Talk:Anarchism

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

• Posts from Sept. 13 to Sept. 26 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive43. Hogeye 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-09-27 to 2006-10-06 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive44. -- infinity0 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-10-07 to 2006-11-03 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive45. -- Donnacha 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally some wolfie sockblocks

I have just now (finally, you may all well say) blocked User:Doctors without suspenders indefinitely as a wolfie sock. Along with User:Radiant hedgehog, User:Aithérios, and, I expect, more to come. It's very difficult to keep so many socks going and never slip up. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

Hooray! Blockader 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on end of civilization

Anarchists input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Marshall and anarcho-capitalism

I changed this: "However, Peter Marshall says in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice" to this: "However, Peter Marshall says in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp" because he believes "they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice" in order to make it NPOV - to show it is his POV. I don't think it can be asserted that anarcho-capitalists are not concerned with economic equality and social justice. It depends on how you define economic equality. I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I support economic equality. Economic equality to me means equal economic rights. But if you define economic equality as equal wealth, then anarcho-capitalists do not support that. "Social justice" is another vague term. If the article says that anarcho-capitalists oppose economic equality and social justice then these things should be defined.Anarcho-capitalism 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Peter Marshall is incorrect, because the consequence of his thesis is to remove individualist anarchism from the "anarchist camp" as well. From Benjamin Tucker's Instead of a Book (as quoted in Madison 1943):

“ Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labor; it will abolish all means whereby any laborer can be deprived of any of his product; but it will not abolish the limited inequality between one laborer's product and another's....Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich." (emphasis mine) ”

Peter Marshall thus represents a marginal view which is moreover incorrect, and his statement should accordingly be removed. Which I will do. Intangible 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Original Research to decide whether or not a properly cited source is correct or not and to remove it for that reason. It is not Peter Marshall's view that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp because they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice", it is the view of the vast majority of anarchists who reject "anarcho-capitalism" because of its support for extreme economic inequality and hatred of any form of social activism. Donnacha 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a marginal view to say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. But Marshall goes even further and says that individualist anarchism is not anarchism. It would be given undue weight to the views of Marshall if they were to be entered. Just because someone wrote a book, does not mean any of the book text should be entered into Wikipedia. Please review WP:NPOV. Intangible 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't a marginal view, the vast majority of anarchists oppose capitalism and, thus, view "anarcho"-capitalism as a contradiction in terms. Marshall cites the view of that majority that it is not anarchism. It's not his view, he doesn't argue anything, he quite correctly presents the opinion of the thousands, if not millions, of anarchists around the world who reject "anarcho"-capitalism. It's quite simple, anarchism is about equality and freedom. Oppose equality, you oppose freedom and thus anarchism. QED: "Anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism. While so-called "social" anarchists (a term not generally used by those who are considered under it) criticise elements of mutualism and individualism, we recognise that they believed that what they argued for would lead to greater, if not absolute (which is an impossibility anyway) equality. The same is not true of anyone who supports the private control of the means of production and, thus, wage slavery (defined as a situation whereby an individual must sell their labour to meet their needs, not as as a system where people choose to work for another). Despite the lies about anarcho-communism spread by its opponents, we do not oppose working for a wage, we argue instead that voluntary association in a non-monetary system is a better option. Most of us envisage mixed economies with individual holdings beside communes beside collectives, co-operatives and mutualist set-ups. Donnacha 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"[M]oney, wages, and trade would be abolished" -Kropotkin And, "anarcho"-communists will only allow an amount of individual holdings that they believe "necessary" for those individuals that don't want to join the communist system. Anything above that amount would be stolen. Kropotkin said if a family doesn't want to join the communist system, then he would allow them "a house which affords them just as much space as under present average conditions of life, are considered necessary for that number of people." Well isn't that generous of him.Anarcho-capitalism 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, what about "it will not abolish the limited inequality between one laborer's product and another's....Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich" don't you understand? Intangible 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with English? "would lead to greater, if not absolute (which is an impossibility anyway) equality". That's exactly the same point - everyone rich=greater equality. Not equally rich - not absolute equality. Donnacha 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. The aim of market anarchists is to raise the wealth of everyone by keeping state interference out of the market - laissez-faire. It will result in the elimination of poverty but it will not lead to equal wealth. It could very well lead to increased inequality in terms of wealth or income - we don't know for sure. But, if the choice is between equal wealth and liberty, we market anarchists will choose liberty. It doesn't matter if the next guy has more money than me as long as we both have the right to private property and trade.Anarcho-capitalism 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, this is not what Marshall is saying. Marshall is quite explicit in referring to "economic inequality," a kind of inequality that also exist under liberty according to individualist anarchism. Therefore Marshall's statement is useless. If you want to continue this discussion, you should first find sources that can support your claim. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages...are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." You have not done that. Intangible 07:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawman after strawman after strawman - try responding to the things I actually write. Marshall is a secondary source, he's describing the view of most anarchists. As one of those, I agree with what he says. Thus, his quote is correct about those to whom he attributes the view. Economic inequality, as referred to by Marshall, is the fundamental element of anarchism, the element that excludes "anarcho"-capitalism. Economic inequality is private ownership of the means of production and the system of wage slavery. Economic inequality doesn't mean financial inequality in the sense that a has more than b, it means economic inequality where economic power is concentrated in the hands of the owners of capital. Good jaysus, this is basic stuff. Marshall doesn't define it in that specific section because it's the basic theme of the entire history of anarchism. It's what the bloody book is about! Donnacha 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is neither here not there to talk about the rest of the book, one is only concerned with that particular statement Marshall made. I've shown that Marschall is inconsistent, namely that he is making a logical error in dismissing anarcho-capitalism from the anarchist camp because of "economic inequalities," while these "economic inequalities" exist for individualist anarchism as well. You here are the only one making strawman arguments, I have shown a coherent and logical argument, based on third party statements, while you are just relying on what you think is "true," a WP:OR notion at best. Intangible 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Complete claptrap. As it states quite succinctly in the Economic egalitarianism article here "Economic egalitarianism is a state of affairs in which the members of a society are of equal standing in terms of economic power or wealth. It is a founding principle of various forms of socialism." (emphasis mine) Economic egalitarianism is the same thing as economic equality. Thus, the views of the individualists about creating a level playing field where some people, due to greater talent or effort, might end up richer than others, falls under this definition. Any form of Capitalism, which retains economic hierarchies, does not. Marshall doesn't "define the term" in that quote because anyone who knows anything about radical politics knows well what it means. Finally, it is completely POV and OR to remove a properly quoted and cited piece of criticism because you either don't agree with it or think it's incorrect. I disagree with most criticisms of libertarian communism from all parties and think they're incorrect, yet I do not seek to remove references to them once their properly placed in criticisms sections. Donnacha 16:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of OR, while you base your argument on an unsourced Wikipedia article?! There is nothing in individualist anarchism that even remotely comes close to your unsourced "economic egalitarianism" notion. The only equality individualist anarchists believe in is that of equal liberty, self-ownership for all. Nothing more, nothing less. Intangible 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Jaysis sake, you really are impossible. I'm not basing any arguement on a Wikipedia article, I happen to be an expert on this topic. The Wikipedia article just happens to give a perfectly succinct statement of economic egalitarianism. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the topics you criticise or claim to be part of if you think any anarchist (apart from "anarcho"-capitalists") support anything other than an even playing field in economic terms. All the individualists argued for equality of opportunity, which is an example of economic egalitarianism. The quote you have continually used is an example of that, "Liberty will ultimately make all men rich" - greater equality. Anarcho-communists and collectivists, of course, go further, though not as far as people like you claim - they argue for equality of access, but imagine a post-scarcity economy where there is more than enough for everyone. You reject so-called "social" anarchism without knowing what it is or (it seems) even the basic principles, and you claim commonality with individual anarchists while attributing views and arguments to them that they never held. Donnacha 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So now you base your argument based on authority? With your OR notions I could easily argue that anarcho-capitalism is egalitarian as well. All irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot argue that individualist-anarchism is egalitarian without a reliable source. I have presented a reliable source that says individualist-anarchism are not economic egalitarians. You have presented nothing. Intangible 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, clearly you do have a problem understanding plain English, so there is no point in discussing this further with you. You obviously know nothing about anarchism, which proves more than anything else that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. I think it's time to look for binding arbitration on this page. Donnacha 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you actually start presenting sources on this talk page, you shouldn't even be talking about binding arbitration. Intangible 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Intangible 21:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from another nineteenth century individualist, Laurance Labadie: "In a world where inequality of ability is inevitable, anarchists do not sanction any attempt to produce equality by artificial or authoritarian means. The only equality they posit and will strive their utmost to defend is the equality of opportunity. This necessitates the maximum amount of freedom for each individual. This will not necessarily result in equality of incomes or of wealth but will result in returns proportionate to services rendered. Free competition will see to that."Anarcho-capitalism 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This would be the Laurance Labadie who called anarchism "voluntary socialism", would it? At least have the decency to acknowledge that he, like his father, considered anarchism to be a form of socialism. BlackFlag 09:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Marshall article is a strange article. It's difficult to tell what he is saying. He seems to say here that Benjamin Tucker was an anarcho-capitalist: "The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal Liberty in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers."Anarcho-capitalism 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is only "strange" if you do not understand anarchism or read Marshall out of context. And he is not saying that Tucker is an anarcho-capitalist, if you bothered to read what he said about him in the section on Tucker. BlackFlag, 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Marshall states that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." Well, hate to point this out but that is just a statement of fact. If in doubt, look at the anarchism entry in wikipedia! Or in the anarchist press (like Freedom, Direct Action, Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, Organise!, Anarchy, North-Eastern Anarchist, Black Flag, and so many others -- and that is just English language ones). And not to mention the web. So, to suggest that Marshall is wrong is simply to show utter ignorance about the anarchist movement. BlackFlag 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This should help clarify the nonsense "anarcho-capitalist" is spreading about economic equality. Here is anarcho-communist Alexander Berkman on this issue: "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness." (The ABC of Anarchism) In other words, if we take "anarcho-capitalist" argument seriously (and we should not), then all anarchists are against "economic equality" as he defines it!

So, perhaps we can do with the silly strawman arguments, eh? It is obvious that individualist anarchists argued that their ideas would result in greater equality but not a levelling -- as did other anarchists. The key issue here is that "anarcho-capitalists" differ from this perspective as they explicitly reject egalitarianism and are indifferent to inequalities in wealth (and so power). The same cannot be said of the individualist anarchists, particularly given as they repeatedly noted they expected their ideas to produce greater equality (as quoted by "anarcho-capitalist" above, so proving he cannot understand plain English). They did call themselves socialists for a reason... BlackFlag 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The only "egalitarianism" of Benjamin Tucker, as Madison notes, is that

“ He demanded liberty above all, including the liberty for man to control what he produced, as "the surest guarantuee of prosperity." The policy of complete non-interference—enabling everyone to mind his own business exclusively—would permit wealth "to distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural operation of economic law." (emphasis mine) ”

Economic law for individualist anarchism was based on the false notion of the labour theory of value, while anarcho-capitalism economic theory is largely based on subject value theory, which can also be found in neoclassical economics that is taught at 1000s of universities around the world. There is no notion in individualist anarchism that wealth should be distributed differently, and as Madison noted, Benjamin Tucker "rejected the ideal of moral obligation or the existence of inherent rights and duties, he did acknowledge the duty of society to restrain and punish the invasive individual." This "societal duty" to which Madison refers to is police protection and justice, which for individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is just a commodity to be purchased on the free market. Intangible 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You obviously missed it when Tucker wrote he "insists on Socialism . . . on true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalance on earth of Liberty, Equality, and Solidarity." (Instead of a Book, p. 363)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackFlag (talk • contribs)

What are you trying to suggest here? Intangible 16:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tucker on economic equality:

"The happiness possible in any society that does not improve upon the present in the matter of distribution of wealth, can hardly be described as beatific . . . Will liberty abundantly and equitably distribute wealth? . . . What causes the inequitable distribution of wealth? . . . It is not competition, but monopoly, that deprives labour of its product . . . Interest and rent of buildings rest on the naking monopoly . . . ; ground rent rests on the land monopoly . . . profits in excess of wages rest upon the tariff and patent monopolies . . . There is but one exception, and that a comparatively trivial one . . economic rent . . . It will probably remain with us always. Complete liberty will very much lessen it; of that I have no doubt . . . At the worst, it wll be a small matter." ("Why I am an Anarchist")

Elsewhere he rejects "abolute equality" and says:

"Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour . . . but it will not abolish the limited inequality between one labourer's product and another's . . . Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich." (The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 156-7)

So, like Berkman, Tucker rejects "absolute equality" but obviously argues that individualist anarchism would have an "equitable" distribution of wealth which would be much more equal the current one. In fact, there would be "limited inequality." Another one, John Beverley Robinson, said "In doing away with interest, the cause of inequality in material circumstances will be done away with." Interest includes "the use of money" plus "house-rent, dividends, or share of profits" and "pay a tax to somebody who owns the land." So Marshall (and the other secondary sources) are right on this issue (as is obvious, if you reject the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of "economic equality").BlackFlag 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a confused image of anarcho-capitalism. As Rothbard writes:

“ On the free market, however, there is no such thing as a separate “distribution.” A man’s monetary assets have been acquired precisely because his or his ancestors’ services have been purchased by others on the free market. There is no distributional process apart from the production and exchange processes of the market; hence the very concept of “distribution” becomes meaningless on the free market. Since “distribution” is simply the result of the free exchange process, and since this process benefits all participants in the market and increases social utility, it follows directly that the “distributional” results of the free market also increase social utility. (emphasis mine) ”

So like individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism is "egalitarian" as well. Intangible 09:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant to the question at hand, namely whether anarchists support the aim of economic/social equality. And "anarcho"-capitalism is hardly "egalitarian" (which Rothbard claims is a "revolt against nature"). Like all capitalist theories of property, it aims to justify non-labour income. The individualist anarchists rejected such claims and, unsurprisingly, concluded that their free society would see a rough equality. So, I would say that I've proved Marshall's point -- individualist anarchists were concerned about economic equality and explicitly argued that their ideas would result in it. They did, like other anarchists, reject "absolute equality" but that is not the same thing as economic equality. BlackFlag 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The question at hand is the marginal claim of Marshall to dismiss anarcho-capitalism from the anarchism camp, while his argument would preclude individualist anarchism as well. Equity is not the same as egalitarianism. Intangible 11:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What rubbish. Marshall's discussion of Tucker, Spooner, etc. shows why he does not exclude them from anarchism. He notes, correctly, that they saw their system producing a far more equal society than now. And no anarchist supports the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of "egalitarianism" so stop creating straw men arguments. BlackFlag 10:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

This is getting very tedious. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists have already debunked anarcho-capitalism as being a contradiction. You cannot have capitalism without the existence of the state. I will also add once again that no anarchist anthology that I know of includes articles by or about anarcho-capitalists. No anarchist bookstore that I've ever been into has contained any anarcho-capitalist books. Anarcho-capitalism is a nonsensical belief system promoted by a handful of people who don't understand anarchism OR capitalism. Chuck0 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of academic sources that discuss anarcho-capitalism, positive and negative. And ancap works are readily available from many on-line bookstores. Intangible 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Chuck0. Having read a large number of books about anachism and by anarchist theorists, I've never come across the conflation of capitalist property systems with anarchism. It is a fringe view, rejected by the vast majority of self described anarchists as being incompatible with the philosophy. Mostlyharmless 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet your opinion is irrelevant. I could provide for a counter-argument, but that would not mean a thing as well. Might I suggest reading up on Wikipedia policy. Intangible 06:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You've said here before that you can't have capitalism without the existence of the state. I've asked you before how you are defining capitalism, but didn't answer. How are you defining it? And how about anarcho-capitalists that call themselves "market anarchists"? Is market anarchism possible without a state? Is your dispute simply terminological?Anarcho-capitalism 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs)

A conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment all you want, but you're not going to be able to get me kicked off of Wipedia, because I haven't committed any of the crimes you and your anti-capitalist cohorts have claimed.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm responding to the RFC.

First and foremost, it would be lovely if everyone just cooled down and stepped back. This is one sentence in a very large article that is well written and informative. Kudos to all who have obviously worked very hard on it.

The segment on Capitolism begins like this:

"Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative."

To my mind, this pretty much sums up the mainstream Anarchist view. The sentence in question is this:

"However, Peter Marshall writes in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." [84]"

The first sentence already establishes that the Anarcho-Capitalist views on Capitalism are outside the mainstream of Anarchist thought. The second sentence relates Peter Marshall's SUPPOSITION that the viewpoint of most Anarchists to the Anarcho-Capitalist perception of Capitalism WOULD BE negative. While it may be a truism, the quote does not describe a fact.

Everyone seems to agree that the first sentence is a fact, since it has not been argued. A person reading this segment would already understand that the Anarcho-Capitalist view of Capitalism is outside the mainstream of Anarchist thought. A further explaination of that viewpoint, particularly after reading the entire article, is not necessary. Using a supposition is even less necessary.

For the record, I was a member of an Anarchist collective in Chicago for three years. I had no clue there was such a thing as Anarcho-Capitalism. I would tend to believe that there are more Anarchists who know nothing about Anarcho-Capitalism than Anarchists who know about it and actively oppose it.

It would be great if the Anarcho-Capitalists here could put in their segment some information about how Anarcho-Capitalism is different from Libertarianism, because I don't see the difference.

Thanks, NinzEliza 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there's two things here. Firstly, the RFC is about a consistent attitude, not this one sentence. If you look at the RFC page, you'll see numerous example. It would be good if you could leave a comment there after looking at the whole picture. Now, on the paragraph on capitalism, the first line says "Most anarchist traditions", not all. This is a compromise as "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of anarchist tradition, so it is more accurate to say "All anarchist traditions". However, we're not arguing about that. Then we get the "anarcho"-capitalists insisting on adding in their attitude to capitalism, which is an extreme minority view and thus is Undue Weight. However, here we have more compromise - they can add their view only so long as the fact that anarchists reject "anarcho"-capitalism is clearly stated. This is done through a properly cited quote, as per proper policy. Donnacha 13:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to me that the single defining factor of Anarchism is the opposition to State and state control. I read the article on anarcho-captialism, and they are indeed against State and state control. I would disagree with you that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists.

There is an entire article discussing the difficutlties between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists - why not just link to that article?

