Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Template:FAOL Template:Controversial (politics)

NPOV issue?

"...they believe the only just way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud." in the introductory section, may not be NPOV. Anarcho-capitalism advocates acquisition of property only through the free market in the ways listed; this sentence makes all other ways of acquiring property that may not fall under this definition seem synonomous with "aggression" or "fraud". Since this is controversial, are any users willing to comment on or dispute this before changing it? The NPOV tag should not be necessary. --Sgutkind 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say... But Anarcho-capitalists see no moral justified way to aquire property but through volountary means or homesteading. The whole idea is built on property which stems from self-ownership. Any initiation of force which includes of course such natural aggresions such as tresspassing, stealing or damageing someone else's property is wrong and a obvious violation of property rights and hence self-defense against such agression is justified. I don't see any NPOV sign and I have a hard time remembering it ever being a controversy. Lord Metroid 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and Individualist Anarchism

Your honor is verging on creating an edit war over saying in the opener that Anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with Individualist Anarchism. I'd like this discussion moved to the talk page.

While there is plenty of evidence (as sourced above) that Anarcho-capitalism is a form of Individualist Anarchism, I balk at suggesting that they are synonymous. Murray Rothbard himself refused to call himself an individualist anarchist, since the term was preempted by Spooner and Tucker for their own (differing) philosophy (see The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View, page 7). While Individualist Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism do have a broad intersection, it is not accurate to say that Anarcho-capitalism is "also called" Individualist Anarchism. --Academician 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm making not making a claim that "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are necessarily synonmous. Usually they are, but sometimes they aren't. The claim is that the terms "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are often used interchangeably for the same philosophy. For example, Wendy McElroy calls herself an "individualist anarchist" and she says she is a Rothbardian. That makes her an anarcho-capitalist. And if you look at the reference books on anarchism, Rothbard is referred to in many of them as an "individualist anarchist" rather than an "anarcho-capitalist." They are often synonyms. The same for "free market anarchism." Not everyone is aware of the term "anarcho-capitalism." I heard it called "individualist anarchism" before I heard of the term "anarcho-capitalism." Your honor 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as economics goes individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not synonymous. Individualist anarchism is mutualism, they are in favor of private property but also subscribe to the labor theory of value. They both champion the individual but the economics are different. Anarko-Kapitalizt 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism too. Usually when someone is referred to as an "individualist anarchist" they're Rothbardians. Very few individualist anarchists are mutualists. Modern-day mutualist Kevin Carson says "Although there are many honorable exceptions who still embrace the "socialist" label, most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." -Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, Preface. For example, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy does not refer to herself as an anarcho-capitalist but a Rothbardian "individualist anarchist" See McElroy, Wendy. The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens (2005) According to Simon Tormey, "there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." Tormey, Simon, Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 There is no rule that to be an individualist anarchist you have to subscribe to the labor theory of value and the outdated mutualism and Benjamin Tucker stuff. Your honor 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying that anarcho-capitalism is "also known by other names, such as ... individualist anarchism" implies that the two are synonymous. They are not. Even if most modern individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, the implicit statement that the terms are synonymous A) is potentially offensive to the anti-capitalist individualists, B) is potentially offensive to anarcho-capitalists who refuse the individualist anarchist label, C) is disparaging of individualist anarchism's history, most of which - and the most well-known of which - came before anarcho-capitalism, and D) suggests that earler individualist anarchists, such as Tucker, Spooner etc., were anarcho-capitalists when they were in fact anti-capitalists. It is appropriate to note, in the section covering the wide variety of names anarcho-capitalism has been known by, that "individualist anarchism" is one of them. It is simply not appropriate to insert that one term (and not all the others) into the leading sentence. It would also be cumbersome to have all the various terms in the introductory sentence, which is why the section on other names exists.

Let me use an analogy. At the punk rock article, a user changes the lead to read thus:

Punk rock (also known as hardcore or pop punk) is an ...

Do you see the problem? Punk rock existed well before hardcore or pop punk came into existence. It is true that in the 80s, most of punk was called hardcore, and now, most of what is called punk is pop punk, but the terms are not synonymous. That edit would be liable to ofend people, and would be reverted instantly. Hardcore and pop punk are only subtypes - dominant subtypes, certainly, but subtypes nonetheless - of punk rock as a whole. That would be to neglect the history of punk rock.

