Talk:Free-market anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Libertarianism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Free-market anarchism is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Google not valid, change back to market anarchism[edit]


Search term
(+ "free market anarchism only" + both) + "market anarchism only" 20,200 "market anarchism"
(+ "free market anarchism only" + both) -

"market anarchism only"

11,200 "free market anarchism"
- "free market anarchism only" - both + "market

anarchism only"

2,170 "market anarchism" -"free market anarchism"

Then solve the equation:
A + B + C = 20,200
A + B - C = 11,200
-A - B + C = 2,170

Answers: {}

both is embedded in fm and m.
We have to first solve fm and m without both.
m without both is C.
Notice B and C are reciprocals.
But A is not equal to B + C.


<tbody> </tbody>

+ "free market anarchism only" - both + "market anarchism only"

+ "free market anarchism only" - both - "market anarchism only" 9,000 A - B
- "free market anarchism only" + both + "market anarchism only"

- "free market anarchism only" + both - "market anarchism only"

- "free market anarchism only" - both - "market

anarchism only"


I agree, and furthermore the fact that one phrase has more hits than another phrase does not mean that it is a more popular phrase for the same concept. I am moving it back as there was no consensus in favour of the move. Skomorokh 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The above analysis is erroneous. In addition "free-market anarchism" is more encyclopedic than "market anarchism," without a doubt. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
How is it more encyclopedic? What had effectively been done is an article on one concept (market anarchism) had been moved to a title (free market anarchism) with distinct connotations (anarcho-capitalism), and then purged of any content not congruent with those connotations (Proudhon/mutualism/Geoism/agorism etc.). Skomorokh 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's more encyclopedic in that it's rare that it's referred to as "market anarchism" in reference works and books. It's nearly always "free-market anarchism." BTW, Never have I see Proudhon or goergists or mutualists referred to as market anarchists. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you so sure that "it" is the same thing? There is the very clear and unambiguous anarcho-capitalism, which is pretty much the privatization of the state. This is distinct from the market-friendly anarchism of the LTV-espousing self-described socialists like Tucker and the anti-employment individualists like Spooner, the "land is an exception to property rights" Georgists, and the pro-market anti-capitalist mutualists such as Proudhon and Carson. You might say that what unites these is individualist anarchism, but that while arguably correct, would be to miss the point, which is that it is their favourable stance towards markets but against free-market capitalism. Examining the history of this article, it looks like any dissenting views from capitalism have been slashed or removed in an attempt to merge this to anarcho-capitalism, thereby cleansing Wikipedia of any article on market-friendly anarchism other than anarcho-capitalism. Skomorokh 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but "market-friendly anarchism," your term, is not the same thing as "market anarchism." Bakunin's Collectivist anarchism is market friendly too. In that, the means of production are owned in common, people people are paid and buy things in markets. But I doubt you're going to be able to find a source calling it market anarchism, though you might. We ought not try to, ourselves, classify what falls under "market anarchism" or "free-market anarchism." We need to leave it to reliable published sources. I'm not sure where the term "free-market anarchism" or "market anarchism" originated, but it appears to have first been applied to Friedman or Rothbard. It appears that some people are starting to call Tucker a market anarchist, in retrospect, but so far only one source has been found and it was just in an editor's note I believe. None have been found for Proudhon or for "mutualists" or Georgists. The definitions found for market anarchism requires a market in security, i.e. competing providers of security. Besides there not being any sources found yet, I haven't seen Proudhon or Georgists call for that. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That mathematical analysis stuff above appears to be wrong. Both in Google and Google Books, "free market anarchism" is more common than "market anarchism." Google Books is probably more reliable for parsing reliable sources, btw. (You just search "market anarchism" -"free market anarchism" versus "free market anarchism.") Jadabocho (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Free market anarchism mutualist?[edit]

The leading section referred market anarchism as a form of individualist anarchism. Another section claimed mutualism as a form of market anarchism. However, Wikipedia has no source referring mutualism as a kind of individualist anarchism. While this may hold for some American individualist anarchists influenced by Proudhon, such as Benjamin R. Tucker, it does not hold for Proudhon himself. I think we need to change "mutualists" to "some mutualists." (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the criticisms section of the Mutualism (economic theory) entry contains Bakunin's rather snarky bit about "the Proudhonian mutualists who conceive society as the result of the free contract of individuals absolutely independent of one another and entering into mutual relations only because of the convention drawn up among men." It is probably the case that the "individualist" distinction should be struck from the lead paragraph, but Proudhon is featured prominently on the Individualist anarchism page. Libertatia (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing OR section[edit]

Ever since I have reverted the mutualist and the geolibertarian links, User:Libertatia has reverted the mutualist link back. However, Libertatia re-added the "geolibertarian" link on the see also section. Libertatia's re-addition of "geolibertarianism" also violates the WP:NPOV policies. No sources state "geolibertarianism" as a form of market anarchism, thus suggesting Libertaria's contribution as WP:OR. Even the geolibertarianism article itself has original research as lacks sources. To resolve Libertia's POV-pushing, I will remove the "geolibertarianism" link that he added. (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to archive[edit]

First, the merge discussion (which I myself accidentally go into) - as well as the redirect one - are very old. So is everything else but the last topic. So we need to archive the talk so people can focus on current issues. Hearing no rational dissent, will so so soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How's this? —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Will wait for it to kick in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Now we need an archive directory box. I was uncertain about the syntax to set that up. —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The configs did split per month that did cause 1-2 threads per archive. I reverted it and re-implemented the auto-archiving with more usual parameters. --Kslotte (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I decided to do everything manually, it is overkill to have auto-archiving when this talk page isn't active. No thread expect this one exist during this year. --Kslotte (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to anarcho-capitalism[edit]