The quote in Dispute is a SUPPOSITION - it is not a fact:

"However, Peter Marshall writes in Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism that "few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice." [84]"

If you can find a source that relates a fact, like a survey of Anarchists or an extremely large body of Anarchists that have explicitly expressed the same viewpoint, that would be useful and encyclopedic.

It would be natural to assume that anarcho-capitalists, since they call themselves anarcho-CAPTIALISTS, would hold a different view of capitalism than other anarchists. Therefore, it would be natural and encyclopedic to express that view in the section on capitalism.

As for the the idea that anarcho-capitalists espouse an "extreme minority view", I googled "anarcho-capitalism" and got 606,000 hits. There are three yahoo groups that call themselves anarcho-capitalist, and altogether their membership is roughly 5000. Certainly, the mainstream school of Anarchist THOUGHT is much larger and older, but the NUMBER of people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists today versus the number of more "mainstream" anarchists remains to be seen.

I think your concern here has more to do with anarcho-captialism espousing a view that appears fundamentally ANTITHETICAL and even OFFENSIVE to other anarchists, or perhaps anarchist thought in general - regardless of the number of people who hold the anarcho-capitalist view. This statement:

"Anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a form of individualist anarchism lying outside the mainstream of anti-capitalistic anarchism."

apparently doesn't go far enough to express that viewpoint.

However, is it really the job of THIS article to express the opinions that one (or even many) body(s) of anarchists has (have) towards another body of anarchists? If it is, then in the interest of fairness and objectivity, ALL opinions (communist vs. syndicalist, individualist vs. egoist, etc.) would need to documented. I put forth that it's outside the mission of this encyclopedia to do so. The reader who happens upon this article can follow the links and read further for him/her self. Furthermore, I suggest that it would be counter-intuitive for the reader to believe after reading this article that anarcho-capitalist thought holds anything other than a minority viewpoint.

It's an unfortunate reality that we sometimes have to share our bed with people that we don't like. As a black activist, I do it all the time. Like it or not, anarcho-capitalists are a part of the tribe. In the interest of...getting things done, I hope everyone can set aside the fighting and personal dislike in order to settle this.

Once again, I think the article is great. I hope to see it as a featured article someday. I congratulate everyone on their hard work. I understand the heated debate here, but let's look at the big picture. The article is simply relating all the schools of Anarchist thought. NinzEliza 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, a Google search on "flat-earthers" gets roughly 109,000 hits. Libertatia 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The current Flat Earth Society also has a well-written article in Wikipedia.NinzEliza 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. That does mean they should have much say in the entries on schools of geography. The (OR) evidence of careful searches on Google, YahooGroups, MySpace, TEchnorati, etc, suggests quite strongly that anarcho-capitalism is in fact a mostly North American minority position within the broad anarchist movement. The historical record shows the an-caps as a divergence from pretty much everything else that could be called anarchism prior to the mid-20th century. That evidence is basically inadmissible. And the point is largely moot, as the inclusion of anarcho-capitalism in the anarchist entries on Wikipedia is a fait accompli. There are two continuing problems here: one is certainly the polarizing insistence of a few editors on both sides on using their definitions of disputed terms, as if they were indisputable; the other is that Wikipedia's rules allow inaccurate and imprecise summaries to be cited as more authoritative than the primary sources that generally weren't consulted in composing them, with the result that what passes for research here closely resembles that game of "telephone," as the details get more garbled with each pass. Libertatia

Theres not much point at all in this identification between flat-eathers and anarcho-capitalist, as compared to round-eathers (or whatever you wanna call them) in general and anarchist. While being a flat-earter would be nothing short of a dogmatic viewpoint towards geography the traditional anarchist position towards anarcho-capitalism is indeed as well a dogmatic viewpoint, while everything supporting that this ting were on is a globe is plain and simple facts, facts everybody can test for themselves with more or less ease! That said the conclusion should be that because traditional anarchism isnt fact based in its opposition to anarcho-capitalism (but based on definitions thats not in any way onesided), all talk about facts should be deleted from the article when theres no facts to talk about (All talk about how many or how few on one side or the other is talk about facts, facts that not available!), and all necessary sides on any definitions should be represented. --Fjulle 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism of all kinds has been, continues to be and will always be, opposed to capitalism as much as the state. Thus, its opposition to "anarcho"-capitalism is based in fact, the simple fact that "anarcho"-capitalists support things that anarchists oppose. It's that simple. It's not dogmatic to oppose those who disagree with you and reject their attempted appropriation of your name. Donnacha 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I put this whole thing in the wrong place - I was responding to the REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE, which is listed on the RFC page. It was not my intention to respond to the RFC on the conduct dispute. NinzEliza 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments NinzEliza. They are like a breath of fresh air. Discussion here seems to revolve in circles too much of the time, and opinion of someone like you is indeed very welcome. -- Vision Thing -- 21:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues Section

Why is the communism para in the issues devoted 90% to explaining which and why some anarchists OPPOSE communism while the capitalism para in the same section is devoted 90% to explaining which and why some anarchists are FOR capitalism. this is an obvious POV issue to anyone of an even remotely neutral stance and i challenge anyone here to review the 2 paragraphs and maintain there is not a POV problem. one deals with which anarchists are pro-capitalism while the other deals with which anarchists are anti-communism. what the fuck? if the majority of the communism para is going to explain why certain anarchists have a problem with communism than the majority of the capitalism para should likewise explain why certian anarchists have a problem with capitalism. this is common sense. i thought i would bring this up here before i do anything about it. Blockader 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That is kind of strange. It does say "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative." But, probably a few sentences more can be said in criticism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Because this page is now dominated by disruptive POV-pushing right-wingers who have exhausted the patience of virtually every other editor on this page. For example. Donnacha 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I think most of the POV pushing is coming from anti-anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if the POV-pushing is coming from anti-capitalists it is indeed odd that the bulk of most of the articles on non-capitalist ideologies are spent on answering criticisms. Anti-capitalist articles have far more criticism from capitalists and right-wing elements on them than vice versa. The Anarcho-Communist page is underdeveloped compared to the Mutualist, Individualist and Capitalist Anarchism pages and half of it is criticisms from non-anarcho-communists and responses from anarcho-communists. However, the Anarcho-Capitalist page as well as the Individualist and Mutualist Anarchist pages have most of their space dedicated to explaining the theory with a relatively small section of criticism. Full Shunyata 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than spending time on a lengthy refutation of the Anarcho-Capitalist view of Capitalism, it would be helpful to expand the mainstream Anarchist view of Capitalism. This is what Blockader was asking for, and Anarcho-Capitalism supports this. NinzEliza 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That would involve citing any number of anarchist magazines, journals and books. I have a whole basement full of these materials containing anarchists writing about capitalism. Of course, citing this vast body of written works would involve doing actual research, which is anathema to Wikipedians who prefer to pull "facts" out of their collective asses. Chuck0 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Now its your books, so youll have to do it ... Unless you want to send em all to Denmark if you wants me to help, which is silly --Fjulle 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is chumbawumba really the most famous UK Anarchist band??

i live in the uk, and i have never heard of chumbawumba, on the other hand bands such as the sex pistols (who use anarchist themes) and the Clash, are world famous. I think this is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The Clash were Marxists and supporters of the Sandinistas. The Sex Pistols were an elaborate joke. Neither were active anarchists. Chumbawamba, on the other hand, were politically active in Leeds AFA, Class War and numerous other anarchist campaigns. Also, there is no way you've never heard 'Tubthumping' ("I get a vodka drink, I get a whiskey drink"). Donnacha 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, if your a Brit and never head of Chumbawamumba you must live under a rock or something. Perhaps your a starfish? I'm an American and they've only had one hit here and it was when I was way younger, probably in elementary school but I know them. Most people in the States are pretty suprised to here they are anarchist though. And I agree with Donnacha, neither the Clash nor the Sex Pistols were anarchist. If there were a more popular UK anarchist band it would probably be Crass or Subhumans (my mom's even heard of the Subhumans, and she's not at all into punk). I still think Chumbawamba is more popular though. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about The Levellers? Fairly big following over there, I thought... Brennen 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They're cool, and from what I know they are big in the UK. Chumbawamba is by far more popular here in the States, but I'm not sure about in the UK, which is where they are both from. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In the UK, I'd say they have largely the same level of following these days, but the Levellers were more popular at the height of their popularity. However, that bleedin' vodka drink, whiskey drink song was one of the biggest hits of the 90s worldwide, so I think it wins. It was definitely more popular than the Levellers' "One Life" (and tha-at's your own, it's your own, it's your own!). Donnacha 09:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How can what any one of you think is the most popular anarchist band be relevant on wikipedia? Give sources that have made assesments that are trustworthy (And i can hardly believe thats possible) then there might be written which bands are the most popular. Else, anything about this should be rewritten! This is a very nice example of whats going wrong with the way this article is taken care of. A little respect for the wikipedia project please! --Fjulle 12:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For Jaysis sake, it says arguably the most popular band. It's not what I think, but I can find refs as to what chart positions Tubthumping reached if you really think it's that important. Donnacha 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From a U.S. pop chart perspective, Chumbawamba (which some people above seem to be having trouble spelling correctly) appears to be a one-hit wonder. *Dan T.* 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, Chumbaliwumbalies album Tubthumper went triple platinum in the US, far more than any other UK anarchist group has achieved. In contrast, the Levellers sold hardly any copies of "Levelling The Land" in the US and that was their most successful album. Donnacha 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Chumbawamba are one-hit wonders in the US, which is much better than the Levellers ever got here. No one freakin knows who they are. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Chumbawamba were also a one-hit wonder here in Australia, despite being a great band, but they have enjoyed much more success than The Levellers. You can still buy Tubthumper in some record stores. The Levellers, despite some popularity, were never big here. I can't think of a more famous anarchist band from the UK. Crass and Subhumans might give them a run for their money, but they never achieved mainstream success like the Chumbalies did. Chumbawamba even got referenced in an episode of Family Guy, which probably puts them on top. -Switch ^t 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

Intangible, i removed your POV tag becuase you did not list specific concerns regarding the article that you find in violation of NPOV on the talk page, which you are supposed to do when placing a POV tag. I will continue to do so as you are in violation of wikipedia conduct. If you don't state what you have a problem with than no one will be able to address it. I agree that there are POV problems, though likely not the same ones you identify. If anyone is guilty of vandalism it is you. Blockader 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is already there. No doubt you can find it. Intangible 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sound familiar Intangible? -- WGee 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Palahnuik

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Chuck Palahnuik in the Anarchism in Culture section.NinzEliza 02:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism

I just logged into discussion to moot removing the so called "Anarcho-Capitalism" section, as despite its deceptive name, anarcho-capitalism is objectively not a form of anarchism, but uh.. seems there are some confused souls here claiming it is. What the hell guys, this isnt rocket science. Anarchists are opposed to heirachical power, therefore you cant advocate anarchism and capitalism without contradiction. Can this silly section be replaced with something thats not going to decieve people trying to research the topic? People send students here, and if you get students gibbering on about ayn rand being an anarchist after reading this section or some such absurditys then frankly your just causing people grief. Duckmonster 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How did you come to conclusion that Ayn Rand is an anarchist? Neither she or the anarcho-capitalists claim that she is. -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ayn Rand is referred to as an anarchist by "scholars" very regularly. So it is a common mistake to make. These scholars usually also include "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism as well, so there you go. What is ironic is that many "anarcho"-capitalists call Auberon Herbert an "anarchist" in spite of having identical politics to Rand and having identical arguments against anarchism. BlackFlag, 09:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "many anarcho-capitalists" who call Auberon Herbert an anarchist?Anarcho-capitalism 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a taste from the Auberon Herbert entry on Wikipedia. It shows how far it is from anarchism. BlackFlag, 16:11 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and I only see one anarcho-capitalist, Hoppe, that says Hebert was an anarchist. Rothbard says he was not.Anarcho-capitalism 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rand herself vehemently denounced all anarchists, capitalist or not... and libertarians as well, even though she is usually categorized as being in the "libertarian camp". So, if you label her as either an "anarchist" or a "libertarian", under some definition of these terms, you are actually going against her own self-description. (Though, her Galt's Gulch seems quite anarcho-capitalist.) *Dan T.* 13:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That has not stopped "anarcho"-capitalists claiming Auberon Herbert as one, nor "scholars" saying Rand is one. And Galt's Gulch is a monarchy, it is run by the property owner. So, yes, it is "quite" "anarcho"-capitalist and so not remotely anarchist. BlackFlag, 16:11 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're an "anarcho"-communist. I disagree that "anarcho"-communism is a form of anarchism. It has little or nothing to do with the true anarchist tradition of individualism.Anarcho-capitalism 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ROLF! And for the "true" tradition of individualist anarchism, it is clear you have no time for it. Your comments on Carson, Tucker, etc., show how far "anarcho"-capitalism is from it. I do wish the modern day "anarcho"-capitalists would have the decency to follow Molinari and refuse the anarchist label. It would save so much hassle. BlackFlag 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Any teacher than sends their students to Wikipedia for information needs to get a clue. It cannot be depended on.Anarcho-capitalism 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I found a book by Albert Weisbord, The Conquest of Power, published in 1937 in which he refers to liberal anarchism of Tucker as a "Bourgeois individualistic Anarchism"[1]. -- Vision Thing -- 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a relevant Tucker quote on this issue: "The complaint of the Archist Socialists that the Anarchists are bourgeous is true to this extent and no further -- that, great as is their detestation for a bourgeois society, they prefer its partial liberty to the complete slavery of State Socialism." A position social anarchists would also agree with, I should note BlackFlag 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you find out about something thats not been found out ...

... Without it being original research? Isnt this impossible. Ive read through this talk page and its not unique in being full of claims about facts, facts not available to anybody, be it anarchists or scholars being represented by their works in the article or any of us here. We might everyone of us have our own feeling towards how many ancaps there are, but those feelings just arent enough to make a difference here on wikipedia. They are a product of each and everyones own experiences with people or peoples books, and everybody might claim they are representative for the anarchist community. This just isnt going to work! I know wikipedia has a policy on this topic but that must be in some way based on non-original research to be able to live up to the other demands of this encyclopedia. I honestly dont think one rule should be seen without all the others! My advise to the lot of you in here, and you know who it is who's using facts about the many or the few, the marginal or the mainstream, thats really original research in here or written by someone not as a fact but a feeling, stop this as soon as it starts instead of rambling on about your or other peoples feelings! This is an embarrasment! --Fjulle 13:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it is embarassing to the site that people will remove properly cited quotations because they're "wrong" and then demand proper citations! Peter Marshall is a perfect secondary source, the writer of a well respected book on the history of anarchism. If you look at other related articles, such as Mutualism (economic theory), you'll see some of the same faces using dictionary definitions to critique sources' terminology. That "anarcho"-capitalism is a marginal theory with no real connection with any anarchist tradition due to its rejection of any form of socialism and its preference for capitalism is not an opinion, it's a fact that has been backed up time and time again. Yet the POV-pushing "anarcho"-capitalists keep removing all those cites. Donnacha 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But what you say is in opposition to my point. Its not a fact, by quoting Peter Marshall, that anarcho-capitalism is a marginal theory, the fact here is thats excactly and precisely Peter Marshalls position on this matter. Your post theres right about where the problem i see lies. No matter how many quotes one side or the other comes up with about wether or not there are many or few anarcho-caps out there doesnt change that none of it is factual, its guessing as nobody has ever made a count on which anarchists are what, and who would honestly want to perticipate in one such search? As i said, the needed views on definitions are a minimal, talk about facts here is irelevant! Its disruptive! And people who say they have the facts about this ready better get them published soon cauz i havnt seen em! --Fjulle 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's how writing encyclopedia articles works: 1. Find experts. 2. Work on the definition. 3. Find authorative sources that back up your definition. I am an expert, as are many other contributors here. That's point 1 covered. When discussing "anarcho"-capitalism, all experts are aware that it is a marginal theory that rejects fundamental elements of anarchism, which, in all cases, has been a socialist concept. That's point 2 covered. Now, finding authorative sources - what about a book on the history of anarchism? Good place to start, look, there's Peter Marshall's book. Oh, look, what he's written about the views of anarchists (not his own view, mind) meets the definition above. Let's quote it and cite it. Hmmm, maybe that's not enough. Let's add a few citations that prove he is not the only person to say this. Done (see the footnote to the Peter Marshall quote). All done and correct.