And, similarly, inserting individualist anarchism in the lead of this article would be to neglect the history of both anarcho-capitalism, whose founder distanced it from individualist anarchism, and of individualist anarchism, which long predates anarcho-capitalism and the most well-known proponents of which were not capitalists. -Switch ^t 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if anyone is "offended." I'm not helping to create a "politically correct" encyclopedia. The fact is that anarcho-capitalism is just one of a few other names that refer to the same philosophy. There is no legitimate reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence. I put a parenthetical note there stating that not all philosophies that are referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same as this one, so I don't see what the problem is. I'm not sure you understand. It's not just that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism. It's that anarcho-captalism IS individualist anarchism. It's an alternate name for it (regardless of whether or not other philosophies are called individualist anarchism too). Not all anarcho-capitalists refer to themselves as anarch-capitalists. Many refer to themselves as individualist anarchists instead. As the Kevin Carson source pointed out, most who call themselves individualist anarchists are Rothbardians. And it's not just self-labeling. Many scholars refer to it as individualist anarchism instead of anarcho-capitalism as well. It's simply an alternate name for the same thing (not always, but often). Your honor 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it does matter if people are offended because Wikipedia says something false. Individualist anarchism is not just another name for anarcho-capitalism. If there's "no legitimate reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence", then why do you insist on only adding one of them, and that one being the most controversial and misleading? The parenthetical not ewas messy, made the sentence hard to read, and added nothing to the article that isn't noted elsewhere.

It's not that "not all philosophies that are referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same", it's that the philosophy referred to as "individualist anarchism" is different.

The information is already in the article. You are only trying to confuse the matter, conflate two seperate ideologies, and make the article harder to read. There's no reason to do that merely to give prominence to information you like when it is already in the article in the appropriate place. -Switch ^t 07:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

He has a legitimate point. There are Rothbardians who don't call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" but "individualist anarchists" such as Wendy McElroy or "market anarchists." Benjamin Tucker was a market anarchist too but not an anarcho-capitalist. A lot of anarcho-capitalists don't like the term "anarcho-capitalism" because it leads to confusion by people who are not familiar with how free-market capitalism is defined.Anarcho-capitalism 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, here's a source right here using "individualist anarchism" as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism: "*"[David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society and the State, University Press of America, 1983] [e]xamines the doctrine of individualist anarchism or "anarcho-capitalism," a branch of libertarianism, which desires to universalize the market as the primary mechanism for coordination of social activity. Reviews the range of economic positions encompassed in anarchism, from anarcho-communism at one end to individualist anarchism at the other, pointing out that anarchism, in this view, is compatible with capitalism." Review in Journal of Economic Literature (JEL 83-1167, p. 1620) of David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society, and the State, University Press of America, 1983Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Consequentialist?

Consequentialists such as Friedman disagree,

I don't have The Machinery of Freedom on hand right now, but I'm pretty sure there is a passage where David D. Friedman not only very explicitly denies being a consequentalist, but in fact expresses his amusement about the idea. Instead, he puts up philosophical arguments to show that both naïve consequentialism and naïve deontological/natural-rights ethics can lead to absurdities when taken to their logical extremes. In general, Friedman seems not to worry about this too much. Unlike staunch everything-from-first-principle rationalists like Rothbard, but notably very much in the spirit of Popper and Hayek, he doesn't seem particularly committed to an all-ecompassing grand axiomatic System Of Ethics And Law, but prefers to show how his ideas make sense under a variety of reasonable assumptions, and analyze them more from the perspective of a social scientist than that of a moral philosopher. I think this derives from a relative lack of interest in actual politics. Friedman does not seem to be worried that having subtler ideas or a more mess-with-your-mind writing style would make it harder to attract a political following than a more Randian "I'm always right and this is how the world works" style. Sjeng 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Here he is talking about it in a debate with rights-theorists libertarians: What's Right vs. What Works. Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. Liberty. January 2005, Vol 15, No 1 Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I liked that article a lot. I will stop the inappropriate chatting on the talk page now.Sjeng 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another real-world example

Don't some people consider Somalia as another example? Fephisto 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source for that.Anarcho-capitalism 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156902250X Sunbat 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_stateless_somalis.htm and here an article by the same author Sunbat 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But those don't say it's an example of anarcho-capitalism. A source would have to say that explicitly or it would be deleted out of the article for being "original research."Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I havent read the book, so i cant give you any quotes alas. maybe someone else can, check mises.org maybe? Sunbat 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This? [1]. However, upon looking, I'm getting a lot more articles saying it's not an example, so, nm. Actually, doesn't the [Anarchy in Somalia] article point to Anarcho-capitalism being there? Fephisto 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article far too large. Split!