This article is basically a smaller version of the article "anarchocapitalism". I don´t even see something that could be taken from here that is not already being said there. It even says "The term describes the type of anarchy proposed by anarcho-capitalism and the philosophies that prefigurated it.[1]" so as to make it really pointless for it to be a different article. On the introduction of the article "anarchocapitalism", it should simply say that "free market anarchism" is another way of saying "anarchocapitalism" --Eduen (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First, this idea already discussed and opposed here. I oppose merge or redirect. Some of material here preceeds the more recent creation of anarcho-capitalism. Also, you have to put the tag on top of the anarcho-capitalism article. Also contact the originator to see their reasons for creating the article. I don't see harm in two separate articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The "material" here is the same as the article "anarchocapitalism". It doesn´t matter which article was written first, the theorists, influences and "originators" of both "anarchocapitalism" and "free market anarchism" are the same ones as anyone can check in both articles, Rothbard, De molinari, USA "Boston anarchists". The content of both positions also are the same as has been said before and can be checked by anyone so no one can say that "both ideologies are just similar but came from different sources". If you can point out a single thing that is different here from "anarchocapitalism" maybe we could start a discussion but I really don´t see anything different except the title. As anyone can go and check WP:MERGE this article is a clear case in which there exists "unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic". What I propose is redirection to the bigger, more detailed article.--Eduen (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you still haven't put a merge template on the other article, or a note about a redirect, I did. Plus asked -- why not merge anarcho-capitalism into free market? Free market is the broader category, isn't it? Capitalism can be statist or capitalist, but a free market is a free market. And do you intend to make sure that no good information and sources used here are lost? I'm not going to go through every ref and see if it uses phrase "free market anarchism" but assume you will in your merging efforts and the final article will clearly delineate which sources call which thinkers either or both phrases and not just create and article about anarcho-capitalism, which would be offensive to those academics and activists who use the phrase free market anarchism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if we must choose one title or the other this one is preferable. —Tamfang (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Happily, we do NOT have to choose one or the other and should just leave the two articles as they are to get the different flavors of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This might be something similar to "libertarian communism" and "anarcho-communism". 2 different ways for saying the same thing and in all wikipedias both are one article and if one writes "libertarian communism" one gets the anarcho-communism article. As i check the "anarcho-capitalism" article, it even begins this way: "also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”. So as there are not separate "libertarian communism" and "anarcho-communism" articles, there shouldn´t be separate "free market anarchism" and "anarchocapitalism" articles. They are not "different flavours" really.--Eduen (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So far we have three opinions: 1) redirect; 2) make anarcho-capitalism subset of this; 3) keep both OR make anarcho-capitalism subset of this. Not a consensus. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The "free market anarchism" entry quite clearly covers more than just "anarcho-capitalism." The waters are muddied by the fact that there is discussion of American individualist anarchism on the "anarcho-capitalism" page, but only as an influence on the development of anarcho-capitalism. The distinction between market-friendly anarchism and market-unfriendly anarchism is significant enough to warrant this article, just as the differences between "anarcho-capitalism" and other market-friendly forms of anarchism are significant enough to warrant separate articles. There is no particularly reason for this article to do much more than list the various varieties of market-friendly anarchism, and there is certainly no reason for the "anarcho-capitalism" article to contain a separate discussion of Tucker and Spooner, or any of the sources prior to the explicitly "anarcho-capitalist" school. Bring the individual articles up to standards and the problem goes away. Libertatia (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Go for it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Tucker and Spooner are well dealt with in both the individualist anarchism and individualist anarchism in the United States articles. The fact is that the "anarchocapitalism" article itself states that it is also known as "free market anarchism" and "market anarchism".

"The distinction between market-friendly anarchism and market-unfriendly anarchism is significant enough to warrant this article, just as the differences between "anarcho-capitalism" and other market-friendly forms of anarchism are significant enough to warrant separate articles."

Well, there is the article called "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" which deals with that discussion and it is rather long and detailed. That article focuses on the exact issue of "The distinction between market-friendly anarchism and market-unfriendly anarchism".

And "the differences between "anarcho-capitalism" and other market-friendly forms of anarchism" are pointed out in the individualist anarchism article where it belongs well as I find this sentence: "19th century individualist anarchists espoused the labor theory of value. Some believe that the modern movement of anarcho-capitalism is the result of simply removing the labor theory of value from ideas of the 19th century American individualist anarchists". In the "anarchocapitalism" article there is a long section called "Nineteenth century individualist anarchism in the United States" on that same issue.

And so the existence of that section on the article "anarcho-capitalism" mainly covers this differentiation you think is needed. To my taste that section is overtly long and at times it goes off topic but nevertheless covers this well.--Eduen (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

After two weeks there is no consensus to this second or third attempt to do this, so I think we should remove the tag. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User Tamfang before has suggested "if we must choose one title or the other this one is preferable". So lets do that as it happens that anyway "anarchocapitalism" and "free market anarchism" appear to be synomymous so it really doesn´t matter in the end. What cannot stay is one article that begins this way "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism)" and another article which is called "free market anarchism" (!) . On top the article "anarchocapitalism" when it begins saying it is the same thing as "free market anarchism" provides a direct link to "free market anarchism". This is obviously just absurd.--Eduen (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people would find it more absurd to eliminate the anarcho-capitalism article without discussion on that page. So you'd have to bring it up there. Perhaps a change in the description to make it clear that some see them as synonymous and some see them as different would solve your problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

well, I am not an expert on "anarchocapitalism" but the reference at the beginning supports "anarchocapitalism" and "free market anarchism" being the same thing and both articles have the same content, the same protagonists but of course "anarchocapitalism" is more detailed. I don´t know who will see them as different and so references for that will be needed but as it stands now they are synomymous just like "libertarian communism" and "anarchocomunism". And so I don´t know if it was you but i checked on the article "anarchocapitalism" and someone tried to put up a banner about the merge and they took it out and seems without much explanation.--Eduen (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mutualism is free-market anarchism, but isn't anarcho-capitalism.--Msnake (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the merger: Anarcho-capitalists want a free market for everything, while free-market anarchists want a free market for the use of force (police, military, courts). You could be a free market anarchist and also have an egalitarian view on natural resources. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 August 2011

As a market anarchist I absolutely oppose the merger if this article is put under anarcho capitalism, not vice versa. I think anarcho capitalists actually want a free market, do strive for stateless society, bot often border on Voluntaryism (voluntary government or social contracts) whereas market anarchists tend away from social contracts and voluntary government beyond the individual. I also think anarcho capitalism is essentially a misnamed type of socialism, as Brad Spangler has pointed out, and is simply a school of thought with an identity crisis due to the redefinition of words in the last century like "markets" and "socialism". In this way, anarcho capitalism is a form of anarchism, but is distinct from market anarchism generally (the larger category is market anarchism, and anarcho capitalists fall under it as a niche). That being said, it's not necessary to be against property in land or in favor of cooperative worker situations to be a market anarchist as opposed to an anarcho capitalist. The differnce is what one would choose to associate with. For example, both would favor panarchist synthesis in organization and economics...but the AnCaps would prefer to associate with capital per se, whereas market anarchists may choose to associate with other forms of exchange (gift economics for instance). Whether or not market anarchists are "propertarians" is irrelelvant. It's also irrelevant whether they choose to partake in cooperatives. They may, or may not; both types exist. The same isn't true for the subset niche AnCaps, who are decidedly for property and decidedly against cooperatives. If a merge is done, it would have to be putting AnCaps under this article as a subset, not the other way around, and definately not eliminating market anarchism altogether. In the end, it's my opinion as a non-AnCap, but a full fledged market anarchist, that both are actually a form of market socialism. AnCaps are just very clumsily named. They should really do away with the name and call themselves something more accurate. I mean, how many capitalists do you know that oppose corporate personhood and say in the absence of a state there would exist no corporations? This is exactly what nearly every AnCap I've ever met (who is worth any intellectual weight) says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all a bit ridiculous. I would just like to remind everyone that "anarcho-capitalism" is rejected as a form of anarchism, by the anarchist mainstream, for obvious reasons: employer/employee relationship, workplace hierarchy. So, as best I can tell, none of this article talks about market anarchism, which is a very real thing and can be read about, for example, in the article on Proudhon. It predates Marxism. Even this article existing, without clarifying this history, is a gross misrepresentation of the history, etymology and the facts surrounding anarchism and markets. In my opinion, it either needs to be merged or rewritten to explain the divide between traditional anarchism, "anarcho-capitalism" and markets. Finx (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I support the merge! MeUser42 (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