Here's how writing encyclopedia articles shouldn't work: 1. Develop a point of view. 2. Find places where you can push your POV by redefining everything that opposes your POV so that it is either no longer in opposition or is simply rejected as being irrelevant. (eg. Mutualists didn't mean socialism when they said it and anarchist-communists weren't anarchists). Donnacha 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you forgot one more: 4. Find authorative sources that doesnt back up or otherwise go against your definitions, this makes sure theres development, that whoever writes something tries to defend his position against those who does not agree instead of ignoring them, and not a standstill on some specific point of view. All this seems to me to mean that: 5. Youre not really and expert, youve developed your own point of view, and you 6. Find places where you can push your POW! --Fjulle 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really nice to see how well you get on with a user who acknowledged on his first appearance that he was here to push a POV, a user who rarely, if ever, edits articles not related to his chosen POV, a user who has driven numerous productive editors off this page. The difference between POV and NPOV is not the lack of a personal point of view. It's the ability to see the validity of ideas with which you disagree. While my personal viewpoint is anarcho-communist/syndicalist, I recognise the valid basis of individualist and mutualist positions even if I disagree with their conclusions. I also recognise the valid basis of a range of socialist, communist and even social conservative viewpoints, even if I disagree with their conclusions. There are only two constant themes in all forms anarchism - social justice and economic egalitarianism and the recognition of the position of the state in perpetuating social injustice and economic inegalitarianism. "Anarcho"-capitalists get it arse about tit, mistaking the opposition to the state as the primary rather than secondary element of anarchist theory. A statment like "Extreme wealth inequalities are the natural result of liberty" is sickening and fundamentally incorrect, it's generally impossible for anyone to be extremely wealthy in comparison with other people without extreme exploitation - in other words, denying others their liberty. As for being "not really and expert", you have a very strange view of experts if you think they don't have points of view. Every human has a point of view. Donnacha 20:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are talking about me, but you're wrong. I have not "driven" anyone away from editing this article. I edit this article relatively little. Anyone is free to edit this article that wishes. If you feel you have been "driven away" it's all in your head. And, no I never said that I was here to "push a POV." Get your facts straight. I do not push POV in Wikipedia articles.Anarcho-capitalism 20:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt want no namedropping from the start, and still not. The way i started this wasnt for or against one particular person or group, not at all, it was a point concerning the way most of the debates in here are being had. Maybe i might have put it a little more diplomatic, but i still think its valid. Besides i agree with you on anarchism being both freedom from the state, social injustice and freedom from economic inequalites in the form that its always been, but theres arguments that will persuade more effectively than using spin (or weasel words), at least here in wikipedia! On top of that i havnt expressed my view towards whether experts have a point of view or not, but whether you can be an expert if you doesnt take a oppositions view as wholy as possibly in account or not. That was mostly a critique of your 3 conditions, adding one extra and then the last. --Fjulle 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between considering the opposition, which I'm happy to do, and accept claims by some POV-pushing web-warriors! We've got "anarcho"-capitalists here claiming anarchism is nothing more than being anti-state and nothing to do with equality, claiming anarcho-communism/collectivism is not anarchism because it's "authoritarian", claiming anarchist individualism and mutualism are not really socialist because they're not the same as Marxist theories, claiming many more ridiculous things to redefine history so they fit into it. They don't. Anarchism is anti-capitalist according to every example through its history, thus "anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms. However, while I'm willing to accept a section on Rothbard and his followers in the article, it's totally unacceptable to define sections such as the piece on Capitalism in "anarcho"-capitalist terms without proper reference to the general rejection of "anarcho"-capitalism. Donnacha 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But the contradiction between anarchism as anticapitalism and anarcho-capitalism is supported by two quotes in the Capitalism section. One other thing is that says that if the ancaps conception of capitalism was like the socialist anarchist then they would agree on whats wrong, that it might be a misunderstanding in terms when they are in disputes, which ill give you, that doesnt really seem to be enough as Capitalism means hierarchi as well as economic inequality regardless of your use of the labor theory of value or not. Theres no way to define you away from the disagreement with the use of another definition of capitalism. Both should be there but also the point that theres disputes beyond just the "manipulating political power by certain corporations". Also i think theres a need to make the line between the american individualists and anarcist individualist more visual, if just visual at all. Give me one individualist anarchist (thats not an ancap) which isnt against the hierachical structure of capitalist coorporations besides the point about them being against the "rent, interest, and profit from other's labor" part of capitalism. Really this whole sections start and ending doesnt make any sense, and is overall just confusing! --Fjulle 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that "all experts are aware that it is a marginal theory that rejects fundamental elements of anarchism" is untrue. That is obvious from the sources in this article. Very very few "experts" say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and they are "anarcho"-communists.Anarcho-capitalism 18:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Except, of course, for those who are not! I suppose this says it all -- any references we anarchists provide will be considered as "anarcho-communists" even when they are not. Personally, I get the impression some "experts" consider "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism because its supporters *call* themselves anarchists. Some scholars do note that this is not the case and many also note that few anarchists consider "anarcho"-capitalism as a form of anarchism. BlackFlag 09:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But you got a point when people want to remove a quote from someone who uses the many word. As far as wikipedia is concerned its vallid reference because opinions are relevant, but then if theres someone of different opinion then they should be mentioned as well. It doesnt make it fact though, in the contrary. --Fjulle 20:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for a little thing called official Wikipedia policy - Undue Weight. Donnacha 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But its also wikipedia policy that when it comes down to oppinions, they should all be represented if possibly, and Marshals quote is not a fact because of wikipedia policy on the use of weasel words, that means if his oppinion shuld be there, others on the same topic should as well! --Fjulle 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as you don't seem to know what's in the policy, let me quote it for you: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Viewpoints are the same things as opinions. Marshall's view that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchism is shared by all "social" anarchists, who make up the majority of anarchists worldwide. It's the majority view, easily verifiable (try looking at the list of sources backing up the Marshall quote in the notes, which you also appear not to have done). Despite being asked numerous times, not one of the "anarcho"-capitalists can point to any real examples of "anarcho"-capitalism in the real world, outside universities and web-warriors. Donnacha 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ill try to do this as well:

"For example, "Montreal is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."

Although this is an improvement, because it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:"

Likewise with Marshalls statement that theres few who would accept ancaps into the anarchist camp. It cannot possibly be fact that few anarchists wouldnt have ancaps in their camp, not a fact but an oppinion. Is an opinion, although backed up by those anarchists, enough to make a viewpoint into one thats held by an extremely small minority? A uninformative line that states something that is? On top of that the fact that few wouldnt let them in doesnt say much about how few they really are. Maybe because Marshall didnt want to make any claims he couldnt show was true. --Fjulle 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is not in fact the case (as is sometimes thought) that anarcho-capitalism came out of the blue, without past or pedigree. It has a good deal in common with the earlier American tradition of individualist anarchism." (Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press, 2002, p. 132) ""[C]ontemporary anarcho-capitalists are descendants of nineteenth-century individualist anarchists such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker." (Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 103)Anarcho-capitalism 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny how the current individualist anarchists disagree with that evaluation. They point out that there are distict differences. And I have to point out that "anarcho-capitalism" forgot to quotes this from Brown:

"These early anarchists, though staunchly individualistic, did not entertain a penchant for . . . capitalism. Rather, they saw themselves as socialists opposed to the state socialism of Karl Marx. The individualist anarchists saw no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."

And what about this:

"These early anarchists took from Adam Smith the labour theory of value, which to them meant that workers created value through their labour, a value appropriated by owners of businesses, who paid their wages. The individualist anarchists blamed capitalism for creating inhumane working conditions and for increasing inequalities of wealth. Their self-avowed 'socialism' was rotted in their firm belief in equality, material as well as legal."

I wonder why "anarcho-capitalist" forgot to mention these quotes? BlackFlag 16:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And not to forget this classic: "As can be seen with Tucker, the individualist anarchists, even relatively late in the day, were still fervent anti-capitalists." BlackFlag 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "forget" anything. I'm not going to quote the whole article. It's well-known that the nineteenth century individualists had a labor theory of value and corresponding Marxist-like exploitation theory and therefore were anti-capitalists. How is that relevant to anything? Anarcho-capitalists ditched the ridiculous economic theories but retained their support for private property in the product of labor, markets, and private police. That's why they're decendants of the 19th century individualists.Anarcho-capitalism 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think quoting a source which you claim says that "anarcho"-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism but which, in fact, notes that the later were "fervent anti-capitalists" is a classic example of cherry-picking. Yes, they have "a lot in common" -- one is capitalist and the other is anti-capitalist... BlackFlag 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some individualist anarchists are anti-capitalist, but most are pro-capitalist. Some people choose to use the term "individualist anarchist" to refer to the 19th century form and the 20th century form as anarcho-capitalism in order to make communications easier. Anarcho-capitalism 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That assumes that "anarcho"-capitalists are individualist anarchists, which they are not (although some claim they are). Individualist anarchism is significantly different from "anarcho"-capitalism -- as modern day individualist anarchist point out. But, obviously, their opinions do not seem to matter much to some. And if you really wanted to make communications easier, "anarcho"-capitalists should follow Molinari and call their ideology something else. BlackFlag 08:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think "individualist anarchism" is a single philosophy, but it's not. It's any philosophy that opposes the state and is anti-collectivist. No two individualist anarchist philosophies are identical. And, yes many anarcho-capitalists do call their philosophy something else. Many call it "market anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Marxist-like" is just name calling. If you believe that the market in labor can be deranged by any cause whatsoever (state intervention, monopoly holdings, etc, etc) then you're going to have a theory of "exploitation." If you deny the possibility of exploitation than it's hard to imagine on what grounds you call yourself an opponent of the status quo, let alone an anarchist. Libertatia 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider "Marxist-like" to be name calling. It is in fact similar to Marxist exploitation theory. I think that's a good way to describe it. I don't disagree that people can be exploited, but it has nothing to do with any intrinsic value of labor. Labor has no intrinsic value, and any value that it does have is subjective. It is not unethical for me to pay a person a very low wage if his labor is of very low value to me. The greater the supply of the same kind of labor, the lower the value to me. If someone wants a higher wage it is his responsibility to perform a more useful labor that is in higher demand.Anarcho-capitalism 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're criticizing a position nobody is advancing. The concept of exploitation is not dependent on a labor theory of value, and is certainly compatible with labor theories that assume the price of labor will be worked out in the market (which is, I think, actually the majority of them). Several theories you are lumping as The LTV were actually theories of labor-price, having much less to do with anything like an "intrinsic value of labor" than they did with a criticism of notions of the "productiveness of capital." That criticism can lead, and did lead most of the early market anarchists to a free-market theory where wage price would be left to the "higgling of the market." As I've pointed out before, very few anarchists subscribed to the time-dollar concept for very long, and most of those still left the time-valuation issue partially in the hands of the market. Compare even Warren's earliest labor note schemes to something like the calculation of hours of labor in Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward and you can see how far from the centralized, mechanical system you seem to be critiquing the early anarchist schemes were. (Actually, you'll see some weird market mechanisms used even in Bellamy.)

Obviously they would leave it to the market. But they thought that state intervention causes exploitation or "usury." They thought that the lack of perfect competition caused labor not to receive its "full produce." But that's wrong. Labor always receives its full produce. Its "full produce" is simply that wage that is received based on subjective determination of marginal utility.Anarcho-capitalism 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your theory allows no opposition to anything, including state intervention in the market. It is simply apologetics. Anarchism is necessarily something other than that. Libertatia 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. My opposition to state intervention is that restricts individual freedom. People should be free to own the product of their labor and dispose of it however they see fit, sell it for any price they wish, or keep it to themselves. And, the freedom to sell and buy labor itself. It's as simple as that. Where exploitation comes in is when people are taxed or "anarcho"-communists expropriate. That is when the product of labor is stolen.Anarcho-capitalism 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The one goes with the other. If the state has the power to limit individual freedom, then it can prevent the operation of a free market, and exploitation is possible. If labor's "full product" is what it can get, under any circumstances, then that "full product" is somehow divorced from individual freedom. As you are unwilling to acknowledge economic coercion, then the real font of invasive force must be the state. Yet you say that labor always recieves it "full product," even, apparently, under the state. No niceties here about avoiding "force and fraud," just the "what appears is good; what is good appears" that Debord identifies as the "philosophy" of actually-existing capitalism. Did labor "always recieve its full product" under slavery? If, as you claim elsewhere, systems such as "capitalism" are properly ideals, the stuff of dictionaries, wouldn't it more likely be the case that exchange is always deranged, in the absence of a free market? Libertatia 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The nineteenth century individualists believed in a labor theory of value, which led them to believe that equal amounts of labor would receive equal wages in a free market in the long run. It's wrong. Just because that is not happening, it doesn't mean that labor is being exploited. And there is no reason to think that I would or should happen. Equal amounts of labor SHOULD receive different wages, because wages should be left to individual decision and no two people value anything exactly the same. The state is not causing wages not to be proportional to labor. Wages will not be proportional to labor in a market, whether completely free or not. It's simply an absurd archaic notion.Anarcho-capitalism 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The 19th century individualists did not, in fact, believe in the sort of LTV you attribute to them. Very little of the subjective theory you introduce is foreign to the theories you are opposing. Howver, if you believe that state conditions and non-state conditions produce no significant differences in the kinds of wage inequalities that exist under them, it is, once again, hard to see how you draw the distinction so firmly in the realm of individual liberty. Your standards for "freedom" in the "free market" seem uncertain and almost certainly inadequate to the libertarian tradition. In fact, your attitude seems very much like that "unconcern about social justice" that Marshall talks about. Libertatia 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking is just as corrupted as Carson's, by the labor theory of value. There is nothing at all wrong with "wage inequalities." People value different kinds of labor different ways. There is no reason to think that wages should become more equal if the state disappears. It's just as likely that wealth distribution would be more disparate. And, it doesn't make one difference one way or the other. Anarcho-capitalists are not concerned with wealth inequality. As long as people have the right to own the product of their labor and trade it at mutually agreed to prices, and the state doesn't take a cut from our paychecks, everything is fine. If you want to say I'm not an anarchist because I don't care whether wealth is equal or not, or less unequal, that's up to you. But, there is no requirement to be a wealth egalitarian to be anarchist. There is no reason to think that the disappearance of the state would cause wealth to be more equalized. What does it matter? It's not as if a set amount of wealth is just shuffled around from one person to another. Just because one person has more wealth than another, it doesn't mean he is taking wealth away from someone else. New wealth is always being created and traded. If I create something useful and sell it, the rest of the world is wealthier as a result. The wealth each purchaser of that product receives may be small depending on how useful the product is. But if enough people buy that product I can become extremely wealthy. Extreme wealth inequalities are the natural result of liberty - of the right to own the product of labor and trade. It's not something to condemn or bemoan. The freedom to become wealthy is something to celebrate.Anarcho-capitalism 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. After 7 or 8 edits, you're still "responding" to points I did not make. I'm not concerned with equal wealth, except to the extent that real extremes in inequality stand in the way of genuinely voluntary and equitable social and economic relations. I think the cost-price convergence hypothesis is interesting speculation, as is the free-banking nominal interest hypothesis. (As true mutual banking involves no loan, obviously there is no place for interest.) I have never advanced anything like a zero sum scheme of wealth creation, but no such scheme is necessary to indict the state, and holders of concentrations of capital, in fostering inequity, the thing to which all anarchists, including an-caps, claim to be opposed. These are your obsessions, not mine, and, for the most part, not those of any of the anarchists you are attributing them to. Libertatia 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The labor theory of value is false. As long as people are free to own and trade the product of their labor, without having it expropriated by the state or "anarcho"-communists, people are recieving their "full produce.". Extremes in wealth equality do not stand in the way of "genuinely voluntary and equitable social and economic relations." There cannot be voluntary relations without extreme wealth inequality, because different people produce different amounts of value for society. The contribution of some individuals is enormous and naturally their wealth is going to be extremely disproporionate to that of the masses. Just because I'm a millionaire and you're a pauper it doesn't mean I am coercing you if I pay you a low price for your labor. I pay you a low price for your labor because that's what it's worth to me.Anarcho-capitalism 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, your "anarchism" consists of an opposition to people or the state "taking your stuff." Isn't it obvious that that's a terribly degraded version of anarchism? Libertatia 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No it's not "degraded." It's anarchism. It's very simply really. It's about the freedom of the individual. Don't take, damage, or use what belongs to the individual against his consent. What belongs to the individual is his body and the product of his labor. No further theorizing is necessary.Anarcho-capitalism 01:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"What belongs to the individual is his body and the product of his labor." So you agree that capitalism is exploitative (workers do not get the product of their labour) and that land cannot be owned (it is not the product of labour)? So, perhaps, some further theorising may be required :) BlackFlag 09:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Workers do get to own the product of their labor in capitalism. Ownership of the product of labor is what anarcho-capitalism is based on. Rothbard said each person "has the right to own the product that he has made." Labor-transformed land is indeed the product of labor. Even Benjamin Tucker, as confused as he was by the labor theory of value, pointed that out: "But anything is a product upon which human labor has been expended, whether it be a piece of iron or a piece of land."Anarcho-capitalism 14:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to myself that the labor theory of value is correct in order to justify my opposition to the state. I don't need any theory of value whatsover to justify my opposition to the state.Anarcho-capitalism 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to believe in an LTV. It would be nice if your opposition didn't blind you to the facts on the pages you are editing, or to the points of agreement between genuine market anarchisms. It's weird. For some an-caps, Kevin Carson's book has been correctly perceived as an opening to dialog. And that discussion has gone far beyond the silly circles we run in here. Sad, really. Libertatia 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that one need not have a theory of value in order to be anarchist. Trying to justify anarchism on theories of value is worthless. It's a waste of time and effort. If you believe that people should have a right to truly own the product of their labor, then that's sufficient to be a market anarchist. Carson's book is mostly worthless except as an illustration of what monstrosities one can come up with one's premises are wrong. And, yes it is great for that dialogue.Anarcho-capitalism 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One more time, I'm not insisting on any theory of value as a prerequisite for anarchism. Some market anarchists have simply side-stepped the issue. I might, on the other hand, insist on acknowledgment of some form of exploitation. If you really believe that "labor always gets its full product" then you have given away a tremendous amount of ground, and I suspect the ground an anarchist would need to stand on is a part of the territory surrendered. The way that you argue "against" Carson makes it clear that you haven't understood even the beginnings of his argument. Even Block, for all his foaming at the mouth and name-calling, acknowledges that there is some very good work there. Breaking down the myth of a single, monolithic LTV is some of the best of it. Libertatia 19:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When I say that labor always gets its full product I am saying that it always gets its full product from the purchaser. Of course, the state steal some of the product when it taxes one's paycheck.Anarcho-capitalism 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If the worker has a free market in which to sell his labor, then he gets full compensation. But for Tucker, among others, that was precisely the issue: the workers don't have a free market in which to sell their labor. By limiting access to capital, the state makes independent business more risky, meaning fewer workers are self-employed and more workers are competing for fewer employers. Therefore the current market price is less than the free market price of comparable labor. You may not believe this is the actual scenario but it is a possible scenario where your statement is not true. Jacob Haller 18:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But even if it is true that the state restricting banking and thereby limiting access to capital, and causing a shortage of free enterprise, the "proper" income of someone is not a matter of whether or not it is in accordance with the labor theory of value. The proper income is simply what someone is willing to pay for labor, whether the market if completely free or not. In other words, there is no proper price paid for labor. It is entirely subjective. Some people may be paid more in the absence of state restrictions on capital, and some people may be paid less. But the value of another person's labor is always subject to individual judgement. If I have less money because of state interference that I would have otherwise, I would not be willing to pay as much to you for your labor. But you are still being paid properly for your labor because there is no proper price other than what we both agree to based on our subjective value judgements. It makes no sense to say a person is not paid according to the true worth of his labor. There is no "true worth" of anything. That's why most individualist anarchists have abandoned the labor theory of value.Anarcho-capitalism 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this variety of anarcho-capitalism doesn't even insist on a free market. Libertatia 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does. It says that the state should not exist (because it engages in theft and other forms of aggression) and that all aggression and fraud should be illegal. A free market by definition is a trading situation where there is no aggression or fraud. A free market is what anarcho-capitalism is all about.Anarcho-capitalism 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh at the claims that under capitalism workers receive the product of their labour. The basis for this claim (marginal productivity theory) has been debunked decades ago (and admitted as flawed by leading economists). Even neoclassical economics has admitted that under a system of big business and no unions (as is approximated today), workers are exploited. The capitalist idea that wages equals product of labour has no basis -- even in capitalist economics. As for Tucker supporting ownership of land, well, his theory of "occupancy and use" refutes that claim. BlackFlag 08:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you've been, but the labor theory of value is what has been dubunked. No better explanation has surfaced to explain relative differences in prices than marginalism. Besides, theories of a value are really irrelevant. One doesn't need to be an economist to be an anarchist. A true anarchist allows prices paid for labor to be decided by the individual. If I pay you peanuts for your labor, it's because that's how much I value your labor. It's essential to liberty that it be left to the individual to decide for himself at what prices he is willing to part with what he has.Anarcho-capitalism 14:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If workers received the product of their labor under capitalism, they would have the right to deny the factory/business owner access to what they produce. Under capitalism, ANY type of capitalism, workers do not have control of their products of labor. They are controlled by the property owner who can do with them as he/she pleases. It's ridiculous to claim that "Anarcho"-capitalism believes in giving control of the products of labor to producers if they believe that workers don't have the right to control what they do with what is produced. Only if you radically redefine "producer" to refer to the property owner. I told User:Anarcho-capitalism a while ago that under capitalism, even "Anarcho"-capitalism, if you view means of production as a pencil and piece of paper, I have the right to take whatever work of art you draw with a pencil and piece of paper if you borrowed my pencil and paper. In a completely deregulated capitalist system, I see nothing to prevent an owner from raping his workers if he wants to. Full Shunyata 08:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"If [the individual] be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors." (Lysander Spooner)Anarcho-capitalism 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

At least mention that Spooner explicitly aimed for a society of self-employed workers and farmers. Obviously he saw that the workers were exploited when they sold their labour and aimed to end it. In his ideal society, the "amount of money capable of being furnished . . . is so great that every man, woman, and child. . . could get it, and 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." I do wish that "anarcho"-capitalists would not quote the individualist anarchists out of context... BlackFlag 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

removal of sanders

Why is this removed, this is an important notion Sanders makes about terminological issues around the word "capitalism." Intangible 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think the removal is justified.Anarcho-capitalism 16:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't think the Sanders stuff was very clear. Libertatia 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How many is enough to be many?