There is too much information on this page that doesn't need to be here.

Suggestions,

• Reduce the size of the introduction!
• Reduce the size of the non-aggression axiom section and move relevant information to that page
• Reduce the size of the section on Classical liberalism (and so on...)
• Reduce the size of The Austrian School school section
• Reduce the size of the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section.

Basically, pages exist on all these topics, independently of this topic. Therefore, you don't need to duplicate the information here. The introduction is not meant to provide everything about the topic either.

I would do it, except that I have a lot of stuff in the real world just now, and it is easier to suggest to other people. Also, I'm not really a contributor to this article, so you people might get annoyed if I did it without asking.

And I've suggested basically the same thing over at the anarchism page as well, once you are done here, you might pop over to help there. AFA 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "too much information." This article is definitely not large. It's pretty small.Anarcho-capitalism 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with User:Anarcho-capitalism this is normal size for a featured article. Lord Metroid 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is duplicating information found at other pages. As such, we are maintaining two versions of the same information. What is the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

MFD comments requested

I saw this comment on the Anarchism discussion. I think it is more relavant here so I am pasting it here.

"Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anarcho-capitalism. Comments requested."

Merge

What's the crazy shit about mergeing. A Featured Article being merged with market anarchism. 2 different topics. No way I would agree with that. Lord Metroid 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Intangible2.0 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't "market capitalism" include the anti-capitalist Proudhon's Mutualism? I oppose a merge. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

just open greed?

I have thought for some time that anarcho-capitalism is a very bad thing. Most anarchist sects want freedom from government in order to correct some injustice in their system or such, but I am of the opinion that anarcho-capitalists simply seek to increase their wealth by abolishing any and all laws binding them, thus letting them run rampant. Invadra 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct place for discussing this subject as the talk pages are meant for discussing editing of the article associated to the talk page. If you want to discuss philosophy, I know that the messageboard of Free Domain Radio discusses moral and political philosophy and because the host of Free Domain Radio is an anarcho-capitalist that message board is populated by people that would gladly discuss anarcho-capitalism with you. Lord Metroid 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

List of sockpuppets

User:Crashola is a sockpuppet of a banned user. For details, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. -- infinity0 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Here I will start a centralized discussion about sources on anarcho-capitalism (not) being a form of anarchism so that we don't need to repeat same arguments on several pages.

1. I agree with argument that since "The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought" only refers to specific individuals associated with individualist anarchism, one of whom was Nozick, it shouldn't be used as a source for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism.
2. "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with anarchism" can't be used for argument that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. According to Wikipedia:No original research policy, synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is not allowed. Concretely: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. In this case this means that the fact that some people claim that capitalism is not compatible with anarchism cannot be used to advance the position that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.
3. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought says: At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right. They don't speak about individualist anarchism as a dead philosophy but as a living philosophy in the form of anarcho-capitalism.
4. "Dictionary of Marxist Thought" makes a claim that anarcho-capitalism is a contemporary variant of individualist anarchism. That is all that matters. Tertiary sources are allowed per WP:NOR.
5. "BASTARD Press", "SPUNK Press" and "Frontlines" seem to be do it yourself publishers and are sources of questionable reliability. As such they should only be used in articles about themselves per WP:V. -- Vision Thing -- 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• I upped the subsection for "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with anarchism". Many of the sources are relevant. One of the sources (Tucker) predates the term, but discusses the relationship between anarchism and socialism as a socialist individualist anarchist. And it's largely his legacy that's disputed. Generally, these divide into (1) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be non-anarchist (2) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be non-capitalist and (3) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to mix non-anarchist capitalist and non-capitalist anarchist elements.
• A fourth subsection, divided into pre-Rothbardian and post-Rothbardian subsections, of market anarchist works on the relationship between anarchism, socialism, and capitalism might be better. Jacob Haller 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