People seem to forget that offline, the most popular strain of anarchism that utilizes free markets is still Mutualism, an anti-capitalist ideology. This article does not reflect that at all because it is swarmed by "internet activist" anarcho-capitalists and other capitalist related "anarchists".--Sharangir (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is conflicting definitions of capitalism (and differing degrees of awareness of the statist taint in Actually Existing Capitalism). Another difference, perhaps, is that "mainstream" anarchists would (if I understand right) forbid wage labor, while an-caps would neither ban it nor insist on it but greet its natural demise – as obstacles to entrepreneurship are broken down – with a smile. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, anarchism (the way that word had always been used until the 70s in America anyway), is just as opposed to fantasy, "free-market" capitalism as Actually-Existing Capitalism. This can be seen again and again throughout anarchist history, even in the works of individualists like Tucker and Spooner, who were both explicitly socialists, despite having been kind of subverted by the right wing laissez faire types and the highly vocal new strain of internet-"anarchists" coming from Rothbard, Mises and other neoliberal influences. This article is really quite ridiculous, and should be merged, deleted or renamed if we're going to pretend to have any regard for history or just general intellectual integrity. Finx (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proudhon? Mutualism?[edit]

Since markets are not synonymous with capitalism, nor mutually exclusive from socialism, why is it that the work of Proudhon - which has been around since the mid 19th century - conspicuously absent through all this talk about Rothbard - whose views are generally rejected by the anarchist mainstream as non-anarchist, for much the same reasons he had previously rejected the label himself.

Nothing here about worker cooperatives? Real-world examples of workplace anarchy in the marketplace? The idea of market anarchism has been around for a while, hasn't it? Why only the capitalist angle?

Finx (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this article can use some work.

Especially considering it contains claims such as "The term (Market Anarchism) describes the type of anarchy proposed by anarcho-capitalism." (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tucker and Spooner were explicitly socialists[edit]

This article misrepresents two anarchist individualists, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, as capitalists. In actuality, their views closely follow those of Proudhon and even older, anti-capitalist classical liberal strains of thought, as described in this documentary on American anarchism and thoroughly detailed in the Anarchist FAQ. They denounced wage labor, adhered to the labor theory of value, and believed workers should own and control their own means of production, which is the core tenet of socialism. This is a grossly misinformed account of people who considered themselves part of the socialist movement, and I am correcting it, if this article is not to be renamed, merged or deleted, as in my opinion it should be. Finx (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I confess I don't understand the tenet "workers should own and control their own means of production." Does it mean that a tool, no matter who made it, becomes the property of whoever picks it up and uses it? Or that no one should use tools unless he can buy them? Or merely that it's better to be a free lance, with one's own toolbox, than an employee? —Tamfang (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a complicated and multifaceted topic, and there's no single definitive answer but no, it's not just honorific. It describes the same sort of thing Marx talked about, eg: who owns the factories and to what end. If you want to go by the original classical liberal views, the answer clearly draws the line short of capitalism. The standard concept of liberty, as put forward by John Locke and Adam Smith, specifically meant self-agency and being entitled to the fruits of your own labor, rather than just leasing one's labor out to a paymaster - which they (many classical liberals) held in great contempt. Their liberty was the liberty to be in charge of one's own labor. The anarchist movement, beginning with people like Proudhon (who was an advocate of markets by the way) only became more explicit about it and focused on private tyranny. So, if there's an arbitrary line in the sand, it's probably division of labor. That's conservative. Most anarchists (I guess I have to keep saying - in the 'traditional' sense) typically go much further and advocate to either abolish private property or redefine it to mean something radically different from capitalism - focusing instead on use and occupation. This doesn't necessarily mean, at all, a rejection of markets. But if your labor did not come with the right to self-management and you don't get to keep what you make, I'm not aware of any individualist anarchists who considered that acceptable. However they thought it should work, they advocated for some type of social ownership of the means of production. Hence, they were considered and considered themselves socialists. Finx (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Finx, I'm not an expert with respect to these issues, but after reviewing your proposed edit/your points here, I agree with you. I'd advise you wait another day or two before reverting my revert to provide a little more time for others to review your proposal. Thanks for the great work! Byelf2007 (talk) 20 June 2012
I don't mind waiting, but really I think my edit was not sufficient. Looking through the history of this article and its revisions, I think something has to be said, at the risk of sounding like I just want to hurl rotten eggs at this thing. In the main article on anarchism, one of far better quality, notice how there is precisely a one single cursory mention of "anarcho-capitalism." Considering Wikipedia's criteria for undue weight, one could make a very solid argument that this is one more mention than it deserves. For a strain of anarchism mainly consigned to blogs, internet message boards and the works of a gentleman who all but admitted that the label was a put-on, just as he gloated that the right wing ideology had "captured a crucial word from the [left-wing] enemy," I'd say this school of thought has an unbelievable amount of representation on Wikipedia. What I see all over, perhaps after some people were denied a full re-writing of the main article on anarchism, is a bizarre patchwork quilt of strange and confused appropriations - classical liberals, laissez faire liberals, socialist individualists - stitching together a hagiographic historical tribute to the anarchist movement that never was. Please consider that the first self-proclaimed anarchist was a market advocate - and also viciously anti-capitalist. How this article managed to stay up for so long boldly designating Tucker and Spooner anarcho-capitalists is no less baffling to me than how it ignores market anarchist history, hand-waving Proudhon (zero mentions), with a big portrait of Gustave de Molinari (what?) right under the "history" section. I understand that anti-state capitalism has a history, and I understand that nobody owns the word "anarchist," but I really think a wee bit of perspective is in order. Perhaps, a section on capitalist and anti-capitalist strains would be interesting here? I think there's a lot of room to compare and contrast ideas. Within Wikipedia's guidelines, of course, this could be a great article to shed some light on exactly what a free market is supposed to mean. Finx (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding the following references, on how both Tucker and Spooner were anti-capitalists because this keeps creeping up again and again:

For Lysander Spooner, liberty meant that the worker was entitled to “all the fruits of his own labour” and argued that this “might be feasible” only when “every man [was] own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer.” [Martin, Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 172]
every man, woman, and child... could ... go into business for himself, or herself — either singly, or in partnerships — and be under no necessity to act as a servant, or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves, would consent to labour for wages for another. -- Spooner, Lysander. A Letter to Grover Cleveland. p. 41. 
The two principles referred to are Authority and Liberty, and the names of the two schools of Socialistic thought which fully and unreservedly represent one or the other of them are, respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism. Whoso knows what these two schools want and how they propose to get it understands the Socialistic movement. For, just as it has been said that there is no half-way house between Rome and Reason, so it may be said that there is no half-way house between State Socialism and Anarchism. -- Benjamin Tucker, Woodcock, edited by George (1986). The Anarchist reader. [London]: Fontana. p. 150. ISBN 0006861067. 

