Talk:Market anarchism

Usury

Socialist individualist anarchists do oppose usury and ownership of the means of production beyond what can be worked by the individual. What I added was simply showing the differences between the two types. --AFA 05:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If they oppose charging interest, how do you explain Lysander Spooner here: " "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore,nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor." ? RJII 14:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide a cite for that, and if it is true, then perhapes it should read something like "some (or most) oppose usury".AFA 04:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's from POVERTY, IT'S ILLEGAL CAUSES AND LEGAL CURES [1] What these individualists oppose is a government/banking monopoly, not banking and lending itself. They felt that anyone should be allowed to run a bank without having to get a charter from the government or other regulations. They thought if this were the case it would make capital more available and result in lower or "natural" interest rates. Some of them say that oppose "usury" but they're talking about government-enforced situations. RJII 15:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

disputed tag

I put a disputed POV and factual accuracy tag, because it makes the claim that "market anarchism" comes from Prouhdon, etc, and makes it look like it's only used "sometimes" for anarcho-capitalism. The claims are not sourced at all. I'm not aware of Proudon or others of his kind using the term. RJII 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguate or Merge

This article does not add much that is not explained better elsewhere. I propose this be a disambiguation page linking to anarcho-capitalism, mutualism and agorism, or that it be merged into one of these. Any opinions? Salkádar 20:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. RJII 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge it with anarcho-capitalism and make them fight over the title. These are two views of the same phenomena exactly.

That wouldn't make much sense, now would it? Market anarchism isn't anarcho-capitalism just like anarcho-capitalism isn't market anarchism--anarcho-capitalism is but one kind of market anarchism. Market anarchism latter is simply a term used for anarchists who advocate and argue for the [totally] free market as the end and means for anarchism (just like "communist anarchism," even though this term is much more narrow). This pro-market approach distinguishes market anarchists from other anarchists. Thus, the term covers/includes mutualism, agorism, individualist anarchism (but not all of it), and anarcho-capitalism but not e.g. bakuninism or anarcho-communism.

This explanation makes sense, but if it is correct, I agree with the assertion that it should be a disambiguation page, as the present article does not add much that isn't already included in the aforementioned topics.

Why is this a seperate article when it seems to be the same as Anarcho-capitalism? Lord Metroid 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the nineteenth century form, as represented by Benjamin Tucker, is usually considered distinct from anarcho-capitalism because they had a labor theory of value. But that form is not usually called market anarchism either. I've never seen a published source refer to it as market anrachism. Free-market anarchism is always used, in published sources, to refer to anarcho-capitalism. So that's a good question.Anarcho-capitalism 21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism

I agree that Mutualism SHOULD be considered as a type of market anarchism, but are there any sources for it being called this? If not, then we can't include it in the article because that would be "original research."Anarcho-capitalism 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since contemporary mutualist thinker and writer Kevin Carson, author of Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, uses the phrase "free market anti-capitalism" as kind of a motto I think it accurate to call mutualism a tradition belonging in the market anarchist camp. Also, Proudhon, the original mutualist, speaks freely about how the market can "save" the world from exploitation and oppression. See e.g. General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century.

The Molinari Institute website defines market anarchism like this: "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." That rules out Proudhon, because he never advocate privately-funded security functions. But, that's just a website. I'm looking for a scholarly definition of market anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found one and I put it in the intro. Like the Molinari Institute, it says market anarchists support market provided security.Anarcho-capitalism 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon may have supported market defense. See Spangler's essay Proudhon and Market Anarchism @[2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

By the way, there is a definition for market anarchism available on the market anarchist op-ed news service (or something like that) Center for a Stateless Society--C4SS.org. (See their FAQ.)

Layman question

What's the difference between individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and market anarchism? Fephisto 06:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Individualist anarchists" can refer to either of two overlapping groups; "egoists," (e.g. Stirner) not all of whom are market anarchists, and "market anarchists," not all of whom are egoists, as well as to the older tradition of anarchism in North America (e.g. Warren, Greene, Tucker, Spooner) most of whom were market anarchists and some of whom were egoists.