2 - Nope, this one doesn't work. The argument is not "A and B, therefore C". It is "Not A, Not B, therefore Not A+B". Its a logical deduction (heck its really a tautology) akin to A=A and Not A=Not A, and thus not covered by your above wiki-policy quote. Unless you are claiming that anarcho-capitalism means something different than anarchism + capitalism. Evidence for that claim would be welcomed, perhaps you are saying that anarcho-capitalists use the term anarchism differently than any other anarchists do? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research policy clearly states: precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. Authors you listed didn't publish precise analysis in relation to the topic (anarcho-capitalism). -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no precise analysis here. There is a logical tautology. If you think that is precise analysis, I suggest you look up the meanings of the words involved. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Determining whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism definitely requires a precise analysis. Also, those authors didn't wrote about anarcho-capitalism (which is required by OR policy to use them as a source). -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no determination here, any determination is left to the reader. The text is merely stating a fact, that these writers do not consider anarchism and capitalism to be compatible. The idea that these sources should be removed because they do not specifically mention anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous when they are clearly talking about the relationship between anarchism and capitalism. To remove them on this standard would require that we remove all the quotes by Molinari and others, is that something you are advocating? Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I overlooked one of your last edits were you have changed the text. Current version is acceptable with rewording. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

3 - Okay, that makes sense. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

4 - I don't see the point of using a tertiary source when there are plenty of primary ones, but whatever floats your boat. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

5 - Spunk press is not a do it yourself publisher. They have a long history of publishing many authors well-known in the field. Do you have evidence that Frontlines and Bastard are self publishers? If so I would like to see it. It is odd that you are holding these particular sources to such a high standard, when several of the sources already in the article fail it. You don't mind if I begin to remove sources that are obviously self-published? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"BASTARD Press" is DIY publishing to produce content for the InfoStall [2], for Frontlines I haven't managed to find any information which is evidence enough about their notability, and "SPUNK Press" is not a publisher but an online archive. By the looks of the article you used as a source [3] it hasn't be published anywhere. In general I don't have anything against self-published sources if they are used for sourcing of uncontroversial content, but for controversial issues like whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism only reliable sources must be used. If you look through the sources used for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, you won't find any self-published source, or even source coming from anarcho-capitalist (and there are many of those). -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is simple then, you've made clear that this is a controversial topic, reference to which you keep changing in the text. Since you've now based your argument for rejecting my sources on the claim that this is a controversial issue, you've no reason to continue to remove indications of such from the text itself. Also, to help you stick to your own standard I'm going to remove Ralph Raico, since he is a libertarian with a vested interest in portraying anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I'm keeping the Frontlines bit, cause I don't think your inability to find evidence of their notability counts, I could say that about a lot of the references in this article, controversial or not. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

To me a question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not a controversial issue, anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism without a doubt. It also isn't controversial issue for those scholars who say that it is a form of anarchism. It is only a controversial issue for those scholars who argue that it is not a form of anarchism. Since they are in minority their view shouldn't be presented as a generally accepted.

Who is in the minority? The vast majority of anarchist theorists have argued that capitalism cannot survive without the state, which implies that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, oxymoronic. These fork into arguments which hold that non-socialist-anarchisms are not anarchist, and those which argue that non-socialist anarchisms are not capitalist. Jacob Haller 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That can also imply that anarcho-capitalist theorists envisage their version of capitalism in a different way than those anarchist theorists did. -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Raico is libertarian but as far as I know he is not an anarcho-capitalist. However, I will agree on his removal if you will agree on removal of your libertarians and anarchist as sources for claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism on the same basis (subjectivity).

Concerning, "Frontlines" I can't even find any evidence that such publisher exists, and that is enough to put into question their reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to play this both ways. When it comes to the text you claim that the status of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is non-controversial, and continue to remove any reference to controversy. When it comes to sources you disagree with you claim that it is controversial, and continue to insist on leaving only those sources that referance AC as a form of anarchism. You ignore and dismiss all sources that would demonstrate the controversy and insist they they must be in a majority without any evidence at all to back up that claim. This is not a discussion you are engaging in, but an attempt to push through a particular viewpoint.