Honestly hope that will be the end of that, because I'm getting tired of having to explain that anarchism has always been a socialist movement. Finx (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Free Market Anarchism[edit]

Should a more specific definition of free market anarchism be given in the article? For example, as defined by Roderick Long here, "Market Anarchism is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolised by the coercive State should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of market society." Currently the article says that free-market anarchism "is an economic and political philosophy which holds that the provision of goods, services, contracts and activities should take place primarily through voluntary market agreements rather than the state." This definition seems rather poor, as the inclusion of the word "primarily" seems to make some versions of statism compatible with free-market anarchism (as defined in this way). It also just doesn't seem to be worded well overall. Is it grammatically correct to say "the provision of... contracts and activities..."? Someone please fix this. I recommend adding Roderick Long's definition as an improvement. Thanks. (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you try to negotiate a mutually beneficial transaction for something of greater or equal value when you hold the door for someone? How about cooking dinner for family? Is there a check at the end? Well, those are most certainly 'activities' taking place outside the market framework. Hell, breathing is an activity that takes place outside of markets, and the above actually easily qualify as provision of goods and services. It's is most definitely a horribly written and incredibly poorly thought out introduction and I tried to salvage it best I can. I think Rothbardanswer's edits should be reverted and thrown out completely because they're based on profound misunderstandings about anarchism and, to be honest, I was just trying to be respectful before this user decided to ignore everything discussed on the talk page and start an edit war by turning this into a hagiography for laissez faire liberals and Murray Rothbard, ignoring near two hundred years of market anarchist (which is to say, anti-capitalist) history. Finx (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. this is an old version. The continual political edits turn this into a bit of a patchwork mess. Maybe you could add a praxeological emphasis and properly distinguish between the extant "anarchy of the market" (as Bolsheviks called it in disdain) that free market anarchism wants to elaborate entirely and the abstract reactionary concept of "market" socialism. Free market anarchism is primarily an anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist movement that developed from classical liberal laissez faire and individualist anarchism. I think Mutualism then comes after voluntarism (even though I like Long). I think the reactionary concept of "market socialism" either deserves its own section with criticism if it warrants space at all. (it has its own page already). Maybe add Hoppe's private law stuff :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the claims you are making and find this entirely unhistorical. "Anarcho-capitalism" is a marginal (outside of internet forums, practically non-existent) ideology, utterly rejected my virtually all strains of anarchism - which has always been, first and foremost, an anti-capitalist movement, founded on the pro-market socialism of Proudhon. If this article is to have "anarchism" in the title, the focus should be market socialism, mutualism and syndicalism, with ancaps as a footnote. Otherwise, please proceed with merge suggested above and rewrite history in the one article ancaps haven't been barred from editing yet, on account of willfully distorting documented history. This is just disgraceful. Finx (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this entire talk page and in the space of less than a week you've filled it with your own political opinions. I'm not going to read it all but it has to be said the purpose of a wiki article is to document an idea. In this case it's the history of the development of free market anarchism. It doesn't matter if you object to the way dead philosophers and economists use the word or how popular their ideas became. If you're offended by the article then don't read it. Stop badgering everyone to change their cited contributions to an article THAT IS about something you seem to dislike. Wikipedia isn't hear to definition things out of existence. If you continue to be so blatantly non-neutral and openly talk about vandalising text you dislike I'll have to report you. Rothbardanswer (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please show me anywhere that I've indicated my personal political opinion on anything. I'm tired of correcting your blatantly false and deliberately misleading, unsourced historic fabrications. You've been warned a dozen times for edit warring, vandalizing and spouting completely unsupported claims, ostensibly to aggrandize the political idol you've decided to name yourself after. Go ahead and report me. In fact, I encourage you to do it. I doubt that scrubbing your user talk page of the complaints lodged against you is going to fool anybody. Finx (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was warned TWICE for edit warring on the liberalism page. That was before I even knew what edit warring was! Sourced material was being routinely deleted by people pushing a political point. The actual issue was over the inclusion of Spanish Scholastics. That's it. It was another technical issue that offended the political sensibilities of an editor. Why don't you show me one paragraph you've written where you aren't just going on and on passing judgment and criticising philosophers you dislike. It's irrelevant. You don't have any valid criticisms of the contributions other than your own politics. Show me one paragraph where you demonstrate knowledge of what free market anarchy even is. Your main source was a youtube video. I watched it. It outlined anarcho-capitalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talkcontribs) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which statements in my edits you disagree with so that I can provide any missing sources? Let's be concrete about this, if you believe I am misrepresenting something. Finx (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Every criticism you make in these talk pages is a criticism of the philosophy or economic theory (that you don't get) expressed by primary sources. Your contribution to the lead was to delete cited contributions without explanation and add "broadly" and pass judgment and push your own political opinion that free market anarchism is only "purportedly" stateless. I shouldn't have to explain political philosophy to you but individualism and libertarianism aren't egalitarian movements. That's why its called libertarian. People are free to be different in a stateless society. Here's some texts you deleted: [1], [2], [3]. You've actually ruined the lead. This isn't an article on socialism. If you want to understand what free market anarchism is you can read any of the intellectual literature from before the fall of the soviet union. Read Einstein's "shy socialism". He talks about rejecting the "anarchy of the market". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talkcontribs) 15:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember ever offering a single criticism of the 'philosophy' or 'economic theory' (that I apparently "don't get") on this talk page or anywhere else. I am not interested, for the purposes of this article, in how valid Rothbard's ideas are. What I criticized was the misrepresentation of 200 years worth of writers and activists who either self-identified as or were broadly considered 'market anarchists.' I thoroughly explained every one of my edits on this talk page and in the edit summary, and provided numerous sources. For example, here is an article (which I have linked earlier) explaining the origins of the word 'libertarian' and describing how 'libertarian' has been interchangeably used with (anti-capitalist/socialist) 'anarchist' for over 150 years. Murray Rothbard had confirmed the same, which I had also quoted and sourced:
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy ... 'Libertarians' ... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over ... -- The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83
Therefore, it is not appropriate to characterize libertarianism as pro-capitalist -- much less exclusively pro-capitalist. The common American meaning of libertarianism (eg: CATO, US Libertarian Party, etc) represents a very recent and globally still very marginal re-interpretation of that word. Concerning "purportedly" -- it means exactly what it means. As we have clearly established, market anarchism means very different things to different people. It means a society without capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) to the vast majority of anarchists who had historically been proponents of markets, and unimpeded capitalism to a small minority of people who (as of the mid-late 20th century) self-identify as anarchists: the anarcho-capitalists. Now, each of the groups, however disproportionate, denies that the other 'truly' desires a stateless society. Traditional anarchists (of the types prior to Murray Rothbard) deny that laissez faire capitalism can ever be stateless for reasons that should be blindingly obvious if you've studied anarchist history: they see anarcho-capitalistm as an extreme, radical form of statism that seeks to privatize the state and make it wholly unaccountable. This point of view is explained here. Anarcho-capitalists hold the same position towards anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism and market socialism, as stated by Murray Rothbard, for example in the same piece where he stated "we must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground" where he expressed that "current anarchists are irrational collectivists" who, in his view, wish to subject people to their own brand of pseudo-statist coercion.
Therefore, it seems fair, in accordance with WP:NPOV, to characterize market anarchism as "purportedly" stateless -- since both sides, even though one of them is given far more weight than it deserves in this article, believe the other side is not representative of a stateless society. That distances the article from passing judgement on validity of those claims, since that is not what an encyclopedic article is for. You should note that nowhere have I opined on which ideology I think is correct. Do you have any other objections? Finx (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Distortions, scare quotes, and POV pushing[edit]


I will go through this new introduction point by point, including some older unresolved issues.