Ive changed this paragraph: "Many claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[7] though this is a controversial topic.[8] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[7]" to: "Some claim that anarchist themes can be detected in works as old as those of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu,[7] though this is a controversial topic.[8] Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism also introduced topics which contain anarchist themes.[7]" And why? Because first of all i think its about time we got a better look at all those many'ses and some'ses around this article! This problem always seems to pop up around the neverending anarcho-capitalism discussion, so we might as well get some practice elsewhere. Second i dont think one single reference is enough to back up the many-word. After all just how many is many enough to be many? Is it over half the people who has ever written about it, or is it enough that its only a third. Anyways then we might as well use the majority and minority concepts instead of many or some! When it all comes down to it if such investigations had been made somebody might probably be able to pull it out of a hat right? I hope that youll go for the word some as its always some even if its only one or its many! --Fjulle 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there is only a few sources for something, then it should say "some." To say "many" then there needs to be many sources.Anarcho-capitalism 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And id say many isnt enough, because we can only say theres many if we know of every possible source, but this is ofcourse something that might be irellevant if there just isnt anymore sources or the sources there might be left is very few. But just how do we know when theres few possible sources left or any it all thats not been used? I dont know what wikipedia councils in this case though. --Fjulle 19:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there this paragraph: "Anarchism in the modern sense, however, has its roots in the secular political thought of the Enlightenment, particularly Rousseau's arguments for the moral centrality of freedom.[9] The word "anarchist" was originally used as a term of abuse, but by the French Revolution some groups such as the Enragés had started to use the term in a positive sense,[10] seeing the Jacobin concept of a "revolutionary government" as an oxymoron. It was in this political climate that William Godwin would develop his philosophy, which is considered by many to be the first expression of modern anarchist thought.[11]" Who are those many people? It would be more conclusive to write that some considers him the first or just that he is considered (which doesnt say anything about how many there are). --Fjulle 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're talking about is what I think they call "weasel words" on Wikipedia..."some" and "many." There is a policy or guideline against that. What you're saying it correct.Anarcho-capitalism 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) ... ive just counted the word many 17 times in this article as of this moment. This reminds me of Fox news! This cannot put the article in a respectable light, when theres this many (you see: 17) claims that is well as impossible to verify! --Fjulle 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to talk in absolutes about a consciously non-dogmatic political ideology. No view is held equally by "all" anarchists (for example, some post-left anarchists do not oppose the state as such, they prefer to ignore it completely). All you can refer to is the dominant view - thus many or few. They're not weasel words in this context, they are the most accurate assessment of the reality. The Marshall quote, in particular, is absolutely fair. It does not incorrectly attribute a view to all anarchists, instead, on the basis of his research, he has found that most, but not all, anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism, thus it is absolutely correct to say that few accept them. To request certainty and absolutes where none exists is no way to write an article about a living breathing tradition with many facets and differences. Donnacha 11:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

capitalism

The article states "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism, which they perceive as authoritarian, coercive, and exploitative. For American individualist anarchists, this opposition does not include opposition to the product of labor or capital goods..." what User:BlackFlag keeps adding is redundant, and why is Sanders being removed? Intangible 11:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if it's said someone opposes capitalism then capitalism should be defined. That sentence above look meaningless to me, because anartcho-capitalists also support private property in the product of labor.Anarcho-capitalism 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But its defined, as something thats perceived by most anarchists as authoritarian, coercive and exploitative. My only problem is the most anarchist in front when the lines not a quote. --Fjulle 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that "most" is ok, because it doesn't say "most anarchists" but "most anarchist traditions." Most types of anarchism are opposed to capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats right, i didnt catch that one :) --Fjulle 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

capitalism, quotes and references

I have reverted back to yesterday for two reasons. Firstly, "anarcho-capitalist"'s changes are incorrect. Brown clearly notes that the individualist anarchists "saw themselves as socialists" and rejected capitalism (p. 104) This is a fact and should be mentioned. As for Godwin, she *does* conclude that the anarcho-capitalists' "true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" and not in anarchism. (p. 148) Godwin discusses "anarcho-capitalism" and points out obvious flaws with it and then concludes as I have quoted. Now, "anarcho-capitalism" may dislike her conclusion but to remove it is to distort her position (or is he denying that this is an actual quote?). Secondly, I fail to see what is wrong in providing a quote (from a source provided by an anarcho-capitalist) which states the well known fact that individualist anarchists were anti-capitalists in the section on capitalism. I'm guessing that the reason some people are rejecting this change is because it is saying something which, while accurate, they do not like. I'm willing to hear reasonable arguments for either removing the quotes or moving them somewhere else. Until someone does provide some, please do not revert back. BlackFlag 08:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that anarcho-capitalists are right libertarians is not the same thing as saying they are not anarchists. It's obvious that that is not what Goodman saying, since she says "Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs..." She is simply distinguishing them from left libertarian anarchists. This again is obvious, beause she says "Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines...This preference was evident in the student uprisings of 1968 in France and the USA, which were largely anarchist in spirit and with which many of the libertarian left associate themselves." You're obviously getting your information from the "Anarchist" FAQ which was written by someone who is not obviously not very knowledgeable, obsessed with discrediting anarcho-capitalism, and is a liar.Anarcho-capitalism 13:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Saying that anarcho-capitalists are right libertarians is not the same thing as saying they are not anarchists." Yes it is, when the person in question obviously states that is the case! If someone says X ("anarcho-capitalism") should in Y (right-"libertarianism") rather than Z (anarchism) then it is clear what they mean. "It's obvious that that is not what Goodman saying" only if you cherry-pick. She discusses "anarcho-capitalism" and points out some obvious flaws via a discussion of Walter Block. She then that their "true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians" rather than in anarchism! "You're obviously getting your information from the 'Anarchist' FAQ which was written by someone who is not obviously not very knowledgeable, obsessed with discrediting anarcho-capitalism, and is a liar." I read Goodwin's account a few months back and she is obviously arguing that while they call themselves anarchists, "anarcho-capitalists" are not really anarchists (a position most anarchists take, btw). Hence the "true place" comment. The FAQ you mention is correct in that -- as in most things, so I've found. And I'm amazed that you could call an FAQ worked on for ten years "not very knowledgeable" about anarchism -- most anarchists I know would disagree with you. That explains why anarchists link to it and some come here and try to reference it -- and why AK Press is publishing it. As for "discrediting" "anarcho-capitalism" as the FAQ points out, it would not even bother with it except it calls itself "anarchist" and anarchists, unsurprisingly, disagree. It discusses why this is the case in some detail (more than the subject deserves, I would say). BlackFlag 08:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So what if the "Anarchist" FAQ was worked on for 10 years? That doesn't mean it's quality. Here is proof that the labor theory of value is ridiculous. Something doesn't have more value simply because more labor has been applied to it. A better FAQ than that can be written in just a few months. That FAQ was written by someone who is not very smart, obviously, and also dishonest. There are many examples of the author misrepresenting sources. And the whole thing comes across as extremely paranoid about anarcho-capitalism. It's obviously as obsession. Whoever is writing that thing needs to get a life.Anarcho-capitalism 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, not "quality"! That is why AK Press is publishing it. That is why it is mirrored across the web and linked to by most anarchist webpages. That is why "Freedom" recently interviewed its main person. In other words, most anarchists *do* think it is "quality." Dishonest? In what way? As for being an "obsession," well, the guys involved are anarchists! The main person has been one for decades. The "whole thing" is "extremely paranoid" about "anarcho"-capitalism? No, I do not think so. That subject is hardly the "whole thing" as is clear from the fact that the bulk of it is about anarchism. If anything, the authors have an "obsession" with Marxism (it goes on much more about that). BlackFlag 08:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for protection of the Anarchism article. Your revert also removed perfectly cited material that has nothing to do with your comments above here. Intangible 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, if someone removes my sourced material then that is of no issue, but if someone removes an anarcho-capitalist sourced material then page should be protected? As long as I know... I gave the reason for my removal as it was due to what I considered the irrelevant nature of the addition (the issue is on capitalism rather than on aspects of current capitalism). I'm willing to be convinced other wise, of course. BlackFlag 09:03, 16 November 2006

I should also like to stress that I am more than willing to reach a consensus on these issues, assuming good reasons are provided why changes are required. As I have said, I have added uncontroversal sourced information (which has been removed by others) and removed what I consider irrelevant additions (which only seem to be added because I expanded the anarchist criticisms of capitalism section to make it more balanced). If someone can give good reasons for an edit, I am happy to accept them but i feel that such reason have not been provided. BlackFlag 08:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I really think it's time for binding arbitration on this page and a number of its sub pages. Donnacha 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not been editing lately but i am still keeping an eye on the article. i agree that black flag's sourced additions should not have been removed and i still think that the "capitalism" and "communism" paragraphs in the issues section are fucked. i also agree with Donnacha that it is time for binding arbitration here. but hell, what do i know, i'm just a "communist" right? Blockader 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should elect a leader, because that's what communists do, right? And steal something. ;) Donnacha 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

When Godwin writes that whales "true place" is with sea creatures, not mammals, that does not logically imply that whales are not mammals. It merely says something about Godwin's preferred method of classification. (Whale are, of course, both.) Godwin specifically admits whales are mammals. I.e. "there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs..."

She ends by saying "However, enough has been said to show that most contemporary anarchists have nothing in common with those libertarians of the far right, the anarcho-capitalists." (p. 139) A better analogy would be that sharks "true place" would be with fish, as they "have nothing in common" with whales. She obviously mentions "anarcho"-capitalists because they call themselves anarchists but concludes that they are not. Her argument is very similar to Marshall's in that respect -- even down to the conclusion (i.e. they are really right-wing libertarians). As she puts it: "While condemning absolutely state coercion, they tactily condone the economic and interpersonal coercion which would prevail in a totally *laissez-faire* society. Most anarchists share the egalitarian ideal with socialists: anarcho-capitalists abhor equality and socialism equally. Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertians described in Chapter 3." (p. 138) Her one exception seems to be Stirner, "who was in some ways a liberal extremist, rather than an anarchist." (p. 125) Which is a bit unfair on Stirner, imho. BlackFlag, 08:31 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If "most anarchists" are "anarcho"-communists and "anarcho"-syndicalists and similar, then yes it's true that most anarchists "have nothing in common with those libertarians of the far right, the anarcho-capitalists." Only the 19th century individualists have things in common with the anarcho-capitalists. They're both market anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Most anarchists *are* anarcho-communists and/or anarcho-syndicalists. As for the individualists, Goodwin does not mention them so I guess you are now agreeing with my interpretation of her? The individualists do have many things in common with anarcho-communists (etc.). Being socialists, for example, being concerned about equality, being aware of economic power, being opposed to exploitation of labour (i.e. against rent, interest and profit), being influenced by Proudhon. As for "anarcho"-capitalism, they do share some things in common but not that much (they share some things in common with Marxism, too). Looking at their work as a whole (rather than just cherry-picking bits here and there) plus their social context, it becomes clear that "anarcho"-capitalism is not the same thing. As modern-day individualist anarchists point out. BlackFlag 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

I see from the Strike-the-Root forum that there is a new source out there - an online book called Against Authority. One remarkable conclusion in AA is that mutualism is a lot closer to capitalism than socialism. Very interesting. PhilLiberty 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty weak stuff. There are pretty obvious errors from the first page (supposed classical anarchist naivete about human perfectibility, for example) which usually indicate critics who haven't bothered to read what they're criticizing. (Not a specifically an-cap problem, since the "post-anarchists" have outdone all comers at misreading classical anarchism.) As a Cliff's Notes to anarcho-capitalism it's useful, but those silly charts are only as good as the research behind them, so they don't show much that's very useful. The section are panarchy is interesting, but doesn't touch the difficult and potentially contradictory elements of de Puydt's work. Libertatia 17:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable criticisms of classical anarchism. The just price - labor theory of value "error" applies to virtually all forms of classical anarchism. The utopianism thing certainly applies to some classical anarchists. At least, many seem to be long on how an anarchist society would have hardly any crime and short (to the point of evasion) on how a stateless legal/policing system might work. E.g. Kropotkin's "Law and Authority" follows this pattern, and concludes with, "No more laws! No more judges! Liberty, equality, and practice: human sympathy are the only effectual barriers we can oppose to the anti-social instincts of certain among us." I'd call that legal utopianism! PhilLiberty 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You should really read the whole Kropotkin piece. Humanity has managed to stop anti-social acts without the need for police, laws and judges for tens of thousands of years. We will manage again -- and I'm sure that Kropotkin did not want to tell future generations exactly how "freedom" would be (unlike Rothbard). Laws and Judges came with the state and will go with them. BlackFlag 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues and solutions

The most divisive issue here (meanly, really, on all the anarchist articles) seems to be a number of keywords (capitalism, socialism, communism, property) which are used differently by different editors, and have consistently been used differently within different parts of the anarchist and libertarian movements.

There have been some attempts to "solve" the problem by recourse to the authority of dictionaries. This has been unsuccessful, due to differences in definitions, to multiple definitions, to the imprecise nature of dictionary definitions, and to the fact that dictionaries are notoriously inadequate when it comes to representing minority uses. It is not, as a couple of editors have claimed, that there are "old" and "new" meanings of these terms. Taking a term like "socialism," we can easily establish that there have consistently been minorities within the general population that have recognized libertarian forms of socialism, and that those "minorities" were, in fact, at times significant majorities in one or more anarchist traditions. We would not hesitate to use specialized terminology in many other contexts, acknowledging that experts and practitioners in fields use words in ways that are "non-standard" without being incorrect. In the field of political ideologies, sources that we regularly cite for the origins of political labels demonstrate clearly that one of the sources of change in terminology is ideological struggle. And nobody who has had anything to do with editing these pages can doubt that some of the struggles our 19th century predecessors were engaged in are ongoing.

• We have to find some simple, efficient means of incorporating explanations of the terminological battles (perhaps through explanatory footnotes, or, better yet, through a couple of subarticles). That done, it shouldn't be necessary for every sentence of substance to include the corrective phrases of one faction or another.

In terms of general encyclopedia strategy, I think that this particular article has been forced to include more specific material than perhaps it should. If we worked harder on the sub-articles and pages for individual figures and concepts, we might not only spread out our conflicts, but might solve some of them by addressing them in more specific contexts. We spin our wheels here arguing over generalizations that ultimately explain nothing. Encyclopedias necessarily function at a certain level of sloppy generalization, but Wikipedia has at least the potential to be more precise, assuming we don't all game all the articles into triviality or get them all protected through dogged ideological warfare. Having looked at the pages on communism and socialism recently, it strikes me that, as bad as things are on these pages, they could be a whole lot worse. Libertatia 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the irony of the Socialism and Communism pages is that some editors there refuse to compromise to the degree that many editors here have. As you've seen, some editors want to exclude all mentions of and links to anarchism in any form, while here, most "social" anarchist editors have been willing to allow "anarcho"-capitalism a mention. The problem is that those from an "anarcho"-capitalist perspective try to take a mile when given an inch - such as editing the intro to make themselves fit better where they do not fit. As you know, though, I've found myself in conflict with editors there, so I, in no way, support that stance. Donnacha 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Looking at the references here you could almost think that social anarchism was the minority current, both historically and currently. Having been an anarchist for over 20 years, I can say that "anarcho"-capitalism is pretty much a fringe movement within anarchism (particularly outside North America). They simply do not appear in the anarchist press or movement in the UK (for example). As for Europe, libertarian still means left-libertarian and the national federations are social anarchist. It is fair to mention "anarcho"-capitalism, but in terms of facts on the ground it is required to say that few anarchists think they are anarchists (Marshall is 100% right in this). It should also be mentioned that Molinari refused the label, which is significant. And I think attempts to merge individualist anarchism into "anarcho"-capitalism are utterly incorrect -- as pointed out by current individualist anarchists. Any section on "capitalism" and anarchism should point these two facts out. Hence my changes. My revisions were prompted by the removal of my references and the addition of irrelevant information. BlackFlag 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone doesn't accept that anarchist label, that doesn't make them not an anarchist. Tolstoy refused the label as well, but he was still an anarchist. "Anarchist" was typically understood to mean a person who wanted to change society though violence, so philosophical anarchists didn't want that label. As far as anarcho-capitalism being individualist anarchism, of course it is. If something is anarchist and is individualist/anti-collectivist, then it's an individualist form of anarchism. It's definitely not social anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 16:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tolstoy said that "anarchists are right in everything . . . They are mistaken only in thinking that anarchy can be instituted by a revolution." He was also anti-property, saying that Proudhon's "property is theft" as "an absolute truth" which would "survive as long as humanity." Someone is an anarchist if they are opposed to state and capitalism. As such, Tolstoy shares the same theory as other anarchists (anti-state and anti-capitalist). Stirner would be one as he hates bourgeois morality and sees the capitalist worship of private property as yet another "spook" to be fought. And "anarcho"-capitalism is not individualist anarchism, as (ironically) "anarcho-capitalist" has proven repeatedly here. And who said that individualist anarchism is social anarchism? Most anarchists do note the great difference within libertarian socialism -- the individualists like Tucker and the collectivists ("social") like Bakunin and Kropotkin. We would not be having this discussion if Rothbard had followed Molinari and refused the anarchist label. BlackFlag 08:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stirner is not against private property, but only against it being considered a moral right. In other words, he believes might makes right. If I have the power to take something, it is mine. And if you have the strength to take it from me, it is yours. "What I have in my power, that is my own. So long as I assert myself as holder, I am the proprietor of the thing," he says. It's simply an amoral view on property. This indeed makes him inconsistent with anarcho-capitalism, since Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that taking things by aggression is immoral. In anarcho-capitalism, the Rothbardian form, things may only change hands by trade or gift. It also makes Stirner in opposition to "anarcho"-communism since an individual may take the means of production as his own if he has the power to do so, and he sees nothing wrong with that. And, your premise is false. One does not have to be opposed to anarcho-capitalism to be an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is wrong, logically and historically anarchists are opposed to capitalism. Just because some right-"libertarians" decided to call themselves anarchists makes it true. And I wish you would take the time to understand anarcho-communism before going on about it. BlackFlag, 09:53 24 November 2006 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring/content dispute etc.