"Market anarchists" sometimes means "anarcho-capitalists" (which faces its own notorious definitional problems) and sometimes means all pro-market anarchists. (Anarchists in general are pro-free-association; the question is whether markets, currency, etc. drive the economy with gifts, sharing, collective consensus, etc. on the periphery, or whether gifts, etc. drive the economy, with markets, etc. on the periphery. Both-and positions, collectivism, and parecon are sometimes considered market anarchism as well.) Another definition emphasises that market mechanisms protect the society. (This definition includes most forms of mutualism and even syndicalism; it might exclude some forms of geoism).

Many but not all of the 19th-century pro-market anarchists considered themselves socialists. Warren, Proudhon, Greene, and Tucker certainly did.

Anarchism allows (voluntary) two-person trade and (voluntary) federation-wide agreements, so it's never quite clear when the market leaves off. Jacob Haller 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm guessing the word 'sometimes' is a euphenism for 'still in dispute'? Fephisto 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one reason it's "sometimes" ... Jacob Haller 04:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

• Oppose. I tentatively suggest that issues concerning all market anarchist philosophies should go in this page; issues concerning only one market anarchist philosophy should be removed to the individual pages. Jacob Haller 22:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merge I don't know what the proposer was thinking, sure the two topics have some things in common but this merge is lunacries. A Featured article with this. Better to create a more comprehensive article for Market anarchism then a quick fix of mergeing. I am being bold and removes this proposal as I don't see any legitimate claim for why it would be merged. Lord Metroid 12:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Markets

Given (1) The term "free market" is used to denote non-coerced and non-fraudulent exchange of goods and services and (2) Market anarchism (or free-market anarchism) is a label commonly used to describe a number of individualist anarchist philosophies that assert that all the institutions necessary for the function of a free market, such as money, police, and courts, should be provided by the market itself, wouldn't, e.g., anarcho-communism meet that definition of market anarchism? Jacob Haller 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but your answer will depend precisely upon how you define "market." When Warren, for example, talked about "commerce," he meant pretty much all human interactions. Plenty of social anarchist would rather not use "economic" language. It's important to note, too, that there is considerable difference between the weakest of possessory property schemes and property-in-common. Libertatia 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that definition has the same ambiguity about those who don't consider money necessary, and those who don't consider police necessary, and then defining money, or police. I figure markets, currency, the idea that commerce is productive, the idea that competition can purge economic vices, etc. distinguish market and non-market anarchism (though collectivism has markets between collectives, currency within collectives, competition between economic models, etc...). If there has to be one distinguishing feature, I'd point to price signals. Jacob Haller 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any sense in which Proudhon wasn't a market anarchist?

(Since this came up on the article page). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacob Haller (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Proudhon did not advocate market provided defense. He defined anarchy as "a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties. In it, as a consequence, the institutions of the police, preventive and repressive methods, officialdom, taxation, etc., are reduced to a minimum." Defense would be provided by a miniarchist system funded by taxation. I believe he thought that defense would become less needed over time, over hundreds of years as people evolve, until there would be no need for defense at all. You may be tempted to change the definition of market anarchism just to fit Proudhon in but I suggest you don't. The definition has a source. All true market anarchists are market anarchists because of opposition to taxation. They like the protections services but want it to be funded voluntarily. That's the essence of market anarchism. Crashola 19:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All true market anarchists are market anarchists because of opposition to taxation. So anarchocommunists are market anarchists, and geoanarchists aren't? It's more complicated than that. I assume you mean that opposition to taxation is one of several considerations.