Free-market anarchism (sometimes called libertarian anarchism or propertarian anarchism)

"Libertarian anarchism" is redundant. 'Libertarian', 'libertarian socialist' and 'libertarian communist' had been used interchangeably with 'anarchist' for over 150 years.

"Propertarian anarchism" implies advocacy for private property, which applies exclusively to anarcho-capitalists, while practically all other anarchists see it as an astonishing contradiction in terms, considering that the anarchist movement had been founded on denouncing private property and capitalist ownership. See "Property is Theft!"

is an economic and political philosophy which holds that the provision of goods, services, contracts and activities should take place through voluntary market agreements rather than the state.

This is slightly less absurd than saying "all" as in the previous draft. Still, what goods? What services? What activities? The provision most of these in just about any feasible society has nothing to do with market agreements or the state. Serving thanksgiving dinner provides goods; pressing the button in an elevator for someone is a service; a promise to return a pencil is a verbal contract; brushing your teeth is an activity. The idea is probably that market anarchists want to maximize the role of markets in the economy, but this statement is either wrong or totally meaningless.

While market anarchists broadly describe the state as illegitimate and propose a stateless society, the history of "market" anarchist thought

There is no need for scare quotes. Market anarchism is the title.

it's relationship to anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism is complicated by inconsistencies and discordances between political philosophy and economic theory (most notably in the politically libertarian economically quasi-socialist individualist anarchists of 19th century America)

POV pushing. This is written to sound like libertarianism and socialism are somehow mutually exclusive. First of all, libertarian has meant socialist everywhere in the world ever since an anarchist communist named Joseph Déjacque first published a periodical called 'Le Libertaire' in 1861. That's where it comes from. Or to quote 'paleolibertarian' (?!) Rothbard:

One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy ... 'Libertarians' ... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing [sic!] anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over ... (The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83)

Anarchists (libertarians) rejected capitalist ownership for the same reasons they rejected the state. They denounced bosses and owners just the same way they denounced autocrats and career politicians, seeing them as workplace rulers.

Also, I don't know what "quasi-socialist" means. Do you have a reference for that? See the section "Tucker and Spooner were explicitly socialists" above. Again, they denounced wage labor, adhered to the labor theory of value, and believed workers should own and control their workplaces. In other words, they believed that the means of productions should be socially owned, considered themselves part of the socialist movement and were considered socialists by everyone else. What more do you need? This is yet more POV-pushing.

Hence there are divisions between Anarcho-capitalists, who stress the legality and priority of private property, natural rights

The borderline-religious idea that property is somehow a natural right should not just be casually thrown in like it's basic and uncontroversial. Classical liberals like Jefferson thought it was plain ridiculous, for example. And I'm not even touching anarchism, which was far more radical almost without exception. To quote Jefferson:

It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

If you want to throw 'natural rights' around like confetti in an introduction, explain what natural rights means to Rothbard and others, because it's certainly not what natural rights are to everyone else. Continuing,

private property, natural rights and the free (sic) market

As opposed to all those other shitty-no-good anarchists who don't really want a free market, right?

voluntarists, mutualists, and Anarcho-syndicalists, who generally propose cooperative or collective ownership of the means of production and a democratic or unionized economic

I don't know where the dividing line is here, because it isn't clear from the sentence structure, but it's basically anarcho-capitalists vs. 'everyone else.' Just to rehash, mutualism is an anti-capitalist ideology, and anarcho-syndicalism is not inherently anti-market. This should be clear in the introduction.

and legal system.

Who mentioned a legal system and how does that fit into this?

I'm reverting the first paragraph and editing the second to make a clear distinction between anarchist socialists and advocates for capitalism. It's really getting tiresome to parse these every time someone wants to appropriate individualist anarchists for the ancap camp.

Here is a good and lengthy, sourced explanation on why this should not be done so casually, beyond citing influences. Of particular note, since Lysander Spooner seems to be the fallback when other prominent anarchists are shown to be clearly socialists:

For Lysander Spooner, liberty meant that the worker was entitled to “all the fruits of his own labour” and argued that this “might be feasible” only when “every man [was] own employer or work for himself in a direct way, since working for another resulted in a portion being diverted to the employer.” [Martin, Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 172]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not an advertisement for Murray Rothbard.

Finx (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge or convert in a disambiguation page[edit]

The content of the article is a description of anarcho-capitalism with another terms, or what political history use to expose as examples of libertarian anarchism before libertarian anarchism. This last is an extemporaneous interpretation from modern intelectuals and is enough for the section of "precursors" in the article about anarcho-capitalism or by extension for the interpretations about what was historical free-market anarcho-individualism (now defunct) in the article about anarcho-individualism. This separated article "free-market anarchism" is almost primary source and haven't enough enciclopedical relevance, and the very defenses of its permanence are especulations from some Wikipedia editors not reducted to expose several/reliable sources.

Another defenses of this separated article using sources of isolated authors aren't sequent to the relevance politics of Wikipedia and therefore should no longer be used. That's only a good idea for write in the Wikipedia article of the isolated author about his/her use of of the term "free-market anarchism", no more. Language is a social practice, remember that.

The second solution I propose is to make this entrance to a disambiguation page, citing in first place the primarily social use of the expression "free-market anarchism" that refers to anarcho-capitalism and convergent ideas. I suposse the other uses in the list of the disambiguation page could be a matter of another discussion. --Sageo (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What does "social use" even mean? There's about two centuries worth of history identifying market anarchism with socialism. Anarchism began, though not exclusively, as a pro-market and anti-capitalist movement, despite the neoliberal attempts to appropriate the term. This is thoroughly documented and sourced in dozens of wikipedia articles. I support the merge by the way. As far as this page, it should be a redirect to the anarchism article -- not "anarcho-capitalism" which is marginal and barely even worth a mention. Finx (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Neoliberal attempts to appropriate the term? You do see the irony behind using that phraseology, being that classical liberalism is in line with "markets" being synonymous with free association, thus what you arbitrarily label as "private" is what exists without the presence of coercive force. You're emotional disdain for anarcho-capitalism is evident, which subjects your credibility to lacking objectivity; and thus ignored. Objective Reason (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Anarcho-Capitalism and Freemarket Anarchism are not necessarily the same. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of freemarket anarchism, but freemarket anarchism exists in forms other than anarcho-capitalism. The term "anarcho-capitalism" refers specifically to the ideology founded by Murray Rothbard, whereas freemarket anarchism has existed for centuries before; some of the notable thinkers being Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. Anarcho-capitalism or Rothbardianism considers itself a Right-wing ideology, whereas Agorism and similar movements consider themselves Left-wing. Furthermore, an "Anarcho-capitalist" (Rothbardian) is not necessarily a fundamentalist Anarchist, they may engage in politics in the belief of eventually moving towards statelessness. Whereas, Agorism and other forms of Market Anarchism are against any form of state politics/involvement. (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

the zaxlebax problem[edit]

... some anarchists ... consider themselves anti-capitalists and oppose private ownership of the means of production, instead insisting on their cooperative or collective ownership and management ...