Can anyone answer the following questions for me??

• 1. What is the cause of the edit war/dispute?
• 2. Would mediation be a solution to this dispute? If not, how else can the dispute be resolved?
• 3. How can we avoid these problems in the future??
• 4. How can I help solve this dispute??

If you can answer these questions, I will get some insight into why there is a revert war, and as an uninvolved user, may be able to help. Thanks, --SunStar Net 01:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion:

1. A series of "anarcho"-capitalist editors, including two now banned users (user:thewolfstar & user:Hogeye) and their sock-puppets, continually attempt to change information on this article (and associated ones) to achieve three ends - a) minimise criticism of what is a disputed form of anarchism rejected by most anarchists in the historical tradition, b) redefine the history of mutualist and individualist anarchist traditions to make them fit better with "anarcho"-capitalism, such as removing references to their self-defined socialist nature and c) word descriptions of the more left-wing anarchist traditions negatively (things like: "Anarchist Communists seek to deny workers compensation for their work" rather than "Anarchist Communists argue for a non-monetary system without wages and based upon a gift economy"). Debates have become very heated in the past.

2. Mediation might be a solution, but attempts to reach compromises in the past have been rejected by these same editors. Editors from a left-wing perspective are open to allowing descriptions of "anarcho"-capitalism and its position on capitalism, but only in the context of it being a marginal view and one that rejects important parts of all anarchist traditions.

3. A serious attempt to perfect this article (and its sub-articles) to featured status and strong independent supervision over attempts to push POVs once its achieved would be my suggestion.

4. Read back over the last two or three talk pages and give an honest opinion on where you think the problem lies.

Donnacha 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any major dispute. As far as I can tell there is just minor bickering about various fine points.Anarcho-capitalism 02:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Donnacha's summary. As far as solutions go, well the problem would be solved if the "anarcho"-capitalists keep to their page and the anarchism page simply noted they exist, link to their page and point out that most anarchists do not think they are anarchists. That reflects the reality of the situation as far as anarchism as a social movement goes. Instead we anarchists have to track down quotes to support well known facts, sometimes only to see them ignored (my discussion with RJII over Proudhon and wage labour springs to mind). Yesterday, I had to revert back the Proudhon article because "anarcho-capitalist" removed my change on land ownership even though it was a direct quote from Proudhon from the book in question! I can really do without having check my edits to ensure that "anarcho"-capitalists do not change facts they happen to dislike. BlackFlag 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If most anarchists think anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, that's really not that important. It's important enough to mention, sure. But if it's true, it's simply because most "anarchists" are "anarcho"-communists and they oppose private property, markets, and private police. The more important fact is that nearly all scholars recognize it as a type of anarchism (and, again, the miniscule few that don't are "anarcho"-communists).Anarcho-capitalism 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please stop refering to all social anarchists as anarcho-communists. there are many popular schools under the dominant anarchist socialist umbrella. constantly labeling us as "communists" makes you seem prejudiced and paranoid, just like thewolfstar and her clones. second, i don't think ancap should be removed from the article, not because i agree with it or think it a valid form of anarchism, but because obviously some people, both scholars and individuals, think it is. what folks here are disputing is the continuous attack on historical anarchist traditions and the rewriting of history. there is debate on all sides whether ancap is a form of individualist anarchism, so the article should say that, not that it is or isn't. the essential conflict here is that the social anarchists feel that their movement and ideology is being besieged, coopted, and perverted (probaly unintentionally on your part) by the ancaps while the ancaps feel that they are not being allowed fair representation in the article. i personally think they are being allowed fair representation. unfortunately, the differences between the two camps are unreconcilable because anti-capitalism is held as a central tenent by "traditional" anarchists, precluding acceptance of a capitalist form of anarchism. in an anatchist society we would simply exist in different communities and avoid confrontation as long as free association was maintained. thats not really possible here, is it? overall, i think the article is pretty good (besides the issues section), which is why i haven't been editing it. but as long as you threaten to dilute or pervert the representation in the article of beliefs that many here hold very dearly, we will always meet you at the barricades. Blockader 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm only referring to "anarcho"-communists is because I've never seen any published scholars say that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism other than "anarcho"-communists. If you know of any I'd like to know about them.Anarcho-capitalism 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars mention "anarcho"-capitalism simply because they call themselves anarchists. Most anarchists do not consider it so. Any decent scholar would mention that latter fact, at the very least. And Jeremy Jennings obviously states that "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism ("Anarchism", Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.)) while Barbara Goodwin concludes that it has "nothing in common with" anarchism and, therefore, its "true place" is in "right-wing libertarianism" rather than a discussion of anarchism. These follow Marshall's excellent history of anarchism. BlackFlag 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you look at the actual Goodwin book? The "Anarchist" FAQ lies about what it says as well as about many others things. It was written by a very unethical individual(s) and can't be relied on. I quote: "Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs....Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertarians...Many who call themselves anarchists today preserve some of the older doctrines...This preference was evident in the student uprisings of 1968 in France and the USA, which were largely anarchist in spirit and with which many of the libertarian left associate themselves." (Barbara Goodwin, "Using Political Ideas", fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137-138) Saying that someone is a right libertarian is not someone is not an anarchist, just as saying someone is a left libertarian is not saying they are not anarchist. Your claim about Eatwell needs checking up on too.Anarcho-capitalism 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like BlackFlag has looked at the book. In any event, this argument over Goodwin is getting old. What she says is that anarcho-capitalism is that recent form of anarchism that really has nothing in common with anarchism and belongs elsewhere. It's a muddle. Now, according to Goodwin's classifactory scheme, saying someone is a right libertarian actually does make them something other than anarchist. Like most of these general texts, Goodwin's is a fine example of how not to use political ideas. I wish, btw, that people could lay off the false, defamatory claims about the FAQ authors. I know the people involved, and have absolutely no qualms about their ethics, whatever disagreements I may have with some of their interpretations. Having been asked to contribute, I can attest to the relative openness of the FAQ to conventional individualists and mutualists, despite it's arguments in favor of non-market forms. (To date, other commitments have prevented me from taking the FAQ crew up on their offer, which would necessitate a rather immense research commitment.) Libertatia 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Goodwin does not say that anarcho-capitalism has nothing in commmon with anarchism. First of all, that wouldn't make sense because she say anarcho-capitalism is an anarchism. Here is what she says: "Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism...[M]ost contemporary anarchists have nothing in common with those libertarians of the far right, the anarcho-capitalists, who wish to see consumer capitalism reign, untrammeled by government." See? She is not saying that anarcho-capitalism has "nothing in common with anarchism" as you and BlackFlag have claimed. She is saying it has nothing in common with "most" anarchists. Certainly, they have things in common with the individualists who held the labor theory of value as well as Stirnerite individualist anarchists. One would have to be blind not to see that. In fact, she even says that they have something in common with Stirner: "These thinkers ignore the many inequalities which laissez-faire would reinforce...which almost every earlier anarchist, except Stirner would have repudiated."Anarcho-capitalism 19:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What Goodwin says literally doesn't make sense in any way that is valuable to us here. That we are having an ongoing debate about an incoherent source is more proof that Wikipedia's rules skew away from scholarly standards. Libertatia 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Goodwin is not incoherent at all. She says that anarcho-capitalism is "right libertarianism" and the other forms of anarchism are "left libertarianism." You're being misled by BlackFlag's partial quotes and the "Anarchist" FAQ to believe that she is saying anarcho-capitalism is right libertarianism but not anarchism. But, that's not what she's saying. She's saying it's both. Do you think because she says other forms are left libertarianism and anarchism at the same time that she's being incoherent on that too?Anarcho-capitalism 00:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. If I venture an opinion on a text, you can bet I've bothered to read it. In fact, I went back to the library and reread the relevant sections before I commented this last time. I'll stand by my characterization above, which is that Goodwin doesn't seem to have taken the time to clarify her thoughts on her position (and her editors, apparently, let it slide.) Between you and BlackFlag pretty much everything Goodwin says about an-cap has been quoted. And she says, essentially, it is and it isn't (or shouldn't be), which is unhelpful, to say the least. Bad book. Unhelpful source in an unfruitful debate. Ditch it and move on. Libertatia 02:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to "ditch it." Where does she say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism? She says that it's "true place" is in right libertarian rather than in left libertarianism. But, she does not say that it's not a form of anarchism. She explicity says it is a form of anarchism. If you can find her saying that it's not a form of anarchism, please provide a quote.Anarcho-capitalism 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For Goodwin, "right libertarianism" is a category outside anarchism, something she discusses in the section on "liberalism" I believe. So, while you, I and BlackFlag would all agree that "libertarian" can mean anarchist, Goodwin (in the sentence you're quoting at least), pretty clearly means that this modern movement which she has included under "anarchism" really belongs elsewhere, outside of anarchism. You want to believe that she consistently includes an-caps among the anarchists, despite this dismissal, and BlackFlag thinks her "last word" on the subject is the most important. I tend to agree with his interpretation of the text, but mostly think it's just a junk text. Ultimately, there is no correct answer to the question: are an-caps anarchists? But history gives us some clear means to make rough judgments. Some who claim the name are very close to the rest of the tradition. Others are obvious outliers. But this all inevitably gets heated, since from the point of view of those who have labored, or are laboring, to build an anarchist movement on the foundations laid by those who turned the name into something specific and positive, those who want to climb aboard on Merriam-Webster's say-so are likely to seem like imposters, triflers, and/or free-riders. Those who get extremely defensive when the slightest bad thing is said about "capitalism" ought to understand that. Libertatia 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does she say that right libertarianism is outside of anarchism in that chapter?Anarcho-capitalism 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BlagFlag quoted it above: "Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertians described in Chapter 3." (p. 138) If you look at the Table of Contents, you'll see that this refers to the chapter on "Liberalism." Libertatia 20:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So what if the chapter refers to liberalism? Individualist anarchism is liberal anarchism. It was derived by taking classical liberalism to the extreme. There is no inconsistency is saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, a form of libertarian, and a form of liberalism all at the same time. All those things are true.Anarcho-capitalism 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are applying your definitions to Goodwin's organizational scheme, and applying a genealogy she does not use. She says that anarcho-capitalism "really" belongs outside the anarchist chapter, with a tradition she considers very different. This makes BlackFlag's reading very plausible. Libertatia 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You say that she says that, but you aren't able to provide any quotes where she says that. Yes, she thinks it's very different from left libertarianism, and it is, but she still explicitly says that it is a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the quote is above, and couldn't be much clearer. You have not shown any evidence that Goodwin shares your understanding of the terms, and the organization of her work suggests strongly otherwise. Libertatia 21:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Which quote? This one? "Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism..." I don't know how you can sit here and deny that explicit statement from her saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Yes, she says it is a form of right libertarianism, but that is not saying it's not anarchism. That's clear because she says other forms of anarchism are left libertarianism. Nowhere does she say, or imply, that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Their true place is in the group of right-wing libertians described in Chapter 3." (p. 138)Libertatia 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That IS their true place. But that is not saying they're not anarchists. She also says the place of other anarchists is in "left libertarianism." You seem to be assuming that libertarianism and anarchism are mutually exclusive, but that's not true. There are right libertarian and left libertarian anarchisms. This should be obvious to you since she explicitly says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It's become clear that you just don't want to see.Anarcho-capitalism 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, I am assuming as little as possible, since this is a debate about Goodwin's text. You seem to be adding concerns and "clarifications" that Goodwin never articulates. Goodwin contradicts herself, and, at the moment, you seem to be contradicting yourself as well. "True places" seem to be multiplying somewhat alarmingly. Libertatia 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Goodwin does not contradict herself. Saying that someone is an anarchist and a right libertarian at the same time is not a contradiction. The reason you think she's contradicting herself is because you yourself think that anarchism and right libertarianism are imcompatible.Anarcho-capitalism 17:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

One very last time, it is evident from the organization of Goodwin' work that she considers them different things. What I think does not really enter in, although I hope I've made it clear that I think Goodwin is a very poor "scholarly" source. Libertatia 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No she does not consider them different things. That is obvious because she says that they are anarchists and right libertarians at the same time.Anarcho-capitalism 16:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to take the ridiculous position that the "Anarchist" FAQ does, which is that to be an anarchist you have to be "traditional." That's false. There is nothing about anarchism that requires one to follow a tradition. That's a nonstarter. One can become an anarchist without being aware of anyone before him that called themself an anarchist and without having read any anarchist materials. One can become an anarchist while explicitly denouncing, or spitting on, tradition. All that's required to be an anarchist is opposition to restraint over the individual. What anarchist tradition were the original anarchists following when they became anarchists?Anarcho-capitalism 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are inconsistent here. The "anarchism" that you find in the dictionary is the product of the anarchist tradition. Meanings are created by human labor. You can attempt to make "anarchism" mean something else, by entering the discourse on the limits of the term. You can point to strategic redefinitions of the term by people like Tucker (who, for all his plumb-line sectarianism in some directions, went through some amazing contortions to broaden the tent in others.) And, obviously, you can call yourself anything you want, and you can think of yourself any way you want. But when you use a phrase like "become an anarchist" you're off in a more complicated realm, and neither self-assertion nor Merriam-Webster can really legitimate your claim in the way we would want for an encyclopedia entry. Libertatia 20:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Find one definition of anarchism that says an anarchist has to be traditional.Anarcho-capitalism 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chortle. We may be having one of those Humpty-Dumpty moments. . . Libertatia 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Humpty Dumpty whatever. Find a definition of anarchism that says to be an anarchist one has to follow in a "tradition" or that one has to be similar to other anarchists to be an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not my fetish, thanks. Neither would they be considered scholarly sources anywhere but Wikipedia. Libertatia 21:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about dictionaries? Find a "scholarly definition" then that says that one has to follow in a "tradition" or be an anarchist and that one has to be similar to other anarchists to be an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already acknowledged that you can call yourself anything you want, or game Wikipedia with published sources. You seem to think that the sources of those sources is an abstract ideal somewhere. If you call yourself an "anarchist," but aren't "similar to other anarchists," why should I take you seriously? The definitions come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the anarchist movement. Libertatia 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I AM similar to other anarchists, unfortunately - namely, the 19th century individualists who were confused by the labor theory of value as well as Stirner to a degree. However, that's not what makes me an anarchist. What makes anyone an anarchists is their ideas - not whether their ideas are similar to someone else who is called an anarchist. Tradition be damned. Anyone who calls themself an anarchist should be ready and willing to reject tradition. Proudhon was the first to call himself an anarchist. What tradition was he following? Was he not an anarchist because he wasn't following a tradition? To hell with tradition. Anarcho-capitalism 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon is involved in creating the tradition, creating the conditions that will eventually lead to dictionaries and other scholarly side-shows adopting his meaning of the word, rather than those that preceded it. How do you think the ideas got connected to the word? That was the work of the anarchist tradition you deny. Our ability to generalize from that tradition, to claim those who did not claim the label, is still absolutely dependent on that labor and that tradition. BTW, the Kate Sharpley library uses a definition that begins: "Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom." The rest makes it clear that the ideology is inseparable from the tradition. Libertatia 18:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tradition is irrelvant. All that it takes to be an anarchist is to oppose "rulers." "Without rulers" is the literal translation of the term. I would think if anyone would be open to reject tradition, it would be an anarchist. But, you seem to think that an anarchist has to be a conservative, which is bizarre.Anarcho-capitalism 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Step outside of the very unreal world of dictionaries and encyclopedias for a moment. If you or I call ourselves "anarchist," the chances are very slim that we derived the term ourselves from classical sources. The "literal translation" of the term is actually what is beside the point. Merriam-Webster did not include their present definition of "anarchism" because of its conformity to dead languages. Anarchism is in the reference works because it is a very real ideology, the product of very real people, with very real histories in which they engaged in very real struggles, both material and ideological. If you or I call ourselves "anarchist," we inescapably place ourselves within or against certain political (and discursive) traditions. You get all lost when you think (or think I think) that one must be "conservative" to take a place in a tradition. (I am, in fact, "conservative" about some aspects of the anarchist tradition, in the sense that I prefer the approach of mutualism to that of most of the factions that have developed subsequently, and in the sense that I would prefer new anarchists had access to a clear picture of what anarchists in the past have said and done, if only to avoid reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes.) You yourself identify with certain traditions (subjective economics, anarcho-capitalism, capitalism itself). Should we assume that you are "conservative," in the conformist sense you seem to be attributing to "traditional" anarchists of other schools, with regard to those traditions? It seems to me that you want to have it both ways. You claim that most people who have called themselves "anarchists" are, in fact, not anarchists, and that an-caps are real anarchists. But the only authority you can bring to bear is the very dubious say-so of the kind of reference sources we wouldn't allow a freshman composition student to cite. What we do on Wikipedia has to be constrained by the rules here, but Wikipedia is one thing and the world and its history is another. It's funny: I would have thought that anyone who contributed to a site like this would begin to have an understanding of how meaning is made and transformed, and of the relation of abstract concepts and material, historial reality. Libertatia 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If sources call someone an anarchist then that is good enough to include them in the article as anarchists. I think that "anarcho"-communists are not real anarchists, but that is not me saying that they should not be included in the article. Again, what makes someone an anarchist is they are against rulers over the individual. "Anarcho"-communists don't fit that bill, but anarcho-capitalists do. And, tradition has nothing to do with it. One does not have to fit into a tradition to be an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Libertaria. You have covered the points I wanted to make (I have been busy of late and have been unable to come back until today). I think that "true place" and "nothing in common" says it all. I think she mentions "anarcho"-capitalism because it calls itself anarchist but she concludes that this hardly fits in with what is usually called anarchism. Feel free to say she says they are "anarchists" but you really should mention that she concludes that their "true place" is in right-wing libertarianism and that they have "nothing in common" with what most anarchists think is anarchism. BlackFlag 09:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism has little in common with most philosophies that call themselves anarchism, and proudly so. For example, "anarcho"-communism is an imposter. It's not real anarchism but a form of authoritarianism that seeks to expropriate the product of labor and trade from others. As the "anarcho"-communist Dejacque said, "It is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." That's an assertion of authority over others. The reality is, I have no moral obligation to provide you with your needs. At least Proudhon was on the right track when he said, "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained." Anarcho-capitalism 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You *really* have no idea what anarcho-communists argue, do you? What is the point if you do not understand what you are attacking? Given that communist-anarchists have repeated said that they are against imposing communism, I can only assume you are not letting your ignorance get in the way of posting here. I hope you find out more about communist and individualist anarchism some time soon, as it would make work here a lot easier. BlackFlag 09:07, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

I think (and most dictionaries agree) that Eljamin's definition of anarchism is correct: "anarchy simply means without a leader/government whatever economic system springs out." If people like Blockader and Switch insist on a partisan definition ("all anarchists are anti-capitalist"; "it actually extends to ... social hierarchy") then edit wars will go on forever. (Well, until the remaining anarcho-capitalists are banned, anyway.) I agree with Switch that libertarianism includes both minarchism and anarchism.