Proudhon favored free association (i.e. anarchism) including free trade, markets, currency, contracts, private possession, etc. Just about any defense of market anarchism will cover Proudhon's system and just about any critique of market anarchism will challenge Proudhon's system. In his General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, Proudhon states "instead of laws we would have contracts." In On Rousseau Bakunin, following Proudhon, emphasizes competition between different social contracts: "And since it is now proven that no state could exist without committing crimes, or at least without contemplating and planning them, even when its impotence should prevent it from perpetrating crimes, we today conclude in favour of the absolute need of destroying the states. Or, if it is so decided, their radical and complete transformation so that, ceasing to be powers centralised and organised from the top down, by violence or by authority of some principle, they may recognise -- with absolute liberty for all the parties to unite or not to unite, and with liberty for each of these always to leave a union even when freely entered into -- from the bottom up, according to the real needs and the natural tendencies of the parties, through the free federation of individuals, associations, communes, districts, provinces, and nations within humanity." Since Proudhon, and one of the least market-oriented interpreters of Proudhon, both suggest replacing the state with competing social contracts (I've only quoted two passages but there are others), it seems more likely than not that Proudhon favored the replacement of that part, as well as of the whole. Spangler looks at the same issues at http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/511 Jacob Haller 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad is noting part of a very consistent concern in Proudhon with the "economic resolution of conflict." The Selected Writings includes a section (pages 209-214) from War and Peace where he proposes an end to war by means of establishing "economic equilibrium." The attempt to use the fact that Proudhon didn't emphasize private cops as a means of marginalizing him among market anarchist is sort of amusing. Libertatia 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What is amusing is your assumption that I'm trying to marginalize Proudhon, when I'm merely trying to make sure the article is accurate. Stop looking for sinister motivations and you'll make your Wikipedia experience more productive. Crashola 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When I say "All true market anarchists are market anarchists because of opposition to taxation," I am saying that's what pushes them to be market anarchists. In other words, they like having police, courts, and national defense, but they don't like that it's funded by taxation. Therefore they theorize that these things can be provided by voluntary payments. That's what makes them market anarchists. I don't understand why you're bringing up anarcho-communism. Crashola 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No true Scotsman fallacy. I personally know two market anarchists who oppose policing and warfare. You stated that "all true market anarchists are market anarchists because of opposition to taxation," which implies that opposition to taxation is necessary (and excludes some geoarchists, like Nock and B. Green) and sufficient (which includes even anarchocommunists, which seems to undermine the meaning of market anarchism). In any case, you haven't shown that Proudhon supported non-fee-for-service taxation. Jacob Haller 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that opposition to taxation is necessary and sufficient. It's necessary but I wasn't even making the point that it was necessary. Market anarchists support market-provided defense by definition. The point I was making was that the reason why individuals choose market anarchism over minarchism, meaning market-funded defense over tax-funded defense is that they oppose taxation. Crashola 01:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning geoanarchism, geoanarchists don't tax. The person who takes land is not forced to pay rent to the community. It's optional. If he doesn't pay it then he just won't receive services from the community. It's different from Georgism where payment of rent is obligatory. Crashola 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

to a geo-anarchist the sharing of "natural" economic rent is not optional, there are two types of economic rent. 1. "natural" economic rent which attaches to all locations as the result of exclusive use in a scarcity market. 2. "social" economic rent which is the result of public infrastructure investments as a positive externality...everyone has to share "natural" economic rent but not "social" economic rent as one can band with other contiguous landowners and secede.BeGreener 13:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Property

Concerning Josiah Warren, he just advocated that land by sold at cost in order to be "equitable." He did not espouse the idea of what you call "possession." Crashola 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In Equitable Commerce he supports the ownership of improvoments but not of the natural land itself. "If improvements C have been made upon it, their cost only being paid, makes the natural wealth free and accessible to all without price." which does not suggest any preference among the three positions discussed regarding land. So I'll remove the reference to Warren there. Jacob Haller 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't own the improvements without owning the land itself. The land is the raw material that you apply your labor to. It's the same with any other natural resource. If you improve it it's your property, in Lockean ethics. Crashola 22:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Warren clearly supports owning the improvements but not the land. I'm not sure how he proposed to implement that. Probably not non-proviso Lockeanism. Jacob Haller 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see Warren say that he doesn't support owning land? That's inconsistent with anything I've ever seen from him or about him. Crashola 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's right in the passage. "If improvements C have been made upon it, their cost only being paid, makes the natural wealth free and accessible to all without price." Equitable Commerce, part 5. The only way the seller can charge for improvements, but not for site value, is if unimproved sites are accessible at near zero cost. I suppose narrowly-construed Lockean standards might achieve that... Jacob Haller 02:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't transfer the improvements to the land to someone else without transferring the land itself. The improvements are made out of land. Anyway, I'm not aware of Warren ever pushing the "possession" thing where land is not owned unless you use it. He even bought land himself and sold it to settlers in his experimental villages. Crashola 04:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