Does this include Kevin Carson and Roderick Long? Both, I think, describe themselves as anti-capitalist, using the term capitalism as Marx did: a system of political privileges to existing firms, at the expense of both labor and competition. Opposition to capitalism in this sense does not require collective ownership. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The conventional definition of capitalism is basically "private ownership of the means of production." Carson is apparently an anti-capitalist in the normal sense, just on the market-ish side. I'd have to dig into Long's views to understand why he's throwing the word 'capitalism' overboard though. By association with the 'Ludwig von Mises Institute' -- I suspect the views are just laissez-faire/neoliberal capitalist, but I guess he just doesn't like the word for some reason. I guess the phrasing could be clearer that this generally includes 'individually owned' means of production (eg, craftsmen and such) but I thought maybe this would be confused with private/absentee ownership. Finx (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This article is an essay, check Wikipedia:Original research. An article in Wikipedia couldn't be a collection of opinions of the wikipedians themselves. This is not the same case of merge petition, I'm saying that this content is an essay. There aren't reliable sources that support the definitions and taxonomies that this article shows. Even, this article induces to think the term "market anarchism" is a historical one when it is contemporary. --Sageo (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Per example, the section "internal disputes" is apocryph, in the history of political thinking never existed a clash between "tuckerites" and "rothbardians". That affirmation is anacronic, and not representative of the several political discussions of both philosophies. The article doesn't explain that "market anarchism" is only an alternative libertarian term for anarchist brand of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism), not a political philosophy itself, and checking publications the term probably was created and used little decades ago in some libertarian magazines and without very deep intelectual pretentions (it's seems to be only an alternative term used occasionally). This article also makes a connection of american liberal anarcho-individualism of 19º century with anarcho-capitalism in a non-encyclopedical way as branches of a same thing, not like a philosophical resemble realized a posteriori as a possible precedent as is explained in another Wikipedia articles.
An article should expose the outstanding use of the term, not what wikipedians think should the the "right use". I think "market anarchism" entry don't have enough encyclopedical relevance because is only an alternative name for anarcho-capitalism and probably for ancient american liberal anarcho-individualism (what should be proved as a significant use). Maybe could be only an entry in Wicktyonary, or maybe a disambiguation page, or only a redirection. But first, what I want is that you realize that the current article is an essay, a non-encyclopedical entry. --Sageo (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I think, same as you, that the 'Tuckerite/Rothbardian' section should be removed or rewritten, however you've made no direct references to primary sources. As far as your assertion that 'market anarchism' is another way to say 'anarcho-capitalism' -- I don't see a single shred of evidence to support that. As the intro states, the founders of market anarchism (which is to say, anarchism advocating free-market systems) -- Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner -- were libertarian socialists, which is to say anti-capitalists, who wished to abolish the capitalist system. There are several academic sources to support this in introduction. The American phenomenon of the neoliberal redefinition of 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism' is of very marginal interest to this topic. Finx (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is no support for this essay. No evidence that this definitions and taxonmies are recognized like the principals, no evidence that those authors were part of the same political school. This article is making a revisionist, a posteriori, a-historical, interpretation of the term. Check no sources about what is "market anarchism" itself, and no several sources before 2000s that mention the term. I suggest this article should redirect to anarcho-capitalism or should be converted in a disambiguation page to "a term used to refers": anarcho-capitalism, american 19º century anarcho-individualism, and lef-libertarian anarchism. To the date, this is an essay. --Sageo (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please see the talk pages I mentioned earlier, including this one, for the reasons why "market anarchism" is not a synonym for "anarcho-capitalism." By my count, there's four academic sources backing up the anti-capitalist market advocacy of Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner (individualist anarchists were generally outspoken anti-capitalists) and an absurd amount of sources in other articles that the mostly internet-based phenomenon of "anarcho-capitalism" is not considered a form of anarchism by anyone except self-described "anarcho-capitalists." Reverting your templates again, because for all the angry accusations, you still haven't pointed to any use of primary sources or original research. "I don't like anarchism that advocates free markets" is not a reason to mark this article for OR. Finx (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I had explained it very times. For the date, this article is original research. No description or taxonomies or suposed conflicts used here had been referenced. The article take some information and sources about isolated issues and then build an original history. Provide secondary and reliable sources where the authors use the term "market anarchism" for know which is the normal use. Don't remove again the templates about original research or you will be denounced. What I suggest is that if this situation doesn't change we should convert this page al least in a disambiguation page (if is so 'sensitive' the re-direction, that for me is most accurate action, but we can dialogue). --Sageo (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be perfectly clear, you are contending that the principal founders of anarchism, like Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner, who advocated a political economy built on the cornerstone of markets and market exchange are not relevant to the topic of "market anarchism" -- is this correct? I am once again removing your template because you are refusing to back up your claims of OR/PS -- probably because there are no primary sources what-so-ever and zero original research. As for the redirect, no, I still do not agree that this should be a centerfold advertisement for a marginal internet cult. A redirect to Anarchism proper, or even Mutualism, would make some amount of sense. Finx (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Response with sources. Sources that support the existence of a separated theory called "market anarchism", that explain the origin of the term, and that make the definitions or taxonomies explained in this article. Don't remove template until a consensus been achieved. --Sageo (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me know where I should put these:


  • Benjamin Tucker called himself a "laissez-faire Socialist" and belonged, along with many other free-market anarchist advocates (mostly in New England), to the First Workingmen's International
    • The Journal of Historical Review 8 (2): 241. 
  • Victor Yarros explained the understanding of the word "anarchism" of the market anarchists such as Tucker, himself, and others [note: both anti-capitalists]
    • Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Boston: 2007. ISBN 1605010995. 
  • Proudhon is generally known as a mutualist anarchist for his vision of cooperative groups of small scale artisans combining market mechanisms with collective social arrangements.
    • Ferguson, Kathy E. Emma Goldman political thinking in the streets. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 153. ISBN 1442210486. 
  • Free Market in Western culture James G Carrier. Liberty anarchist ideas were presented and debated from 1881 to 1908 (McElroy 1981: 7-39). Tucker was initially attracted to anarchism through contacts with Josiah Warren, William B.
    • Carrier, edited by James G. (1997). Meanings of the market : the free market in Western culture (1. publ. ed.). Oxford: Berg. p. 107. ISBN 185973149X. 
  • Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939) was the leading American anarchist of the late nineteenth century. Like Warren, he also saw his ideas as socialistic, although he was much more committed to the free market, and even believed his socialistic ...
    • Adams, Ian (2001). Political ideology today (2nd ed. ed.). Manchester [angleterre]: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719060206. 

