair to me, as it is very clear and cannot be confused.

It already is confused, it asserts a redundancy and gives the mistaken impression that socialism can somehow be removed from anarchism. This usage would even further confuse matters, as all of the original anarchists were socialist insofar as they were anti-capitalists, but many modern day individualists like to distinguish themselves from using the term socialism interchagably with anti-capitalism because of some of its other connotations. Again, by describing these people other than how they would describe themselves you are opening a can of worms you really aren't informed enough to close. But heck, if you insist on refering to anarchists as libertarian socialists, then why not just refer to "anarcho-capitalists" as anti-state capitalists or neo-classical liberals? After all, in the one case you find it perfectly acceptable to misrepresent an ideology, in the other you think it is a horrible violation of NPOV that borders on vandalism.

Maybe you think lib-soc is better.

I agree with Aaron that it is too divorced from the actual term. We are anarchists, that is how we identify, to change it would be akin to renaming this article anti-state capitalism. But if you are willing to make the changes on both sides to remain neutral, please be my guest.

Your standard of self-description doesn't work. If a group of Freemasons started calling themselves anarcho-capitalists, we'd have a problem with that term, too, but that hasn't happened.

I see, so because YOU PERSONALLY believe the arguments made by the caps then their standard works and you will enforce it. No arguments to the contrary matter to you, since you don't believe them it is clearly neutral to ignore them. Is that it VV? Caps enforce governing instutitions, they could not possibly be anarchists by any stretch of the word. Yet you are happy to uphold their usage while claiming that there are other groups who clearly would not qualify as anarchists.

In any case, the dictionary definition of anarchism is still a fine starting point.

It is? Good, take that definition. Notice how 2 thirds of it explicitly denotes more than mere anti-statism. For this to work as a self-descriptive of caps you would have to first deny both the other definitions offered right there in the dictionary YOU linked to. Then, you would have squint your eyes a bunch and pretend that a judicial system, a police force, a prison system, and a military defense force are not all forms of governance in order to play a game in which "ancaps," many of whom support all of those things, could by some stretch of the imagination be said to reject all forms of government. Tell me, if it isn't refering to all possible forms of governance, then why the heck does it say explicitly "all forms?" Caps aren't against government, they are merely against one kind of government, the one that intrudes upon the hierarchical structures of power that they endorse.

The term anarchy predates Proudhon, and so he does not own it (and does, say, Huxley even own agnosticism?).

I never made such a claim to ownership, so that is a straw-man. I am merely trying to get some historical context here. Before Proudhon the term was used solely as a vindictive to refer to left French revolutionaries. Obviously you wouldn't like that definition either, as it would also rule out capitalists, so it is funny that you would argue that the meaning of the word predates Proudhon. But regardless, to say that capitalists follow in the tradition of anarhcism would imply that they do follow Proudhon in some way because he set the tradition (unless you would like to explain who else used the term to refer to an actual movement). But since Proudhon was explicitly anti-capitalist, that would be a hard claim to stand by.

Furthermore, predecessors could be anarchists even if they didn't use the term, just as dinosaurs were dinosaurs before that term was invented.

Sure, and if you would like to point out any tradition that can before anarchism which rejected both the state and all other forms rulership like capitalism, you could easily argue that they are now interpreted as anarchists.

Examples of unneeded qualifiers: Anarcho-capitalists believe that private businesses, born out of (what they believe to be) voluntary... (believe -> hold doesn't change much);

Then feel free to rewrite it in such a way that makes clear their conception of voluntary is disputed. Or just say so explicitly when the term is first used in the article, then you can drop any qualifiers throughout the rest.

This view regards (state) government.... (Do I really need to list them?)

Yes. They do in fact support governing institutions, thus government. It is the state that they reject, or forms of governance open to public representation. You have yet to argue against this, you have simply claimed that "people know" what government is. Well if "people know" then please go up to someone and ask them if a judicial system enforced by police is not a form of government.

Why not just let ancaps state what they believe?

This entire essay stands as a statement of ancap belief, that is exactly what I want, for it to stand as a statement of ancap BELIEF.

Your rewrite in the beginning is now way off. You say these contracts are legitimate, in order that the voluntary part may be qualified alone.