As for "Intellectual Property," I know that most mutualists (including Proudhon, Tucker, and Carson) and most agorists (including Long) among others (Rothbard) have opposed IP. Spooner favored IP. Jacob Haller 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that many propertarians have endorsed abandonment standards. So many versions of Locke's system, as well as of Proudhon's system, regard long-term non-use as non-ownership. He may be persona non grata on wikipedia, but Bill Orton's "stickiness" continuum comes to mind. Jacob Haller 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC) In addition, An Anarchist FAQ B.3.1, goes into social-anarchist interpretations of possession. Between social anarchists and mutualists, that's most libertarian socialists. Jacob Haller 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You insist on mentioning the Lockean proviso. Anarcho-capitalists don't accept it. What market anarchists do? Crashola 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two provisos with different interpretations. Homestead/abandonment considerations are a weak form, and occupancy/use standards are a strong form of one proviso. Geoism is the strong form of the other proviso. Now looking through blog posts, it seems that Roderick Long considers himself, as well as Murray Rothbard, non-proviso Lockeans. In one comment http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/290#comment-3571 Long states that:

Since most Lockeans think you lose property rights if you “abandon” a piece of property, one could say the fundamental difference between mutualists and Lockeans is a question of what counts as abandonment (a point Kevin Carson has made). If you look at it that way, it’s not obvious that mutualists are closer to Georgists than to Lockeans.

Locke had two different provisos - one was "enough and as good" and the other was the "spoilage" proviso...geoists follow the "enough and as good" proviso and mutualists follow the "spoilage" proviso because the produce left rotting in the field free for gleaners to take for personal consumption without violating property rights, is considered abandoned by the farmer.BeGreener 14:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that mutualist opposition to allowing individuals to continue to own land that they're not using would be based in the "enough and as good" idea. It's not the crop rotting that they're concerned about but the land itself. Crashola 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"enough and as good" is defined by the appearance of economic rent - why would I pay someone to locate where they are if the had left (subjectively determined) enough and as good for me to freely homestead? this is the basis of the geoist position...whereas why would I occupy and use more land than I could til and harvest if what is left in the field was free for gleaners to appropriate without violating property rights?BeGreener 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Among those who accept some version of private ownership, another difference is whether the possibility of common ownership is also endorsed. David Schmidtz, Carlton Hobbs, Randall Holcombe and I have all defended the position that there could and should be cases of legitimate common ownership in a libertarian society. Most Rothbardians reject this view. (I don’t mean that they reject the possibility of contractually-formed partnerships and the like, but they do tend to reject the idea of less explicit and less rigidly bounded forms of common ownership.)

Note that I'd learned homesteading/abandonment as proviso, not non-proviso Lockeanism, but that Long regards it as non-proviso Lockeanism. Kinda confusing ... Jacob Haller 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist "abandonment" must be intentional. If you hold title to land you hold it indefinitely. It doesn't matter whether you use the land or not. That's not related to the priviso. The proviso has to do with how much land you acquire in the first place through homesteading. If you homestead all the land leaving none for anyone else then that would be a violation of the proviso. That's what anarcho-capitalists disagree with. Whatever you apply your labor to, you own. There is no limit. Crashola 04:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section, since nothing at all was sourced. How about only adding information one bit at a time that is sourced instead of just speculating about things? Crashola 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Crashola is the banned sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. -- infinity0 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that right? Crashola 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Free market anarchism

I think "free market anarchism" is the more common name for this in books and articles instead of just "market anarchism." Change the title of the article? Operation Spooner 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The "free" is superfluous -- anarchism implies the market is free. I think it's ok as is. Fritter (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