By the way "market anarchism" isn't a "theory" - just like "market socialism" isn't a "theory"; it's a compendium of anarchist ideas advocating market systems. If you're finished retaliating for me removing your 'market anarchism' -> 'anarcho-capitalism' redirect, please remove the templates at your convenience, unless you want to provide some examples of actual OR/PS/etc. Finx (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, what we can see its that the use of the term haven't many years, few decades, it's not a term used by those ancient authors to refers themselves or their theories. (Only two) references mention the use of the term to refers to 19º century american anarcho-individualism, the last explain ancient american anarcho-individualism without using the term. The others sources only mention the word market - and been the word market so common, that is not a relevant proof of the use of the term. Check again "original Research" policies and the announce of the template: "This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." That is the problem. Also we have to check the uses of the term, as synonymous of or refering to anarcho-capitalism:

According to free-market anarchism, all the fundamental institutions necessary for the market to function—money, police protection, and even justice—would themselves be "for sale on the market." Democracy, Markets, and the Legal Order: Notes on the Nature of Politics in a Radically Liberal Society (1993) Cambridge Journal

The Production of Security ... was the first presentation ... of what is now called "anarcho-capitalism" or "free-market anarchism. Murray Rothbard (1977) The oldest use I find Prologue to The Porduction of Security of Gustave de Molinari

Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the State into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. Society without a State, Rothbard (1975) I show this source only to contextualize the age when concepts "anarchism" and "market" began to be together, in this paper even "anarchism" is used as a synonymous of "anarcho-capitalism".

This position is generally know as "market anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism". Roderick Long and Tibor Machan (2007), book of debate, Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?

I shall maintain, one, that anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are logically incompatible. And then This implies free-market anarchism, and thus a rejection of minarchism, since with the right of secession. Walter Block (2007). A paper in response of the book, where "free-market anarchism" is an alternative term for "anarcho-capitalism".

What we have to the date, is that "free-market anarchism" is a not so old term. Many times had been used as synonymous of anarcho-capitalism, probably from the 1970's. And other sources, even more recent (10 years ago like it seems), used retrospectively that term to refers the ancient liberal american anarcho-individualism. For the date, what we have is a very recent synonymous for two historically separated political streams. So I think the redirection is not an option, but a disambiguation page to anarcho-capitalism and to american 19º centtury liberal anarcho-individualism. Maybe should begins like this, "Free-market anarchism is a contemporary political term used to refers:". We haven't sources for more that this.--Sageo (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Ancient"? Aside from the fact that it's self-evident that "market anarchism" refers to anarchism advocating markets, the article already clearly states that ancaps self-applied the term to describe themselves as 'market/free-market anarchists.' The term is also obviously used to describe anti-capitalists, both past and present. Would you like yet more references? The "anarcho-individualism" you describe was anti-liberal (I hope I don't have to defend why) and refers to mostly pro-market, individual-oriented libertarian socialists who wanted to dismantle the capitalist system. For the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty, it matters to make it clear that it can refer to advocates for capitalism or, more commonly, advocates for abolishing capitalism. If you want to make that into a disambiguation page, I think that's a good idea, personally. The dominant anarchist strains are anti-capitalist, so I would suggest something like "this could mean: anarchism proper, mutualism or anarcho-capitalism." That would cover individualists, muties and ancaps. Finx (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Here in Wikipedia we shouldn't make philosophy of our own beliefs or a reflect of our own intelectual constructions. My point is not about which is the "real anarchism" or the support of capitalism, or what is a capital and market, or about what are the dycotomies we use personally, is about the term "market anarchism" and the content of this article that isn't sourced, but is a synthesis of the sources, and that is original research. So, if we agree in a disambiguation page it shouldn't be a synthesis, that would be a repetition of the same problem of this article but in little scale. In that sense the dycotomies of "capitalism or no-capitalism" aren't relevant for the typical use of the term following the sources. The sources only show two uses for the term "free-market anarchism": first in cronology for anarcho-capitalism (1970s), and then few years ago (2000s) retrospectively for 19º century american liberal anarcho-individualism (I say "liberal" because of the conexions with classical liberalism, and to diference inside all the ancient streams, but the link should be to the name of the article in Wikipedia). Others uses and taxonomies/dychotomies are personal or sectorial synthesis and shoudn't be allowed in articles, less in polemical ones. Note: check that the assert that european mutualism is also "free-market" oriented is a revisionist assert from fringe primary sources (blogs), and is very dificult to find it accepted in reliable sources, check also that conceptually is not the same to say "market mechanism mixed with 'collective' arrangement" than to say "free-market at all arrangement". That is matter of another kind of discussions about social cooperation. --Sageo (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I propose this draft, following this discussion and the reliable sources: Free-market anarchism is a contemporary political term used: a) As a synonymous of anarcho-capitalism as free-market of law. b) To identify retrospectively some economic proposals inside 19th century American individualist anarchism. --Sageo (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
First of all, I don't remember sharing with you any of my personal beliefs or "intelectual constructions" -- at all. None of your (quickly changing) objections apply even slightly to the content of the article. There is no synthesis here what-so-ever. I've given you several sources which stated -- plain as day -- that anti-capitalists are called "(free-)market anarchists" and offered to provide more. It's clearly relevant that anarchism -- which has always been movement to abolish capitalism -- splits into self-identified pro and anti capitalist "market anarchist" strains. Your chronology makes no sense at all. There's 150 years of anarchist history, where some strains were clearly identified as pro-market anarchism and a recent extremely marginal phenomenon of some right-wing ultra-capitalists of the Rothbardian variety self-identifying as (market) anarchists. Furthermore, individualist anti-capitalists were just one strain of pro-market libertarian (aka, anarchist), with Mutualism being the bulk of the history -- from Proudhon to present day (why do you keep saying "ancient"?) -- you can go to the Mutualism page and see plenty of literary sources, as I've given you above. I am not on board for intellectual distortion, politically motivated or otherwise, sorry. Finx (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Please, Not again with "capitalism vs socialist" issue, not again with "which theory comes first" issue, no again with "which theory is more popular", not again with "wchich theory is wrong" or even "which theory is evil". That are the issues what I was taliking about. Please don't make the talk page an ideological forum. I'm not saying that you do it to make distortion, is just a confusion about the nature of the articles, I suposse that this synthesis article is the product of many users trying to expose their own ideas or blogger theories, forgotten that this article is not about their ideas but ABOUT the term "market anarchism". Please focus in the term and the sources of its origins and uses, for get a faster consensus. Now, to advance in the aggrement, check in what we have commons points: the article should disappear, but no to a redirection but a disambiguation page that mention at least anarcho-capitalism and the 19th century american individualist anarchism. For me that is enough, because if we extend the links to synthesis uses that could be apocryfal and that's not accurate in Wikipedia. --Sageo (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright -- since your complaints apparently have nothing whatsoever to do with anything except baseless personal accusations that I'm pushing some sort of personal ideological agenda, as you ignore absolutely everything I say and brush aside valid references, I guess I'll be taking down your templates now. Please don't revert again without any reason. Regarding consensus, this is not a way to beat it when everyone reverts your ancap redirect and you're unhappy about it. Finx (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't remove template before consensus, that is broke the rules. We should solve the problem of this essay. We get a first consensus that this article is wrong and should be a disambiguation page (it's a contradition to remove templates after both get to the conclusion of make a disambiguation page). So, I talking about stop making synthesis, even for a disambiguation page. I'm talking about just include internal links for the uses of the term "free-market anarchism" that have been referenced and reliable sourced (for the moment two uses, all contemporary). If there is another used reliable sourced have to be included, but for the moment it isn't, the aditional uses that you have proposed are synthesis. But you can search for sources for prove another uses, that is no the problem, the problem is to make synthesis with the sources. --Sageo (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


The article would be improved by additional WP:RS discussion of Nozick's view, stated in the criticism section. Nozick's view is the consensus view today across the ordinary spectrum of thought from left to right. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Free market anarchism is fringe economics/philosophy[edit]