Then feel free to rewrite it in such a fashion that makes clear that the claim to voluntary contracts in particular is controversial

A better way of addressing this concern of yours would be to let ancaps have their say, and in whatever criticism section below explain how someone with another view might disagree with their take on voluntary.

Then why not just put an advisory at the begining of the article that states it is not neutral, and does not even attempt to be neutral? Then you can say whatever the heck you want in the context of the page.

That is a way of presenting both views fairly.

No, it is a way of giving precedent to the cap views and pushing the dissenting views to a footnote. I'm not even asking that the dissenting views be represented in this page, just that they not be ruled out by the language. As if that is a huge burden.

Perhaps you could even write an article on criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, since you seem to have an interest, similar to Criticisms of Mother Teresa.

I can't think of a single response you have ever given to me that did not include this kind of antagonistic jab, yet you want me to take your revert war "in good faith."

(The initial blurb about the American Revolution was hardly capitalist, and was in fact rather sparse and quite reasonable, certainly compared with yours.

Maybe you didn't notice that I dropped this objection weeks ago? Give me a break VV, if all you can find to harp on is stuff we have long since moved past, then please find yourself a new hobby.

Nor anyway would any problems justify turning it to something else unreasonable. As for not jumping to fix it, I didn't notice it until you quasi-vandalized it.)

Of course, my edits are vandalism, yours are "maintaining neutrality." Why don't you drop the superior attitude, your revert-at-a-whim policy does not match your claims to superiority.

Finally, impose their system is much stronger than impose their views, so your (unpersuasive) arguments against the latter do not even seem to touch the former.

Please be more clear, I'm unsure of which passage you are refering to. -Kev 12/06/03

-- VV 07:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some of your responses are puzzling to the point where I don't know if you've understood me. If different groups consider themselves anarchists, we shouldn't judge one to be the "true" group (especially since one would include the other, but not vice versa). However, there are not two groups claiming to be anarcho-capitalists, so this problem does not arise. I don't see what what I PERSONALLY believe matters one iota to this argument.

It matters because it seems to be a viewpoint you are simply unable to see past. I agree totally that capitalists should be able to claim that they are anarchists in the context of their page, fine and dandy, so your constant referances back to that are irrelevant. However, there are two groups here that claim to be anarchists, one of those groups is being refered to by their own chosen title (i.e. that of anarcho-capitalist), while the other is being hurded into a series of at worst blatantly misrepresentative terms and at best misleading ones. Libertarian socialist is fine in the context of anarchist dialogue, it doesn't work as a comparison to capitalists who are being refered to as "anarcho-capitalists" when arguably they shouldn't be refered to as anarchists at all.

Remember, it is your POV that anarcho-socialism is redundant.

Yes, I do remember that. If I didn't remember that, this page would not exist. Course, it is not only my POV, it is also the POV of every one of the original anarchists, be they collectivist or individualist. It is also the view of the vast majority of anarchists today. It is also the view that is consistent with the root meaning of the word, literally "against rulers." But all of that is irrelevant to you, you've decided that their claims are valid and thus it doesn't even matter if we are going to refer to anarchists by titles they would never accept, so long as we keep the capitalists looking swell.

The cited dictionary definition at any rate includes the broad definition as primary,

You mean the definition I have repeatedly shown must rule out capitalism from the get go? Oh right, you ignored that argument this time like you did the last three times.

and really it's not 1/3 because one does not refer to an ideology but to a behavior meaning.

Oh, forgive me if the definition YOU imported only directly demonstrates that capitalism incompatible anarchism on the first and second account, merely indirectly implying it on the third.

Your claim that yours is the only one does not seem to hold up in this context.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I claimed a particular definition of anarchism? Where? All I have stated is that anarchism has always meant more than mere anti-statism. Are you denying this? Are you now claiming that at some point in history anarchism meant only anti-statism and nothing more? I would love to see the evidence.

The historical assertions are made in the articles I cited above; whether right or wrong is POV.