This article seems to cover exactly the same things (Tucker, AnCap, etc.) as Individualist anarchism. If it differs in any respect it's in the POV presented - and POV forks should be avoided. Is there a good reason not to redirect? Bacchiad 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose redirect per discussion above - market anarchism overlaps with, but is not encompassed by, individualist anarchism. Skomorokh ^incite 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that? Market anarchism is indeed encompassed by individualist anarchism. Operation Spooner 14:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see your point that Stirner didn't really discuss exchange in any depth and Godwin had the whole gift economy thing. The article in its current form totally sucks, though. Maybe a good start might be harmonizing the relevant sections here with the relevant sections there. Bacchiad 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are individualist anarchists that are not market anarchists, such as William Godwin and Max Stirner. Operation Spooner 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Market anarchism is a subset of the set individualist anarchism philosophies. Seperate article required Lord Metroid (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of AC

I don't think this section adds much of anything. It is essentially one person stating his vague perceptions as fact. The two links to Issues in Anarchism and Political Framing are helpful, though. Fritter (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's also painfully factually wrong. To quote: "Market anarchists deny that there exist capitalist states at all." - umm, no, anarchist schools of thinking use the original definition of capitalism as "concentration of (/monopoly on) capital achieved due to coertion", which outright implies that ALL states are capitalist. Squeal (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mutualism market anarchism?

Anyone have a source for mutualism being "market anarchism?" It doesn't appear to fit the sourced definitions. Just because a form of anarchism supports markets, I don't believe that makes it market anarchism. Collectivist Anarchism (Bakunin) supports markets, but I don't think that is considered to be market anarchism. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I altered the wording to say "some mutualists" instead of mutualism as a whole. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing mutualists to "some" is original research. "Free market anti-capitalism" is a slogan for mutualism. Check out this link: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html It mentions that mutualists are anti-capitalist. Mutalists are somewhere between individualist and collectivist anarchism. However, this article classifies that free market anarchy is always a form of individualist anarchy. This may be false. Some free market anarchists may not be individualist anarchists.71.175.31.106 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That FAQ is not admissible as a source. And "free market anti-capitalism" does not translate as "market anarchism." About mutualists being between individualist and collectivist, yes that could be said for Proudhonian mutualism. But from what I understand there is not just one form of mutualism. From what I understand some of the American individualist anarchists were called mutualists. I haven't come across a reliable source for this though. But, it would be a different form of mutualism. By definition, Benjamin Tucker was a market anarchist, but I haven't seen a source for that. And Tucker is always called an individualist anarchist rather than a mutualist, at least in the sources I've seen. I'm not sure if Proudhon would be considered a market anarchist. Simply supporting markets does not make one a market anarchist. Otherwise Collectivist anarchism would be called market anarchism too. It appears the "market anarchism" was created for Rothbard and Friedman to refer to market security. It seems to have been applied later by some people on the internet for some other people. We just need some sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving to free-market anarchism

"Free-market anarchism" seems to be the more popular name. If you do a Google search to test for the term "market anarchism" that doesn't have the "free" in front of it like this: ""market anarchism" -"free-market anarchism" -Wikipedia"" you get 1530 hits. When you test for "free-market anarchism" like this: ""free-market anarchism" -Wikipedia"" you get 6890 hits. My observation has been that the original term is "free-market anarchism," but lately "market anarchism" has been used by some people as shorthand, especially on the internet. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Free-market anarchism is a synonym of anarcho-capitalism, as Rothbard used, so why won't we redirect? There is only one kind of market anarchism: anarcho-capitalism. Mutualism and geoanarchism has a partial mix of collectivist concepts.

The word market, is shorthand for the word free market, according to dictionaries. [3]

Some do not consider mutualists and geoanarchists market-anarchists. These are do not have "free" markets because mutualists have "possession" regulations and geoanarchists have land regulations. They are not pure socialist nor market, but mix of both. It is similar to the anarchist equivalent to a mixed economy. They advocate socialist roads and regulations.

Like in a political chart, socialists are left and capitalists are right. Similarily, socialist anarchists are left and anarcho-capitalists are right. Mutualism and geoanarchism are located in the middle of the spectrum. Therefore, the logical method is to uncategorize these two articles, since a "mixed economy" is not as far right in the spectrum as capitalism is.