People are free to believe whatever they want, and Wikipedia certainly should not say free market anarchism is a good or bad political system. However, it is important to note the fact that virtually no academic philosophers or economists endorse this system, making it a fringe economic theory and fringe political philosophy. I recommend someone finds an RS which documents these facts. (I will surely do it eventually if no one else is up to the task.) Thanks! Steeletrap (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Like any body in an article about anarchism is going to give a hoot what academic philosophers and economists think, except to exploit them for a good ref from time to time. :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove this article and redirect it to "anarchist economics"[edit]

There is already an article on anarchist economics. It covers a broad spectrum of ideas, including those of marginal, self-labeled anarchists like anarcho-capitalists. I propose that this article be deleted, to end the constant bickering and relentless attempts at appropriation of the term, and redirected to "anarchist economics" after expanding some of its market-related topics with what can be salvaged from this article. Finx (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Both have showed enough references to at least say that the term "free-market anarchism" is more restricted that the so wider "anarchist economics". Lets order what we have of the literal use of the term: a) a synonym of anarcho-capitalism probably emerged in late 1970's (not as a type of "free-market anarchism" but as a synonym), schoolary referenced, maybe the oldest use of the term b) as a way to identify retrospectively precursors of anarcho-capitalism in West Europe and North America (like Faucher, Molinari, Spencer, Spooner, etc) as some anarcho-capitalist theorist allegate, also a use emerged probably since the late 1970's, c) as a way to identify retrospectively a "market tradition" (a kind of historiographical use) inside the 19th century intelectual phenomenon of American individualist anarchism (Boston anarchists, and fellows), as some dispersed authors allegate from diferent political paradigms; also schoolary referenced and in any level seems that use B overlaps use C or in contrary d) no literal uses of the term, philosophical interpretations of the use of the term, that relates the term with mutualism (even european mutualism, something not seem accepted by historian of classical anarchism), but with no evidence of historical use or retrospective use (for now), e) maybe could be an a posteriori synthesis made by some blogger thinkers in Internet to try to "concile" or "unify" theories that never before were one: anarcho-capitalism, old school anarcho-individualism, mutualism, and left-libertarianism with an upper term "free-market anarchism", that's my theory of the existence of this article. But even if we cite this use in the case that we get reliable sources of an extended use in this sense, this conciliatory or unifying and later use should be cited as one more use not the first or principal one. I propose to continue trying to find a way to be descriptive of the use of the term for a disambiguation page. Another point, lenguage is dinamic, I don't think Wikipedia should be worried about a subjective judge of an "appropiation" of a neologism from the 1970's. --Sageo (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • "[...]These champions of individualist or free market anarchism have expressed very real asperations [sic] of masses" [...] "and that market anarchism would be [...]"
  • Anarchy. Freedom Press. 1974. pp. 9,189.  |coauthors= requires |author= (help)
  • [edit: correct publication year is most likely 1974, though the excerpt must be older, describing a "recent" volume of Daniel Guérin ]
  • "For a most adamant argument against market integration on the basis of the socialist ideology of market anarchism, see Alekseev, A. and Savenko, Ju."
  • [Describing SDS conference/workshop -- ] "[the fifteen participants' views] ranged from free market anarchism to technocratic planning [...]"
  • "Michael Zweig [NOTE: founding member of SDS and, obviously, not an ancap ] of the Stony Brook faculty of the State University Samuel Bowles, son of the former Ambassador to India, is in of New York calls himself a free-market anarchist"
  • "As an anarchist he maintained [...] “distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural“ "
  • Madison, Charles A. (1943). Benjamin R. Tucker: Individualist and Anarchist. New England Quarterly. p. 456. 
  • "This applies more to the Anarchist-Communists than to the more individualistic types, until the other extreme we meet that kind of laissez faire Anarchism which rests on a no less emphatic faith in the in the 'natural law' and 'free market'."
  • Cole, George Douglas Howard (1957). Socialist thought, Marxism and anarchism, 1850-90. St. Martin's Press. p. 360. 
I'll be blunt. You are arguing for fraud. If anything here resembles, as you have claimed, original research, synthesis, or an essay, it's your attempts to stitch together a dishonest etymology of "market anarchism" -- which quite obviously, no matter the source, always simply refers to ideological strains described (or self-described) as anarchist advocating market systems. No matter how many times you insist otherwise, assuming that market anarchism has something to do with markets and, no less importantly, anarchism will not become some sort of wild, speculative claim. Finx (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: This ref reads: The generic term “market anarchism” is sometimes used to include both anarcho-capitalism and the market-friendly varieties of more traditional individualist anarchism.
Obviously these terms are used interchangeably by some and I can't say off hand which is the most popular. But there definitely needs to be an article since many people reject using the term anarcho-capitalism and call themselves some sort of market anarchist or other. So you can't just shunt "anarcho-capitalism" into a subsection of "anarchist economics".
The article doesn't have to be a real long one. And since every ref should use the phrase free market or market anarchism, it could be that a lot of what is in here now could be removed as WP:OR and people referred to the anarchist economics article for some of the history or whatever. (And once the material here is properly ref'd it could have it's own little section in that article). Of course, like anything else, someone's got to do the work and won't be me. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal of disambiguation page and a merge of fragments[edit]

After read both interventions in upper section I believe the less interpretative description of the uses B and C that I previously indicate; This ref reads: The generic term “market anarchism” is sometimes used to include both anarcho-capitalism and the market-friendly varieties of more traditional individualist anarchism. That is a the estructure of a neutral and sourced redaction. We can adapt it with the information we have, even those that use it as a synonymous (check past references in this talk page), and all the sourced uses (avoiding the synthesis in talk page). So, lets do betters line, my time:
Free-market anarchism is a political term used in diferent forms:

--Sageo (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely something people have been trying to figure out for a while and I wouldn't be too hasty. Have you read my suggestion above? There are lots of contemporary uses of "market anarchism" if you do research so don't abandon the article yet. It's all in the research.
Cleaning up Murray Rothbard article, for example, I found this article where Rothbard talks about free-market anarchism instead of anarcho capitalism:Murray Rothbard, Society without a State, 1975. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - for reasons already stated in several threads on this talk page. Market anarchism, being predominantly socialist through its history, should not be reduced to an advertisement for fringe-of-a-fringe ideologies like the ancaps' or any other shameless distortion of the term's history. Finx (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Using highly charged and deprecating language makes one think that an editor is not on his or her best NPOV behavior and often undermines the credibility of the editor in others' eyes. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you would agree that anarchism, in its explicit form, is on the fringes of mainstream political ideology, and that anarcho-capitalism, rejected as incoherent by virtually all its adherents except other anarcho-capitalists, is on the fringes of that. So, I don't think anything I'm saying is all too controversial. Except for the 'shameless' bit, but I didn't choose to make this personal when I was first accused of pushing my politics, and I really don't know what else to call it when sources simply don't matter. I think this article, should it remain, should be encyclopedic instead of yet more linkspam for Murray Rothbard -- and since it began as a hagiographic piece, this unfortunately isn't the first I've had to say it. Finx (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference AL was invoked but never defined (see the help page).