You aren't going to even try to argue this, just make some incredibly vague referance to the fact that someone in wikipedia argued that anarchist history is shrouded in mystery? If you want to present facts, go ahead and do so. Name a single person before Proudhon who used the term as a self-descriptive, or a single person who used it before him as a vindicitve to mean merely anti-statism, or even a single person before Rothbard who used it to mean merely anti-statism. If you can't do any of those things, then I see no mystery in the following claims: before Proudhon the term was used as an insult to refer to leftist French revolutionaries, after Proudhon it was embraced by all the original anarchists to mean far more than anti-statism, Rothbard rejected this tradition and asserted out a new meaning for the word that allowed for capitalism, thus making anarcho-capitalism identical to the anti-state capitalism that came before Rothbard. Do you even deny any of those claims?

They believe voluntary contracts are legitimate seems fine to me, it refers to what they believe.

Sure, except that anarchists believe voluntary contracts are legitimate as well, so what is the difference? The difference is in the term voluntary, which needs to be defined in the page.

Criticisms of voluntary can come later; this is not a matter of prime placement vs. footnoting, it's a matter of explaining their beliefs vs. noting the criticisms of them, a logical progression.

This isn't criticism of the word, it is explaination of it. I merely ask that we inform readers of wikipedia as to what is meant by the word in this context.

For now I'm leaving negotiated although it somewhat misses the point. I don't know what's antagonistic about proposing detaching a criticisms section.

Because neutralizing the claim that what they propose is voluntary when many would believe it to be blatant coercion is not a criticism, it is merely allowing the text to remain neutral to the issue

Your reference to the old American Revolution text as laughable and capitalist was not months ago but yesterday.

Can you tell the difference between the discussion page and the actual article? No? Further, I didn't say it was months ago, I said it was weeks ago. And the last time I edited it on the page was indeed weeks ago, so you are beating a dead horse. To death apparently, you must really care about this issue to harp on it so long after it has been put to rest. Or maybe you are just running out of things to harp on.

As for reverting-as-a-whim, again it was you and Aaron's reverts that were excessive;

According to.... Gee I wonder. Are you still positing yourself as the end all judge of wikipedia VV?

you even undid the fix of the Esperanto redirect!

And you undid several grammatical fixes, even changes that you later admitted you had no basis of knowledge for reverting! Makes me wonder what your point is.

The relevant passage is There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others. Imposing their system does not mean beating up someone raping their mother, even though most do believe in the legitimacy of that too.

I never claimed such a thing, this is another straw-man, which you resort to because you can't actually address my claims as they stand. Killing someone for non-violent "trespassing," an act that is legitimate under several anarcho-capitalist models, is not by most stretches of the imagination the same thing as "beating someone up for raping their mother." What it is by many conceptions is a form of violent coercion used to enforce a particular system of economics. This isn't even a controversial claim, most caps would agree that they are imposing their views upon someone who is violating them. That is what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it. Nothing to shy away from, unless propaganda is all you are looking to include in wikipeda. - Kev 12/06/03

Anyway, I've prepared yet a new proposal, restoring lib-soc on the grounds that objections to it seem less vehement that those to an-soc, and referring explicitly to the multiple possible senses of anarchism. -- VV 21:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)


The discussion at the beginning states clearly that the terminology is itself controversial, and the adoption of the (self-descriptively used) lib-soc serves as a placeholder to avoid this.

Then it might as well be any term, especially one chosen by anarchists themselves.
VV The problem is when the term is also chosen by others.

The meaning of "abolition of government" may mean something different to you than to others, but it's not an unreasonable claim that someone who wants to abolish gov't is an anarchist in this definition.

No, it isn't an unreasonable claim. That is why the claim stands on this page and should stand on this page AS A CLAIM!
VV That would be if it weren't reasonable. In this case it is certainly an anarchist view in this sense of anarchism.

I see nothing anti-capitalist there, you are reading the definition to your pleasure.

I see, so the ability to exclusively use, dispose of, and enjoy a particular thing, upheld through violence or threat of violence (property as per dictionary and Rothbard) is not having dominion over it? Capitalism is defined as rulership at its most basic level, the fact that you don't see anything anti-capitalist in an ideology that rejects rulership just means that you are blind.
VV This is just silly. First of all, all systems other than perhaps "pacifist" ones (generally non-anarchist ones), including the socialist ones, permit use of violence to uphold claims; it's just a matter of which claims. Second, my rights to my own lungs (for instance) would be recognized by nearly any system, but that does not make me a "state" nor a "ruler". Certainly any assertion of this is manifestly POV, since most would not think right to an object is governmenthood (indeed most would find this crazy).