Anyway, its a strange standard you are advocating, if we are going to remove sources due to the political ideology of the source then you will find more than just Raico left out, Susan Brown and Paul Avrich would also be removed, among many others. Or are you suggesting we remove only those sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and keep the rest? Its certainly seems to be what you are suggesting in your edits. Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving it for you and other editors to decide. For me it works either way. -- Vision Thing -- 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Etcetc, can you provide quotes for "Sources that consider anarchism and capitalism mutually incompatible"? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I? Of course. Are you asking me to dig up every reference and provide you with a full quote? If so, why? Etcetc 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I tried to check something and I found some discrepancies. But anyway, we had the same procedure for sources which support claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, so it is only fair to follow it here too. -- Vision Thing -- 12:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a single example of a discrepancy and I'd be happy to give the quote to justify the reference. As to the anarcho-capitalist sources, many of them failed to correspond to the text when I check them and were posted by individuals now banned from wikipedia for engaging in blatantly anti-wiki behavior. In other words, ALL of the anarcho-capitalist sources are suspect. I'd be happy to provide a quote from each and every source I have posted if you do the same with the anarcho-capitalist ones. You have already reinserted several suspect sources, indicating that you have no intention of being intellectually honest about this, but if you've changed your ways I would be happy to oblige your rather strange request. Etcetc 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can find all quotes here, under Sources section. As for discrepancies in your sources, I have read page 238 from 'Political Theorists in Context' by Stuart Isaacs twice and I'm not clear how you have concluded that he argues that anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote you've called into question is "Anarchism was a movement based upon equality and, like communism, it sought a working class revolution to overthrow the state." The quote is on page 240, I suppose the page must have flipped over while I was typing in the citation. Of course, there are plenty of other quotes as well, like "In other words, anarchism has at its core a belief in the direct democratic participation of all in the decisions that affect the societies in which they live." on the page before. Etcetc 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those comments addresses capitalism. First (btw, talking in the past tense) talks about revolution to overthrow the state, not capitalism, and second talks about direct democracy, so you would need to do some (mistaken) original research to use that one. Also, author you quoted says: In an unlike turn of events many neo-liberals of the 1980s and 1990s turned towards anarchist ideas. These new libertarians argued that the state (in particular the welfare state) needed to be 'rolled back' to allow individuals' greater freedom to exercise their own ambitions and enterprise. Both Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Regan in the USA benefited from this Right-leaning anarchist spirited discourse. So you are clearly adding your own spin to the comments of this author, and maybe to rest of them too, since he is clearly not indicating that anarchism and its ideas are incompatible with capitalism (I imagine that you consider both Thatcher and Regan as ultra-capitalists). -- Vision Thing -- 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they "turned toward anarchist ideas" does not imply that they were anarchists, nor that their political philosophy was compatible with anarchism. Are you actually suggesting that the author was implying that Thatcher and Reagan were anarchists? Obviously capitalists can have some anarchist ideas, so can fascists, that doesn't make either group anarchists themselves.

Your attempts to dismiss this source border on outrageous, are you actually trying to argue that a workers revolution is in any way compatible with capitalism? If you think that reference to direct democracy requires original research in order to consider it incompatible with anarcho-capitalism, then you have an awfully high standard. One that would rule out several of the pro-capitalist sources you continue to champion. After all, some of them only indicate that Murray Rothbard was an individualist anarchist without making any mention of his being an anarcho-capitalist. That would require the great leap of imagination for the reader to like Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism with his attributed individualist anarchism. Yet you seem to think that without a direct statement indicating that anarcho-capitalism is or is not anarchism it is all original research. You need to make a choice, either we include sources that obviously support the text even though they don't simply repeat the same exact statements, or we throw out all instances of interpretation, anaylsis, and deduction on both sides that don't measure up to your suddenly high standards. Its your call, I'm cool with it either way, so long as you cease to apply a double standard. Etcetc 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was Tucker's AtO removed from the list? Jacob Haller 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist capitalism. Some sources even classify Tucker as an anarcho-capitalist. -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist capitalism according to... Vision Thing? Etcetc 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's debatable. Tucker and Rothbard had different views of land ownership and banking systems. Rothbard often argued that non-Lockean land systems and non-metallic banking systems violated natural rights; however, Tucker and Rothbard proposed similar methods for resolving disputes, which have been extended to allow for multiple land systems and multiple banking systems. But somewhere we have to distinguish between Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism and Malatesta's pf anarcho-communism...

In effect, Tucker states that anarchism cannot be capitalist in the ordinary sense of the term (which makes as much sense as saying that classical individualist anarchism was not socialist in the ordinary sense of the term, except that socialism has had two rival ordinary senses since the late 19th century, and capitalism has had one ordinary sense, which confuses markets and privilege). Jacob Haller 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard

I read on the internet that Ron Paul, candidate for president of the U.S., was a close associate of Murray Rothbard. Is this true? Anyone have a solid reference for this? After reading this, I'm recognizing a lot of Rothbard influence in what Paul says. Paul sounds like a near-anarchist. Ansetropen 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, Ansetropen, like Crashola and so many countless ones before, is yet another banned sockpuppet. Etcetc 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)