Agorism is not a system. Agorism is the practice of using counter-economics to acheivve an anarcho-capitalist society. So all agorists are anarcho-capitalists, according to Samuel Edward Konkin II and some other left-Rothbardians. Even that agorism is a "kind" of anarcho-capitalism, agorism should not be included in the anarcho-capitalism article. So why should agorism included in this article?71.175.31.106 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mutualists do not support an all-ecompassing free-market economy, because they won't let people own the land they buy. But the question is do some sources consider them to be free-market anarchists? If so, then this article should exist shouldn't it? Who are you calling mutualists anyway? It is not clear who is a mutualist other than Proudhon. I see people talking on here about Benjamin Tucker being a mutualist, but I'm having a hard time finding sources for Benjamin Tucker or Lysander Spooner being mutualists. They sources I come across say they are individualist anarchists rather than mutualists. Mutualists are a hybrid between individualists and collectivists, as you point out, according to sources. Anyway, what makes someone a free-market anarchist is that they support competitive provision of security, according to the sources. So someone who didn't support land being protected from being taken away from a person, could still be a free-market anarchist according to that definition. But they wouldn't be anarcho-capitalists. Operation Spooner (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that some sources deny that mutualism and geoanarchism are a kind of market anarchism, while other do. If mutualists are free-market anarchists, then anarcho-socialists should too be market anarchists, because there would be anarcho-socialist communes in a market anarchist society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.31.106 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What are some sources that deny mutualism and geoanarchism are market anarchism? There's really not much point in this discussion without sources. Our personal reasoning is not really relevant. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some good sources on the Internet, but I did not have the time to find them. A majority of sources indicating that mutualism is a form of market anarchism are only Wikipedia clone pages and pages that link to wikipedia.

The pages that are not influenced by Wikipedia are mostly blog and forum pages, which are not good sources. I don't see any relevent sources suggesting that mutualism is a kind of market anarchism. Here's the link

So the best thing is to remove the word mutualism in this article.

One other thing: Voluntaryists endorse market anarchism, but it is not a subset of market anarchism. Similarily, agorists just endorse this. Why are not agorists mentioned in the anarcho-capitalism article? All agorists are anarcho-capitalists.

The content of this article should be moved to anarchism and Anarchist schools of thought.

71.175.31.106 (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that agorism meets the definition of anarcho-capitalism. But the problem is that it is so obscure that there are almost no published sources that mention it. To label or include it as anarcho-capitalism requires a source does it not? I haven't seen any published sources for mutualism being market anarchism. So yes mutualism probably should be deleted, unless someone can come up with some. I don't think mutualists, as a rule, support market anarchism. Some mutualists did, maybe. Benjamin Tucker wasn't an anarcho-capitalist, but he meets the definition of market anarchism. However, I haven't been able to find sources saying that Tucker was a market anarchist. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no relevent sources mentioning agorists supporting anarcho-capitalism, except this one and this one, but the latter source comes from a blog...71.175.31.106 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's move to anarcho-capitalism. The other article explains Molinari, Tucker, Rothbard and David Friedman much more thoroughly and inclusively. The other article contains everything in this article except agorism and the belief in a corrupt state. Lockean homesteading, the non-aggression axiom, deontology and consequentalism, and all the other info are included there.71.175.31.106 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just found a published source saying that Benjamin Tucker was a free-market anarchist. [4] You don't consider Tucker to be an anarcho-capitalist do you? Operation Spooner (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The word anarcho-capitalism was not invented at that time. Benjamin Tucker is in the anarcho-capitalism article, so why do you want to duplicate? I do not see any sources suggesting that free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are different. So he would probably identify himself an anarcho-capitalist if the term was available. Free-market anarchism is a synonym of anarcho-capitalism. This article should be moved to anarcho-capitalism.71.175.31.106 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

But I just gave you a source for Tucker being a free-market anarchist. I'm not aware of any sources that say Tucker was an anarcho-capitalist. Operation Spooner (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proudhon, Tucker, and more recently Carson, among others, have all identified as socialists or anti-capitalists. Tucker and Carson, among others, are generally, if not universally, considered free-market anarchists, market anarchists, free-market, etc. covering all those bases. Shunting self-described socialists into the anarchocapitalism article seems to involve excessive systematization. I think it would involve systemic bias and could involve SYN and POV. 72.66.40.17 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)