Ancaps do not want corporate police, they want private security sometimes hired, and then via competition, not the same.

Many ancaps do want corporate police. They want corporations, they want corporations which handle security, they want corporations with their own defense forces, thus, they want corporate police. The fact that you don't like this doesn't change it.
VV Many is not all. And anyway you're twisting it around; I've read enough to know that in many cases their version of "police" — often not so called — is quite different from what exists now in states.

You may not think this will be the outcome, but that is your POV.

It is the EXPRESS position of many capitalists that corporate police will be the outcome of anarcho-capitalism. This might be POV, but it is a POV that belongs on this page, because it happens to be a common cap POV.

It is not a strawman.

The claim about raping ones mother was, you are suddenly changing the example mid-argument to claim that it isn't a straw-man
VV I did no such thing.

If defending one's car is imposing one's system, because one would also have that right in an ancap order, then so is any other act which you believe would be right in that order.

Sure, I didn't deny that. It makes perfect sense, the fact that the two systems overlap is coincidental. To deny this is to deny the entire ancap position that their system can be created through individuals acting according to anti-capitalist standards within a state domain. If they were not imposing their system when they acting according to their values, then there system would never replace the state. If you want to challenge their position, go *+9

ahead, many would agree with you that such a policy would never actually threaten a state.

VV It seems you make my point. That is precisely why defending their car or beating up the rapist is not an attempt to impose their system.

Why wouldn't it be? A purely pacifist order might not let you beat up anyone without being a criminal. No, to impose one's system (not even views!) one has to do something not allowed in the existing system.

According to VV and his great standard of what is and what is not? No argument needed, not even rhetorical support? Sorry, that standard doesn't work for me anymore.
VV I just did argue. That was the conclusion. And as for your "argument" to the contrary, well, that doesn't obviously work for me.

And no impose is not nec the same as violence. That is your POV too.

I never said that the two were the same. I merely stated that sometimes impositions can be violent, and they in fact can.
VV You said, "That is what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it." In fact, what violence is is not well-defined, either.

I did not confused the disc page with the real page, I was referring to disc page. Your pointless sarcasm is ridiculous here.

I'll note your further antagonistic jabs as evidence of your good faith
VV Refuting your false and sarcastic accusation of confusion?

Re: voluntary; it seems it only has meaning relative to a system of rights in any case. (Is it involuntary if I need your heart to live?) That is a side issue, ancaps believe corporations on voluntary contracts to be fine, while others may not, the voluntariness not being at issue but the large-scale organization.

Um, so the fact that their conception of voluntary has been a major criticism of anarcho-capitalism since Rothbard is not an issue because? Wait, I know, because VV says so.
VV A curious view to attribute to me.

If others believe in voluntary contracts too that is good for them they share this view.

If I undid fixes, it was in the context of undoing massive damage, and fixed them later.

Great, then we can both claim the high-ground, I've been fixing massive damage done to this article by a certain VV for some time. - Kev 12/07/03

Your side

My side? Are we taking sides now?
VV You referred to a majority, that implies two sides.

did not even respond till recently to my notes that your reverts were overkill.

That is almost funny. I invited you to discuss this here when you first began your revert spree against my edits. Later, when you ceased to discuss things for a bit while still reverting I implored you to discuss things here. Each and every time I responded point by point to everthing you had said, when I forgot something and you pointed it out I carefully went back and included it in my future responses. I even put all my edits on hold, while you continued to revert and revert and revert, just to give you time to discuss things here and clear your head a bit. The fact that I didn't respond to every single point you brought up with Aaron is kinda understandable, given that you often wait weeks before responding to the majority of my points, after I plead with you time and again to please give them consideration. You really are running out of things to complain about VV - Kev 12/07/03
VV No you just reverted en masse to join Aaron, by your own admission.

-- VV 22:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

VV 00:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The term chosen by anarchists is obviously "anarchist." The fact that we use other terms in other contexts does not indicate that when compared with capitalists we should be called "libertarian socialists." Again, this is a double standard on your part. Many capitalists go by the term "libertarian capitalist," yet you insist that they be refered to as part of anarchism in the text while believing that lib soc is a good compromise for the rest of anarchism.