My answers to Sunstar are:

1. The cause of the edit war is terminology disputes, starting with "anarchism" itself, but including "capitalism," "socialism," "hierarchy," and so on. My opinion is that anarchism should be defined as broadly as possible (the belief that the state is unnecessary and should be abolished). All the other add-ons are not part of the definition. As for the other terms, they simply should not be used without explanation for each particular usage. At one time, this was solved pretty well by preceeding the trick terms with a modifier, like state socialism, stateless socialism, state capitalism, stateless capitalism, and coercive hierarchy.
2. I don't see how mediation would help, since the differences are irreconcilable, and all new editors would ignore any decision, anyway.
3. I don't think we can avoid the problem. The systemic limitations of Wiki collaboration make articles on controversial subjects unstable and unreliable.
4. You can't help solve this dispute. It will continue so long as there are dissenters who are not yet banned. Basically, for controversial articles it becomes a game of baiting and banning those who disagree with you. The socialist faction here has had remarkable success at banning knowledgeable anarcho-capitalist editors. Trouble is, new ones keep showing up.

PhilLiberty 04:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"The socialist faction here has had remarkable success at banning knowledgeable anarcho-capitalist editors. Trouble is, new ones keep showing up." ROFL! If they got banned it is because of their own activities. As for "knowledgeable" "anarcho"-capitalists, well, I've had to correct quite a few of them on the basic facts of anarchism and anarchists as well as correcting their re-writting of anarchist history. The major problem is that "anarcho"-capitalists do not seem willing to let wikipedia articles recognise how much a minority they are within "anarchism" (both currently and historically) and that most anarchists do not consider them anarchists. They bar perfectly valid anarchist sources on spurious grounds (as if "An Anarchist FAQ" changes content when it gets published next year!). Is there a solution? Hard to say, given the role of "anarcho"-capitalists trying to change the history of the movement. Well, I would suggest that the entry mentions that "anarcho"-capitalism exists but that few anarchists think it is a form of anarchism and give a short reason why. As such, the current edit is okay but needs some work. BlackFlag 08:42, 20 November 2006(UTC)

1. Its like two groups of people in the schoolyard fighting eachother about petty rivalry. Whats to do when trying finding the cause in such a dispute? Its practically impossible because one sides always to blame the other one! The closest i think we will get is that its just a problem with this specific schoolyard.

2. To continue with the schoolyard analogy i think that one of the groups cant be removed, and none of them can be banned, also its a hard course trying to hold one side out of the yard while the others there (By finding a solution involving both perspectives). Maybe we should try to either widen the yard so theres more space, or we should scale it down so that its easier to keep one side out of this at all times to ensure both parties get their due time. Maybe its just this yard thats the problem (the whole "ancap or not" seen as a yard) and a lock down of this ightm help the rest of the article, instead of it destroying any tries to fix anything because of the universal lockdowns once in a while.

3. I think: Cant the ancap and capitalism parts be shut down while the rest of its open? Then we might get on with other things!

4. By taking up on other problems like removing weasling words, if it ever becomes possible to get this site locked up for a longer period of time then its used to be.

--Fjulle 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

As an anarcho-capitalist I tend to agree with the above-recommended dispute resolution procsiedure. I'm aware that there are some people (anarcho-communists for example) that cannot accept anarcho-capitalism. I personally don't see how communism can exist without a state, but that's neither here nor there. According to the dictionary I consulted online capitalism simply means an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of wealth are privately owned. The claim that anarchists must be interested in "social justice" in order to be anarchists is, in my opinion, absurd because A) I don't know what social justice is, B) most people who are in favor of it seem merely to want higher taxes to pay for state-run hospitals, which is definitely not anarchism, and C) since anarchy simply means without a leader/government whatever economic system springs out of that will be private ownership as opposed to government ownership (see definition above). And for those who don't know the difference between libertarians (minarchists) and anarchists the answer is that minarchists think that government can and should perform certain functions (national defense, a court system, regulation of weights and measures and/or coining money - the list varies depending on the minarchist you ask), whereas anarchists consider that government should not exist and that all functions should be provided by individuals or groups working together. And as for the source of the revert wars see http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=14112 in which Hogeye (now banned some people have said) requested help from the anarcho-capitalist community about Wikipedia (ignored by most, I think).Eljamin 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

um, all anarchists are anti-capitalist, not just anarchist communists. that said, no one here is trying to remove the section on ancap. you clearly have no idea whats going on here. also, heres a link with a bunch of films regarding anarchism.[2] Blockader 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, all anarchists are not anti-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalist are pro-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalism 19:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well i left y'all out cus i thought it was obvious that ancaps are pro-capitalist, though i am beginning to agree that our definitions of capitalism are not the same (no value judgment intended). Blockader 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to what Blockader said, communism must exist without the state; Marx described communism as being acchieved only when the state has been abolished. It is a form of social contract that does not include a state.

Actually, I think Marx said that socialism must exist without the state, and communism was the vehicle (a government by the working class) to get there. Towards the end of the Communist Manifesto, he talks about moderate taxation, free education, and other things. Actually, looking it over, that document is only as bizarre as what anarcho-capitalists advocate; private property without a state makes as much nonsense as a state without private property. Owen 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How is private property without a state bizarre? The state is the biggest enemy of private property. Instead of having tax-funded protection of private property, you have voluntarily funded protection.Anarcho-capitalism 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you can't enforce private property without governmental authority. You need a formal authority operating on formal law to enforce ownership. I don't care if that government is funded publicly or privately; it's the same crap to me either way. Either way it's claiming legal authority that supersedes my own freedom to do as I will. To be honest, I was an anarcho-capitalist myself for a while [3] [4], until the contradictions racked up too high and I found out how authoritarian traditional anarcho-capitalism was (I had my own peculiar ideas of what anarcho-capitalism would be like, and it didn't include police forces or private states.) Actually, as an anarcho-capitalist I did consider the idea of competing private governments (which I thought was my own idea), and termed it "plurarchy". (When I mentioned the idea to a friend, he described it as "Ayn Rand's wet dream".) But it never occurred to me that anyone would think of that as anarchy, and nor does it now. Social control and anarchism make no sense together, even if some form of capitalism and anarchism theoretically could. Owen 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You can enforce private property with private institutions. I don't understand why you find that "bizarre." Do you mean that you don't think it's possible? You don't understand anarcho-capitalism. Law (whether written or unwritten) is a prohibition of individuals exerting coercive authority over others. Do you think you should have the "freedom to do as you will" even if what you will includes the will to assault others? I don't think you should. It should be illegal for you to assault me. That is not authority over you, but preventing you from asserting authority over others. And, your friend is wrong about Ayn Rand. Rand spoke explicitly against "competing governments" in favor of a monopoly on force (a state). Anarcho-capitalism 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's bizarre because you want to get rid of the state but maintain every one of its functions. I absolutely agree that you shouldn't be able to impose your will over others, which is why I absolutely reject economic systems that make people dependent on others and force them into work they only accept because their alternative is starvation. The anarchist solution is to arrange a society where people don't want to assault one another, or need to steal from one another. The anarcho-capitalist solution is to strike out viciously against those desperate enough to need food or to assault someone for meager gain. It doesn't need to be illegal, if you terminate the motivation. Social control is only necessary when a society is already sick. Anarcho-capitalist society would be the plague. Owen 01:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that anarcho-capitalists want to "maintain every one of [the state's] functions." The only functions they want to maintain are defensive functions. They want to get rid of all aggressive functions. When you say "The anarchist solution is to arrange a society where people don't want to assault one another, or need to steal from one another," that doesn't make any sense to me because, given your opposition, because theft presupposes private property and assault presupposes ownership of one's body. You are saying you want a society that respects private property of others and self-ownership. I as an anarcho-capitalist would love to arrange a society where people don't want to assault one another or steal from one another, but until that day comes (which most likely will be never) you need to have a way to defend oneself against those who do want to assault the bodies of others and steal the product of others' labor and trade.Anarcho-capitalism 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, "anarcho"-capitalism will defend the stolen wealth of the capitalist and landlord from the workers who produced it. It makes perfect sense for those who monopolise the means of life (by means of previous aggression) to say that all future aggression should be banned. Hence the popularity of the rhetoric of right-"libertarianism" in elite circles. If you genuinely opposed people stealing the product of others' labour then you should oppose capitalism. BlackFlag 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, anarcho-capitalists will not defend stolen wealth. Rothbard said, "All existing property titles may be considered just under the homestead principle, provided (a) that there may never be any property in people; (b) that the existing property owner did not himself steal the property; and particularly (c) that any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property." Anarcho-capitalism is based on people owning the product of their labor. If a person mixes his labor with an unowned resource, that's how ownership starts. If a person takes an unowned resource without doing so, then he violates the right of whoever the first user would be. Once property is created it may only change hands through trade or gift. Rothbard echoes Locke on the origin of property, requiring that it be the product of labor: "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to." If you say that a person has a right to own the product of his labor if he applies his laboring to someone else's property, then you're just being incoherent. If I create something out of unowned resources then you come along and transform it into something else, you don't then own that property. That would be incoherent, because you would be stealing the product of my labor. As the old individualist Lysander Spooner pointed out: "If [the individual] be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors."Anarcho-capitalism 17:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest reading "What is Property?" for an anarchist analysis of property property and why it is theft. But I suppose it is asking too much for a capitalist to read an anarchist work... To quote Spooner: "When a man knows that he is to have all the fruits of his labor, he labors with more zeal, skill, and physical energy, than when he knows - as in the case of one laboring for wages - that a portion of the fruits of his labor are going to another . . . each man should be his own employer, or work directly for himself, and not for another for wages; because, in the latter case, a part of the fruits of his labor go to his em¬ployer, instead of coming to himself." Spooner, like Proudhon, was obviously aware that wage labour resulted in theft. BlackFlag 08:32, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