The fact that a position is reasonable does not make it correct VV. The cap position is reasonable, but anarchists the world over who are also quite reasonable see it to be false. As such, YOU are still not the final artbiter of what needs to be qualified and what does not, so you will not be unilaterally declaring that basic qualifiers are unncessary in this case just because you happen to have a particular agenda.

This is just silly. First of all, all systems other than perhaps "pacifist" ones (generally non-anarchist ones), including the socialist ones, permit use of violence to uphold claims; it's just a matter of which claims.

This is plainly false, and again speaks of your ignorance of the issue. A number of anarchists systems neither "permit" nor "deny" the use of violence, precisely because anarchism is not in the business of "permiting" or "denying" human behavior, but rather responding to it. More importantly, the quality of the claims is drastically different. When one authoritatively dictates the use of a given thing to an involuntary party it is far more of an imposition than if one does everything in ones power to come to a consensus or compromise beforce agents (who are not legitimated by the system itself) give up and take matters into their own hands.

Second, my rights to my own lungs (for instance) would be recognized by nearly any system, but that does not make me a "state" nor a "ruler".

This follows from a self-ownership ethic that is denied by many anarchists. Regardless there is a very real difference between the self and those things created by the self, but here you attempt to defend your position by conflating the two.

Certainly any assertion of this is manifestly POV, since most would not think right to an object is governmenthood (indeed most would find this crazy).

I didn't claim that rights were government. I claimed that police, prisons, and judges are all manifestations of government. Though I reject rights, one can in fact believe in rights without resorting to governmental institutions to enforce them. But "anarcho-capitalists" do legitimate the resort to these governmental institutions, thus they aren't anarchists at all.

Many is not all.

You are grabbing at straws. My edits did not indicate that all of them desired corporate police, but if you objected to them you should have inserted a qualifier. As it stands from your reverts one would think that none of them endorsed corporate enforcement, when in fact even those who don't explicitly support it still legitimate it.

And anyway you're twisting it around; I've read enough to know that in many cases their version of "police" — often not so called — is quite different from what exists now in states.

I see, so we can call them private defense agencies and suddenly they are something different? You tell me how these police are not a governing institution, and I will drop that objection.

It is not a strawman.

The claim about raping ones mother was, you are suddenly changing the example mid-argument to claim that it isn't a straw-man
VV I did no such thing.

The text indicates otherwise. First you brought up an example of a mother being raped. I called it a straw-man, because none of my arguments had included examples of physical violence. Then you suddenly changed it to an example of a car instead of a person and insisted that obviously it wasn't a straw-man. You are working against yourself VV.


Sure, I didn't deny that. It makes perfect sense, the fact that the two systems overlap is coincidental. To deny this is to deny the entire ancap position that their system can be created through individuals acting according to anti-capitalist standards within a state domain. If they were not imposing their system when they acting according to their values, then there system would never replace the state. If you want to challenge their position, go *+9 ahead, many would agree with you that such a policy would never actually threaten a state.

VV It seems you make my point. That is precisely why defending their car or beating up the rapist is not an attempt to impose their system.

You are confused. I just gave an example of why many people would see it as an attempt to impose their system. I gave not a single reason to think that it wouldn't be, I only indicated that many would agree that it wouldn't be. You then respond, "ah! There you have it, that is precisely why it wouldn't be!" But what is? I gave no reason at all. You really need to take a step back and think about this some more VV. Maybe your edit and revert spree throughout wikipedia and your revert wars with several other users should be dropped for awhile so that you can concentrate on a subject you understand better.

 : I never said that the two were the same. I merely stated that sometimes impositions can be violent, and they in fact can.

VV You said, "That is what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it." In fact, what violence is is not well-defined, either.

Again you are confused. When you uphold a claim with violence, yes, you are imposing it. Thus this instance of imposition belongs in the violence category. That does not make the two identical, nor do any of my statements indicate that they are.

No you just reverted en masse to join Aaron, by your own admission.

Actually, when I started reverting en masse (around 5 reverts, a scant number compared with your what, 2 dozen?) it was to join you, not Aaron, as you had been reverting everything well before Aaron even arrived. - Kev 12/07/03