Property could not be theft, because theft presupposes property. Something has to be property before it makes sense to say it has been stolen. Proudhon was confused by the labor theory of value. And, yes, Spooner was confused the the theory as well. Though the person sells his labor, Spooner though that the person sells it for less than it is worth, which is complete nonsense. But no, Spooner did not say it was theft. Obviously it's not theft. Anarcho-capitalism 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've read Proudhon, then you can hardly have missed the fact that this is no argument against him. It betrays a poor understanding of the rhetoric involved to claim there is any contradiction in Proudhon, when what we demonstrates is that the contradictions are in the theory of property which he was critiquing. "Property could not be theft" only in the case that the theory of property was coherent and philosophically sound. If it is neither of those things—if "property" as defined by it is "impossible," as Proudhon attempts to demonstrate (and which Greene and Skidmore also demonstrate)—then "property" is necessarily going to be theft, by its own terms. This has less to do with any form of the LTV than it does with the weaknesses of capitalist property theories. Later works, such as the Theory of Property were necessary to elaborate a theory of property which would not be compromised by the sorts of internal incoherencies that Proudhon pointed out in his early work, which would accomplish the "aims" of those theories without reproducing their injustices. Libertatia 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Property is not theft. The statement is absurd. Proudon's reasoning was absurd. You can't steal what's not owned. How are "capitalist property theories" weak? What's so weak about premise that an individual owns the product of his labor? Anarcho-capitalism 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The majority of What Is Property? is Proudhon's answer to the question of weak theories of property. And, if any portion of that multi-faceted critique is correct than it is not "absurd," but simply the logical conclusion that what is called "property" in those theories, is, by the very terms of those theories, a violation of "property," which we might, under those terms, call "theft." This probably isn't the place to go into detail about those parts of Austrian a priorism that more closely resemble sympathetic magic than economics. Libertatia 00:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the place. You made the claim that "capitalist property theories" are weak, then you should be able to defend it.Anarcho-capitalism 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Having cited for you at various times several excellent critiques of those theories (Proudhon, What Is Property; Thomas Skidmore, Rights of Man to Property; William B. Greene, "Solidarity" (also known as "An Illustration")), I don't think I'm shirking my responsibilities. In any event, we could point to your self-admitted "moralistic assertion" about property rights, and your professed unconcern about economic theories, as an example of a rather weak theory. Elsewhere, modern a priorism depends on a notion of "self-ownership" that is asserted rather than proven, and asserted on spectacularly iffy grounds. The notion, as it appears in works like those of Rothbard and Hoppe, is an anachronism, appropriate to a time when at least certain classes could be subjected the question, "Who owns you?" Having largely done away with the mindset that condones slavery, the once-useful conflation of ownership and being now looks a little silly. And have you ever really considered, philosophically, the mechanism of "labor mixing"? Spooky stuff, that. But this is really "old hat" stuff, and I doubt that it will have any more impact now than it did in the 19th century on the quasi-religious belief in a "right to property" that springs up without clear origin, philosophical basis, or social sanction. Libertatia 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, though - you claim not to know what social justice is, then generalise about the people who support it. You define anarchy as merely the lack of a leader or government, when it actually extends to the abolition of the state at its very least, and of social hierarchy and, for that matter, all hierarchal relationships in the vast majority of definitions. Lack of a government also does not necessitate private ownership; see the indigenous Australians' pre-invasion society for just one example, and there have been others. Not all libertarians support the existence of the government and its power, so essentially you are stating that yes, anarcho-capitalism is a form of libertarianism (but distinct from minarchism, which is another subgroup). You need to check what you're saying. -Switch ^t 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Social justice" is most often used to mean socialist injustice. *Dan T.* 17:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"The claim that anarchists must be interested in 'social justice' in order to be anarchists is, in my opinion, absurd because A) I don't know what social justice is." Which kind of proves the point, surely? As for "since anarchy simply means without a leader/government" well, what can I say. Few anarchists would accept that "anarchy simply means" that. Most argue it is "without rulers" (an-archy). Hence our opposition to hierarchy, patriarchy, etc. And as Rothbard himself pointed out, capitalism produces the same social relationships as the state. Hardly logical to oppose one "ultimate decision-making power" over a given area but not another... BlackFlag 08:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for those who claim I don't know what I'm talking about, I decided to adjourn my discussion to go over to Wiktionary to see if there was a consensus opinion on the meaning of the word anarchism as well as a consensus opinion on the word capitalism. According to the current Wiktionary page (Anarchism is: Any theory or doctrine that proposes the absence of involuntary government in all forms). Whereas capitalism has two definitions, one of which is: a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a free market rather than by state control. Accordingly: A) I object to the statement that all anarchists are opposed to capitalism because of POV/NPOV concerns, and B) considering that this is a semantic issue, I recommend that we seek first to establish a consensus on the Wiktionary site before further addressing any issues arising here.Eljamin 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar? Blockader 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not the dictionary definition! I hate to point this out, but anarchism is a sociopolitical theory and a social movement. The dictionary does not give an accurate account of this tradition. They are not politically sophisticated things, as can be seen from the usual dictionary definition of, say, "socialism". As it stands, until the 1950s all anarchists considered themselves as socialists (or were considered as such). Then Rothbard decided to call his ideology "anarcho-capitalism" and ever since anarchists have been protesting against it. If he followed Molinari and refused to do so, then this discussion would not be happening. BlackFlag 09:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to be going round in the usual circles. I would suggest the following. First, "anarcho"-capitalism should be mentioned as it does call itself anarchist. That seems fair. Second, it should be mentioned that many academics include it in their dicussions on anarchism. That is a fact, regardless of the accurately of such inclusions in my opinion. Thirdly, it should be mentioned that not all scholars agree with such claims and many point out that other anarchists disagree it is a form of anarchism. Fourthly, it should be stressed that most anarchists reject the claim that there can be an "anarchist" capitalism. That is an accurate statement of fact (Marshall's quote simply states the obvious). Fifthly, that Molinari rejected the label (surely relevent, given that he is the father of "anarcho"-capitalism). Sixthly, that the individualist anarchists were socialists and were considered as such by other anarchists. Attempts to co-opt the individualists into forerunners of "anarcho"-capitalists with "bad" economics are simply wrong and give a false picture of the history of anarchism (and at least know what you are talking about when critising the "bad" economics of the likes of Tucker and Carson). Oh, and "dictionary" definitions are not the best place to start given the nature of a social movement and I've lost track of the mistakes academics make about anarchism. BlackFlag 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The 19th century individualists who were confused by the labor theory of value were not "socialists" as the term is commonly used today, because they did not support community ownership of property, including the means of production, but private ownership. If it's said they were "socialists" then that it would have to be pointed out that that is an unorthodox definition. There are plenty of sources that say they were not socialists, because those sources use the term as it is commonly used. It's true that Rothbard was influenced by Tucker and Spooner, by having the market supply defense of person and property but dropped the ridiculous labor theory of value. Rothbard said around 1965: "Lysander Spooner and Benjamin T. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy they they left to political philosophy...There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung."Anarcho-capitalism 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They were not "confused" by the labour theory of value. They seemed to understand it pretty well (unlike "anarcho-capitalist"). As for not "socialists" as the term is commonly used today -- well, "socialism" is often used to mean "state intervention" or "state ownership." In that case, all anarchists are not socialists (as "commonly used today"). Where does that leave us? And I hate to point this out, but Spooner and Tucker were around when marginalism was developed. They rejected it. In other words, Rothbard's spectulation is of doubtful validity. As for "Austrian" economics being "scientific", I assume that he used the term "scientific" in a pretty unusual way. "Austrian" economics explicitly rejects the scientific methodology. Oh, and Laurence Labadie was hardly willing to "incorporate" that ideology into his political and social ideas. Given how current individualist anarchists reject capitalism I think Rothbard was expressing wishful thinking. BlackFlag 08:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When I say they were "confused" by the labor theory of value, I mean they were deceived by it. It's nonsense, as almost all of us know today. The labor theory of value led them to bizarre conclusions, such as the preposterous idea that a person should be paid according to how much labor he exerted, and if he is not, then "usury" or "exploitation" is taking place. The reality is that there is no intrinsically proper price of anything. Anarcho-capitalism 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As you don't seem to understand what was actually claimed by the various labor theorists, it's not surprising you think it's "nonsense." The notion that there is an "intrinsically proper price" doesn't seem to be a claim of any of the anarchists I am familiar with. Non-market anarchists bypass the notion. The notion, common among market anarchists, that "labor should exchange for labor" does not preclude, and has not precluded, a market in labor, though the goal has always been to make that market as free as possible (hence Tucker's stated desire to see wage labor universal.) Warren left each laborer to assign a value to his or her own labor, so that a substantial subjective factor was incorporated even into the determination of price without compromising the "cost principle." The primary reason to oppose the LTVs, as they were actually presented, is a belief in the "productivity of capital." There are differences on this question going back into the 1820s. For example, William Thompson, considered by some a (proto-)mutualist, disagreed with Hodgskin that capital should receive no share of produced wealth. But the core of anarchist theory has always rejected the productive capital thesis, and the heart of the conflict within modern market anarchism is probably there. Libertatia 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's you that doesn't seem to understand that labor theory of value of the 19th century individualists. The labor theory of value IS what economists call an "intrinsic" theory of value. (By the way, you're wrong that it is "common among market anarchists that labor should exchange for labor." Most market anarchists think there absolutely nothing amiss if value is exchanged for value, that is, they're anarcho-capitalists). Modern market anarchists don't agree that it is exploitative for a person to receive pay that is less than proportional to the amount of labor he is exerting, because the labor theory of value is bunk. If you don't understand that the 19th century individualists think there is something wrong with a person not being paid according to how much labor was exerted, then you don't understand teh first thing about their philosophy. About Warren, the fact that people had to work out prices for labor times doing different kinds of labor was a problem for Warren, and it bothered him because subjectivity coming into the equation. But even then, the very idea is absurd. Why on Earth is it more proper to trade labor for labor than value for value? Warren, like the others, was another very confused individual, thanks to the labor theory of value. Modern market anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, is very simple. No theories of value are necessary at all. Any price at which something trades is the proper price as long as the trade was made without aggresssion or fraud. There is nothing at all wrong with purchasing something according to subjective valuation with no regard for how much labor was put into the product or service. Anarcho-capitalism 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Historians of economics refer to the "practical theory of value," which was partially challenged by Smith's labor theory, as the "intrinsic theory of value." I wasn't able to find any serious economists who confused the two theories, although I see that it is common on pro-capitalist blogs to treat LTVs as if they were theories about "intrinsic" value. I assume that this is simply confusion. An intrinsic theory of the value of commodities would have to make claims about a value that inheres in the commodity "in itself," regardless of all contexts. We can all see the weaknesses of such a theory, which is probably why the temptation is so strong to attempt to reduce the LTVs to it. The strange thing is that the LTVs were arguing against a set of theories that attempted to assign a more or less intrinsic value to capital, or to its possession. This is what the assault on the "productive capital" myth was all about. I think, btw, that you make a moralistic claim, unjustified by economics, or you simply say "markets always work" (which, ultimately, is probably just a moralistic claim), when you say that any price reached in a free market is the "proper price." Libertatia 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I indeed make a moralistic claim when I say that in price reached in the market is the proper price. Whatever price I am willing to trade what I own is a matter of the natural right of me to own the product of my labor. It is as simple as that. Economic theories are really irrelevant. I don't base my anarcho-capitalism on economics at all. All there is is the right to own the product of labor. Whatever prices things trade at is irrelevant. The 19th century individualists were deceived by the labor theory of value to think that the amount of labor exerted matters at all in regard to what price something trades at. So, they had these drawn-out convoluted theories. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, need no theories of value at all (marginalism is just an aside from economics-inclined anarcho-capitalists. it is not a justification by any means). Anarcho-capitalism is not based in economic theories at all. It is simply the right to OWN one's body and the product of one's labor. When I say that whatever price something trades at in a non-coerced trade is the proper price, I am not saying that it is objectively proper. It's just a matter of speaking. The is no proper price of anything at all. There is simply the right to transfer ownership of what one owns at any price agreed upon, because that is what ownership is all about. "Ownership" of a thing entails rightful absolute control of that thing.Anarcho-capitalism 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think many, perhaps most, anarcho-capitalists would be distressed to hear you dismiss economics in this way. I have to assume that this "right to OWN one's body" is a so-called "natural right," one of those things Bentham identified as "nonsense on stilts." I've commented on the weakness of self-ownership as a notion elsewhere. It is certainly not the sort of axiomatic notion that some of its proponents claim it to be, as it is much more difficult to assert the "right" without recourse to itself than it would be to refute it. Some of these "natural rights" have been useful—in "their aims, as Proudhon put it, and in specific historical contexts—but to assert them outside of those contexts seems wrong-headed and, frankly, a bit irrational. I'll just say one more time that you will continue to misunderstand the LTVs until you understand that they were directed at the "myth of the productivity of capital." The confusion about "intrinsic value" is a very serious one, and while you claim that economic theory is extrinsic to an-cap theory, you have been persistent in imposing a set of economic assumptions on other editors as if they were based on an unquestionable consensus. I'm going to suggest that it is you that may have been led astray by faulty economics. Setting aside for the moment whether or not Warren or Proudhon believed the "intrinsic" version of the LTV you have attributed to them, it is absolutely the case that Kevin Carson does not, that I do not, and from all I can tell, that most of our social anarchist comrades who bother themselves with these questions also do not. Libertatia 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No most anarcho-capitalists would not be distressed at that. At least not Rothbardians. Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is not based on economics. It is based on property ethics. A person has a right to own himself and therefore the product of his labor. That is anarcho-capitalism summed in one sentence. That's all one needs to accept to be an anarcho-capitalist (and of course what follows from that). If you agree with that, then you're an anarcho-capitalist. The individualists who were confused by the labor theory of value believed that whether a trade was just or not, or non-exploitative, depended on what price at which something is traded. Anarcho-capitalists say that's nonsense. There is no just or unjust price. There is simply the right to part with what one has at any price voluntarily agreed to by both parties. Whether the price is proper or not is outside of the scope of economic analysis. There is no such thing as a right or wrong price. Any discussions on just prices are a waste of time. There is simply the right to absolute ownership of the product of one's labor, and therefore the right to transfer ownership at any mutually agreed upon price. Marginalist economics is not a justification for anarcho-capitalism. It's simply an explanation of how markets work. Zero knowledge of economics is necessary to be an anarcho-capitalist. No theories of value are necessary to be an anarcho-capitalist. What is necessary is a LACK of a belief in the just price theory of the 19th century individualists, which is based on the labor theory of value.Anarcho-capitalism 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For Rothbard and Hoppe, at least, accepting self-ownership as "axiomatic" is sufficient only because they believe that their entire a priori economic system flows from it. The "property ethics" is supposed to be sufficient to deal with pretty much everything else. But it has to be based in something other than your, or their, assertion of it. They claim it is axiomatic, but their "proof" is the same weak one you assert below. If the self is not something that is "owned," then the question "who owns the self?" is simply beside the point, and every step in the a priori derivation of anarcho-capitalism has the legs cut out from under it. You may think it is sufficient to assert "rights" as dogma, but it's clear that other anarcho-capitalists don't. Libertatia 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know where you get off on asserting that I don't own myself. You sure don't own me. I thought you said you were a mutualist. Mutualism is based on the idea of self-ownership, otherwise known as the sovereignty of the individual.Anarcho-capitalism 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm showing you more respect that you show yourself, from my point of view, in suggesting that the self is not something that can be owned. It is a very different question to ask "who rules me?"—or "who is sovereign over me?"—than it is to ask "who owns me?" While it is subject to some of the same philosophical difficulties, it is at least a practical question in a world where archisms still hold sway. Libertatia 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you don't understand what the right of self-ownership or individual sovereignty means. Ownership means the right to exclusive use of a thing. If a person is self-owned (or the same thing, "sovereign") it means he has the right to exclusive use of his body.Anarcho-capitalism 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The definition is clear. The questions are whether it is a useful way to talk about non-invasion, whether it is anything more than an assertion with circular support, and, much more critically, whether it leads to the consequences that Rothbard and Hoppe suggest. So far, you seem to be simply asserting the "right," which certainly is in line with post-slavery-era common sense, but that doesn't take us very far. This sort of "self-ownership" could be the product of explicit social consensus in a society that practiced any number of economic or property-holding arrangements. Libertatia 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

With reference the question about the weaknesses of capitalist property theory, it should be fairly obvious that the minimal definition of "self-ownership" you've given is useful primarily as a check on others' ability to claim "property." In order to justify any sort of individual appropriation, you'll have to go beyond this first "right" to "rights" to sustenance, to appropriate unowned resources, etc. The elegance that advocates of a priorism claim for their theory is that it would, if properly understood, end all legitimate conflict about property rights. If you stop short, you do not ground an anarchism in the way that Rothbard wanted to. You simply have a principle that almost everyone, except wannabe slave traders, agrees to. Libertatia 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is Victor Yarros: "In his economic teaching Tucker follows Proudhon for the most part, but Josiah Warren and Spencer also contributed thereto. Warren, who was not a scholar, had independently worked out the Marxian theory of surplus value. He was familiar with the labor theory of value, but, unlike the classical economists, he advocated the abolition of rent, interest and profits. Cost should be “the limit of price.” Cost to Warren meant average labor cost, and anything above that was in Proudhon’’s words “robbery,” – exploitation of labor by some form of state-protected monopoly." The theory is absurd, there is in reality no "should" as applicable to price. The labor theory of value is nonsense. (By the way, notice that he also says, like I said earlier which you attacked me for, that it is "Marxian."Anarcho-capitalism 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to criticize Yarros as well, if that would make you happier. Obviously, if others independently derived the theory, it isn't properly "Marxian." Libertatia 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was "Marxian." I said it was "Marxist-like," which it obviously is. "Cost the limit of price" is absurd. There is no reason why labor "cost" should be the limit of price. The limit of price should simply be what someone is willing to pay for a thing. Individualists anarchism doesn't have to be so complicated, and it's not anymore because we recognize now that the labor theory is bunk. For anarcho-capitalists, there is simply the right to own the product of labor and trade and therefore the right to part with what one owns at any price one is willing and to buy at any price one is willing. And, because some of us have kept abreast with advances in economics, we know that there's no reason why labor costs would align with prices paid in a free market economy - there's not any kind of "usury" or "exploitation" going on when that doesn't happen. It's not caused by state intervention. It would still be the case without state intervention. Prices not matching up with labor is simply natural to markets. The proper critique of the state is not that it causes prices not to match up with labor, because that's going to happen with or without state intervention. The proper critique of the state is that it steals - it taxes, etc. Anarcho-capitalism 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. And I never said you said it was "Marxian," although it looks like you said "I said earlier...that it is 'Marxian.'" But I guess I'm more interested in what that "etc" in "taxes, etc." stands for. Anarchists have traditionally opposed the state because it rules, because it stands in the way of libertarian social relations just as surely as it deforms market relations. If you only reject the state insofar as it threatens your stuff, then maybe "anarchist" really isn't the label for you (though I have no question about the genuine anti-state and even anti-authoritarian aims of some self-identified an-caps.) I'm guessing Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, with all its a priori baggage, is as "complicated" as most other theories, and considerably more complicated than, for example, using "cost" as a voluntary standard for "price." In any event, the "right to own the produce of one's labor" is, of course, the goal of every proponent of every variety of the LTV. And I'm certainly not aware of any market anarchist of any era who denied people the option to make bad trades if they so desired. Libertatia 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the only reason to oppose the state - because it violates property rights - property in one's body and the product of labor. What other possible offense could the state commit? And, no, anarcho-capitalism is not complicated. It is simply the right to own one's body and the product of one's labor. The confused 19th century individualists, however, believed that the "full product" of labor was an income aligned with the labor theory of value. They thought if a person was paid less than what is proportional to the amount of labor he exerted, then he was not receiving his "full product." He was being exploited. His labor was essentailly being stolen from him. And, they believed what was causing this was state intervention which reduces competition. But, we know today that that's nonsense. There is no reason for prices to align with labor costs in a free market. The labor theory of value is arbitrary. And it becomes especially pernicious when it becomes a just price theory, like the 19th century individualists had, as well as the Marxists developed.Anarcho-capitalism 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is no reason why labor "cost" should be the limit of price. The limit of price should simply be what someone is willing to pay for a thing." And in a free market, why would people choose to pay any more? Competition will naturally drive prices towards costs; the more prices exceed costs, the more people will enter that industry, reducing prices, and the more often prices fluctuate below costs, the fewer people will enter that industry. Jacob Haller 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that competition drives prices towards costs. That's the 19th century individualists labor theory fallacy. What competition does is drive people to find ways to lower their own costs - to find more efficient ways to produce and/or get better bargains with suppliers. Prices keep getting lower, yes, but that doesn't mean profit is being reduced. Prices are not lowered unless a way is found to lower them while at the same time keeping the same amount of profit - by lowering costs. For example, Wal-Mart isn't driving their profits down by lowering prices. They're lowering prices because they're acheiving a large economy of scale, so they can profit with low prices where others can't profit with those same prices.Anarcho-capitalism 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wal-Mart as the recipients of all sorts of tax and infrastructure subsidies, is probably not the best example of how businesses will act in a free market. Libertatia 03:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they ought to be commended for being so competitive.Anarcho-capitalism 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is odd for you to confuse competition and expropriation. Wal-Mart, like others in its class of businesses, is the recipient of stolen goods, stolen from the likes of you and me. Wal-Mart in particular has a bad reputation with suppliers for things like paying its bills. Perhaps you're really unaware of the extent to which truly independent business people are at the mercy of local, state and federal "redevelopment districts," takings, selective infrastructure improvements (amounting to subsidies for particular businesses), etc. Libertatia 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they should be commended for being so competitive. Competition lowers prices. But, the 19th century individualists mistakenly believed that competition-driven price lowering eliminates profits. Nothing could be further from the case. If profits were not possible, goods would be not be produced in any appreciable quantity in the first place. Things won't ever be provided "at cost." I'm sure not willing to sell things at cost, and almost no one else is either. If I am a producer and I want to increase my profits, I discover a way to be more efficient, which may allow me to lower my prices in order to outcompete other producers. Aburdities such as the notion that competition will cause goods and services will be provided "at cost" is why most individualist anarchists reject the bizarre monstrosity called "mutualism" and the confused economic philosophy of Benjamin Tucker."Anarcho-capitalism 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to know what you're arguing for or against at this point, when you're commending collusion with government as "competitiveness." If Wal-Mart is "competitive," than so are state-sponsored industries under authoritarian socialism. This latter is obviously not the case. Placing profit at the center of your economics—or world view—skews things, of course. The market is there to meet human needs, among which your need to "outcompete" seems rather petty. Mutualism's initial insight, in part lost or forgotten by Tucker's generation, was that voluntary equitable commerce among free, independent individuals, generated profits that didn't have to be gained at the cost of someone else. The key to the cost principle (and this was not lost by the Liberty generation, nor is it lost by a good number of serious modern market anarchists) is that the moment you try to make the other guy bear your cost then you've stepped outside the realm of libertarian practice. "Competitiveness" is not a good by itself, any more than "cooperation" is. To make a fetish of either is to lose sight of the big picture. Libertatia 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm an anarcho-capitalist, isn't it obvious that I would oppose business and state collusion? Obviously, I'm talking about Wal-Mart's drive to be more and more efficient through free-market practices (regardless of whatever unethical practices they may or may not engage in). "the moment you try to make the other guy bear your cost then you've stepped outside the realm of libertarian practice." Nonsense. There is nothing anti-libertarian about trading something that required less labor to produce for something that took more labor to produce. There is nothing wrong at all with trade value for value (subjective), rather than labor for labor. If you want more in return for your labor, then it's up to you to produce something of higher quality that I value more. You don't deserve any income at all for your labor, no matter how much you exert, if you're not producing something I subjectively value. That's why mutualism is absurd. It's based on a premise called the labor theory of value, which is absurd. Building on that flawed premise, they have constructed a monstrosity.Anarcho-capitalism 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What is obvious is that you are very harsh when others step over the lines you set, but here you are commending Wal-Mart, which, by your own stated standards, "competes" via theft—and which engages in practices that are arguably a matter of fraud, if not both force and fraud, the very formula of all that free market anarchists presumably reject. I have raised the question of your commitment to market freedom in the context of several other questions. This does not reassure me. I have not trouble acknowledging a number of self-identified anarcho-capitalists as comrades, however unfortunate I consider the label, but they are not apologists for state-corporate collusion. In your "commendations," you are just that sort of apologist. As for the rest, you (predictably) respond to points that I haven't raised, or choose to interpret statements in the most cartoonish way. You have not made a single, solitary substantive criticism of mutualism or any specific form of the LTV, beyond claiming it is passe. You have been supplied with hundreds of pages of material on the weakness of capitalist property forms, which you insisted I produce, and have had nothing to say in return, except Absurd! Monstrous!. (Actually, I guess you said something on the order of "I'm not really interested in all those complicated theories.") You have repeated confusions about "intrinsic value" theories, without apparently having any idea what "intrinsic" means. You have been offered revisions of the structure of these pages to provide you with the "neutral" definition of anarchism you have insisted on, and new pages to clarify at length definitions which you (once again) insisted (despite ready facts to the contrary) must be treated as problematice—and, so far, the best you can say in response to all this is "page protection is cool with me." You'll pardon me if what seems obvious to me is that you're either confused or not operating in good faith. Your editing here, like your economics, seems focused on competition, an approach which is obviously not in the spirit of the Wikipedia enterprise. If this is not the case, then perhaps you can clarify. On the other hand, if all you have is the dogma that "anarcho-capitalism is simple and mutualism is monstrous," don't exert yourself. Libertatia 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

An "intrinsic" or "objective" theory of value refers to theory of value that says that value is not dependent upon subjective judgement. The labor theory of value is such a theory. It says value of something depends on the amount of labor exerted, rather than on how much you or I subjectively value what was produced. Anarcho-capitalists say that that is nonsense. Value is subjective. There is no correct value of anything. There is simply different tastes and preferences among different individuals. That's why we find Josiah Warren's statements, and others like them from other 19th century individualists and mutualists, that "VALUE being made the basis of price, becomes the principal element of civilized cannibalism" or that "VALUE being the limit of price, stagnates commerce, and retards the progress of civilization" to be absurd. There is nothing at all wrong with value being the limit of price. If I pay for something according to how much I value it instead of how much labor is behind it, how am I being "anti-libertarian" as you say? I'm just exercising my private property right to part with what I own according to any price I desire. There is no reason at all that prices should align with labor exerted. There is no economic reason, and more important, there is no ethical reason. That's why individualist anarchism has left the labor theorists behind. Anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism minus the ridiculous labor theory of value. As far as being a "comrade," if you tell me that there is something wrong with not paying according to labor, or the there is something wrong with profit, then I don't consider us "comrades." I consider you an individualist who has not woken up to the fact that the labor theory of value, but especially the just price theory that is based upon it which the mutualists hold is completely arbitrary Marxian junk that misled many anarchists. Check your premises.Anarcho-capitalism 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My premises seem to be in order, thanks. I have to say that what you "consider me" probably isn't very interesting, given how little I have actually talked about my own economic theory. For instance, I have repeatedly disavowed the version of the LTV you insist on attributing to people. However, since you insist on lumping everything from Adam Smith to Kevin Carson in the category of "arbitrary Marxian junk," I don't suppose little things like what I actually believe matter much. In any event, I'm not concerned that you like me or agree with me. I have a real good time talking to some an-caps, particularly those who have checked their premises and known, in some detail, where all these debates and questions came from. Others, not so much, but the issue is getting beyond the seemingly endless wrangling over definitional qualifications and similar nonsense to actually getting some solid pages written. There's probably nothing to be done about the contentious edits of anonymous users with an axe to grind. Fair enough. That's Wikipedia for you. But there is not a single good reason why mostly empty debates, like the ones on this page, should prevent the current active editors here from hashing out some entries—unless, of course, you actually prefer having he pages locked down, in which case I'm sure we'll eventually oblige you once again. Libertatia 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"The 19th century individualists who were confused by the labor theory of value were not "socialists" as the term is commonly used today, because they did not support community ownership of property," Anarcho-Capitalism, I'm tired of your double standards with definitions. When someone points out the Individualists' and Mutualists' opposition to capitalism, you go "Wait! But they defined capitalism differently than we an-caps do." But when someone points out their affinity with socialism you say, "Well they're not socialists as socialism is commonly understood today". Why the double standadrds? Why do you claim that capitalism is "vague" but won't allow socialism to be vague? If you want to define capitalism to exclude people who believe in private property, then you should not complain when people define capitalism to exclude Individualists and Mutualists. You want capitalism to be "vague" to include in schools of Anarchism that you want to link as the forerunners of "Anarcho-Capitalism", but you want socialism to be very specific so as to keep schools of Anarchism you like out of the socialist category. You claim that Tucker and Proudhon "defined capitalism differently" but claim that private property forms of socialism "aren't socialism as they are understood today". If you want to be exclusive about the definition of socialism, don't complain when people are exclusive about the definition of capitalism. Full Shunyata 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's significant, though, that the early individualists considered themselves to be covered by the same term, "socialist," that was used by advocates of common ownership. We should certainly mention that in the article, as long as we manage to be clear about the broader meaning that "socialism" had at the time. It also makes sense to include, in the discussion of anarcho-capitalism, the connections that anarcho-capitalists draw between earlier anarchists and themselves; the article doesn't need to, and probably shouldn't, take a position on how valid these connections are. The article also clearly shouldn't take a position on the validity of the Labor Theory of Value; if you think the labor theory of value is obviously wrong, you're likely not to take seriously the internal coherence of traditional individualist anarchism, and so to over-emphasize the similarities between Tucker et al and anarcho-capitalism. VoluntarySlave 21:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perspective, and a proposal

OK. We really need to get ourselves back to work. We've probably clarified as much as we are going to in the current debates. I'm afraid I'm as pessimistic about a simple solution to our deadlock as several others are. On the other hand, having just spent some time involved in the "debates" on several other political pages, I have to say that we have a lot more to work with here in terms openness. Nobody seems to be insisting that any perspective be suppressed, despite strong personal feelings. Congratulations to everyone—and I mean everyone—among the regular editors here for doing as well as we have with an extremely divisive topic.

I've been an opponent of "neutral disambiguation pages" and the like in the past. I'm having a slight change of heart, as a result of recent debates. It seems quite clear to me that we are attempting to do very different kinds of work, both appropriate to a serious encyclopedia, at the same time and on the same pages, with the result that we're always working at cross-purposes. Some of the difficulties are ideological, and those are hard to deal with, beyond holding ourselves to the NPOV policies as best we can. But some of the problems are structural, and perhaps we can get around some of those. In my recent, brief sojourn on the pages for communism and socialism (abandon hope, all ye that enter there), I noticed that there were separate pages for ideologies and for their histories. In both of those cases, it's currently a distinction without any difference, as orthodox Marxist-Leninism dominates all the pages. But maybe something like that could be made to work for us. In fact, we have a history of anarchism page that appears much neglected and has been proposed for merger into this page. What if we agreed to reassign the functions of the various pages in something like this fashion:

• Anarchism: The ideology page, emphasizing the sort of "pure" and minimal definition Anarcho-capitalism prefers, with the understanding that we would really attempt to keep it minimal and pure. "Issues" sections addressing the various ways in which questions like "hierarchy," "violence," etc. have been addressed would be appropriate, as long as we keep to the task of showing the variety of anarchist responses to various problems. It should include a few links to various schools and a prominent link to the history of anarchism page.
• History of anarchism: the history page, giving an overview of those movements that have called themselves anarchist, or have subsequently by identified as anarchist, with the goal being a survey, rich in links to pages for individual schools, persons, theories, projects, etc.
• All those sub-pages: where most of the work gets done and details listed.
• Terminology pages: where the basic terminological issues could be summarized, allowing us to easily reference those debates (in footnotes, or in the body of pages when it can be done relatively unobtrusively).

(I would also suggest that, if this structural arrangement can be made acceptable to the current active editors, we might work up a sort of joint policy pact for dealing with specific kinds of editing controversies, to which anyone might voluntarily subscribe, and which could be an evolving document of "community standards" and current consensus.)

I would appreciate any feedback on this proposal. Libertatia 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out a few minutes ago that one of the major problems of this whole dispute is that Anarcho-Capitalist users (especially User:Anarcho-capitalism) want to be very flexible with the definition of "capitalism" for it to include the Individualist and Mutualist schools of Anarchism under the umbrella of "Anarcho-Capitalism". But they want to be very specific and strict with the definition of "socialism" for it to exclude anything that believes in private property or doesn't fit with status quo-accepted definitions of socialism (User:Anarcho-capitalism keeps saying "socialism is understood today as......."). I say that if an-caps can be loose in interpreting what capitalism is, non-cap-anarchists should be able to be loose in interpreting what socialism is. It's not fair to give the power of individual discretion to say "That's their definition of capitalism" but then turn around and limit discussion to groupthink and consenus by saying "Socialism is understood by many as....". Full Shunyata 08:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are not "loose" in the definition of capitalism. They use the ordinary mainstream definition, such as the definition in the authoritative Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary Unabridged dictionary: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." Socialism, on the other hand, is defined like this: "1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods. 2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work." As anyone can see, the nineteenth century individualist anarchist who were confused by the labor theory of value do not fit in the ordinary mainstream definition of socialism. They don't believe in collective ownership but private ownership. So, this article cannot state that they are socialists without pointing out that this could only be true by an unorthodox definition of socialism. "Whereas collectivist anarchists derive their ideas from socialism, individualist anarchists derive their ideas largely from classical liberal thinking." (Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thornes (2003), p. 3)Anarcho-capitalism 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"As anyone can see, the nineteenth century individualist anarchist who were confused by the labor theory of value do not fit in the ordinary mainstream definition of socialism." Not all Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists today believe in the labor theory of value. So it's a more minor point of their philosophy. Hell, even Capitalists believed in it back then (and some still do). So that's beside the point. But you keep saying "the mainstream definition of socialism". What is the "mainstream" definition of it? If by "mainstream" you mean statism and collectivism, then by that definition no Anarchist is a socialist. No anarchist is a statist and Anararchist, even Social Anarchists, are more concerned with individualism than collectivism (including myself). Also, if you want to hold up the "mainstream" definition of socialism when it comes to Mutualism and Individualism, then why do you complain when people hold up mainstream definitions of capitalism that you don't agree with when talking about Mutualism and Individualism. I just want you to be consistent and fair. It's inconsistent and unfair of you to loosen up the definition of capitalism to scoop Individualism and Mutualism under the banner of capitalism, but then tighten the definition of socialism to exclude them out of the banner of socialism. If you want to define whether or not they are socialist using the "mainstream" definition of socialism, then it is completely fair for us to judge whether or not they are capitalist by using the mainstream definition of capitalism (ie. a non-Anarcho-Capitalist definition of Capitalism). Be fair and I'll stop complaining. Full Shunyata 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Loose" definitions or not, there are fairly simple definitional problems with a few key terms, all of which we could, I think, clarify on a page of Definitional concerns in anarchist theory or some such. Anarcho-capitalism and I just managed a compromise on one of the anarchist pages, using an explanatory footnote to cover divergent definitions of "capitalism." The attempt at clarification can, of course, be stymied if any of the factions demand that their preferred definition be noted as "standard" or "current" (when it appears that multiple definitions of these key terms have been a constant factor in debate, from the 1830s on), but none of this will work if we're not a touch more committed to NPOV than we are currently. Libertatia 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the history of anarchism being the anarcism article, and anarchism as an ideology a secondary article (It might be called "Theory of anarchism" or something). That way the first page that people enter wont be the one constantly changing and under protection thus making the first article more unreliable. History of anarchism is less likely to be discussed in a way that affects how the article stands out on wikipedia. All in all i suppose this would be a better and more comfortable way for all, both new and old, for those interested in discussion of the principles and those interested in an overview of anarchism that cannot and will never be more or less self-defeating than it as it was in earlier times. --Fjulle 17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm hoping is that the "theory" page can actually be a lot more stable, if we agree to work on minimum definitions and key theoretical conflicts. The basic page would say: Anarchism is, minimally, opposition to rulers, though anarchists differ as to what "rulership" consists of, and what practical steps should be taken in that opposition. If you want to see how those ideas have played out in history, here is a page, and if you want to know about the various schools, here are some more pages. We could probably give basic anarchist theory and its key disputes very good general coverage without getting too embroiled in trying to resolve or refight those conflicts. Initially, we'll probably just push the battles off to the history page, but if we pursue a strategy of dealing with details on sub-pages, where they can be dealt with without undue weight, and where "Criticisms" sections can be added appropriately, we should be able to get the main pages relatively conflict-free. That means all factions backing off a bit on editorializing on the top-level pages, but the ideological retreats ought to be worth it for all concerns, if it means we actually get around to getting the detailed sub-pages compiled. As personal as the debates here get at times, I don't have much doubt about the interest that the regular editors have in the subject. What I would like to see if a structural adjustment which lets us all do something other than engage in debates I got sick of on Usenet ten years ago or more. Libertatia 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Else i forgot to write that your proposal seems a new idea just when thats whats needed :) I support it! --Fjulle 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the restructure. -Switch ^t 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

anarchism and tradition

By the logic of Libertatia, above, any anarchist that isn't of the mutualist variety is not a real anarchist because he or she broke that original tradition. This would include the communist anarchists, the individualists, the collectivists, the Chrsitian anarchists, the anarcho-syndicalists, etc. I guess since Libertatia would probably not claim this then he just disproved his own argument. Anarcho-capitalism is right. No anarchist has to follow any tradition to claim that he is an anarchist. SnowShoes ^{talk here} 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, actually. . . There is a difference, made at least a bit explicit above, between taking a position in a tradition and being a "traditionalist." In any event, I'm hoping we can move on beyond this particular aporia, which needn't prevent continuing with the anarchism pages, assuming you're intersted in that. Libertatia 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in that. And, sorry, all that just occurred to me while reading some of the dialogue above. No offense meant. SnowShoes ^{talk here} 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why hello thewolfstar. decide to plague us with your ridiculous presence once again? at least you consistent. Blockader 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Careful, she might censor you.[5] And yes, I lurk. :*-( --AaronS

The non-mutualist versions of anarchism (like communist anarchism) continued the general critique of mutualism in new directions. They did not deny its basic critique of capitalism and property but rather developed them. Unlike "anarcho"-capitalism which bases itself on property concepts which Proudhon explicitly refuted in "What is Property?" BlackFlag 08:16, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to what BlackFlag said, Communist and Collectivist Anarchists such as Kropotkin and Bakunin were heavily influenced by Proudhon. Mutualist and Individualist (non-capitalist) Anarchism have more in common with social anarchism than they have differences. Full Shunyata 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that. Individualist anarchism is for private property. Communist anarchism is anti-private property. Individualist anarchism is for money. Communist anarchism is not. Communist anarchism is not. Individualist anarchism is for markets, anarcho-communism is not. Individaulist anarchism is for private police, armies, and courts. Communist anarchism is not.Anarcho-capitalism 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing with Anarchism is, (and a lot of "An"-Caps don't seem to be getting through their heads), that anarchism is a philosophy of totality. Not simply a poltiical philosophy. Anarchism is a philosophy that is opposed to hierarchy, authoritarianism, exploitation, coercion, and inequality in all areas of life. Political, economic, social, religious, cultural, organizationl, military, etc. It's not a simple opposition to the State but not an opposition to other types of authority, hierarchy and inequality. That's why many Anarchists get into arguments with An-Caps on this board because they are simply opposed to the State but are not opposed to most of the things that every other school of Anarchism (including Individualism and Mutualism) is opposed to. Being anti-State is not enough to make one an Anarchist any more than being dark-skinned is enough to make one a Black person. Either one of two things would have to happen: 1) Anarcho-Capitalists are going to have to share more traits with every other school of Anarchism than they already do if they want to be a non-controversial school of Anarchist thought; or 2) Anarchism will have to be radically redefined from the way it has been defined for the past 200+ to simply being an opposition to the State. Full Shunyata 00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Is article protection. Why do you sheep put up with it? Reportersue 04:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you even start writting something like this? It doesnt make any sense. Might be you got the greatest idea on how to not have it protected? Thought not! Its not like youre anymore in control just caus youre writting that line. See i can write it too: Is article protection. Why do you sheep put up with it? --Fjulle 17:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitional Concerns in Anarchist Theory

I took Libertatia's suggestion and started the page (stub). Definitional concerns in anarchist theory Jacob Haller 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection is a great solution

I think this is a great solution. Just lock down the article and throw away the key. This way nobody has to worry about. There hasn't been any edit warring in days. The old saying "God grant us the serenity to accept those things we cannot change..." comes to mind.Anarcho-capitalism 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If thats your way of making things better then god help us! --Fjulle 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

talk, and grammar, and spelling

Us blackhands can sure sit around and figure everything out from every angle, but it takes commitment to the cause to go out and hoe a field, burn an SUV, or run a spellcheck on a page. Resonanteye 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which I would really like to do. There are some typos, grammatical awkwardness, and also enough run-on sentences to stall Sacco and Vanzetti's legal defense fund. If the edit wars could halt, at least long enough for a copyedit, this article might improve. I know those who are invested in this subject are very verbal and capable of debating well and long, but the page itself needs some minor attentions that have nothing to do with ideology. Resonanteye

Isnt it possible to protect just parts of the article instead of all of it? That would make that needed spelling check possible! --Fjulle 19:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You could try to contact the responsible admin with the changes you want to make. Intangible 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a big typo/grammar edit now. as far as re-organizing, that's a bit more than I would want to take on. It needs some better structure, though, just for clarity. Remember that the majority of folks who will read this will have no idea what significance some of these debates have. They just want to find out something about anarchism. I'll edit up tomorrow, after my day off. But I've got it in wordpad now, so...wish me luck. Resonanteye 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck :) --Fjulle 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I showed up to respond to the {{editprotected}} request, but couldn't find what you wanted an admin to change. If you have a specific typo to fix, say what and where, and replace the template. If you have 20 typos to fix, make a fixed copy of the page in your user space, link to it here, and replace the template. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like that

Well, we're unprotected again, and no closer to a real solution to our persistent problems. There is obviously some support for the restructuring I've proposed, but no consensus. My thought is that all parties, including our readers, are best served by an end, to the extent it is possible, to all of the working at cross-purposes that we have been doing. I would like to see well done and accurate pages on Molinari as much as on Proudhon, Rothbard as much as Kropotkin or de Cleyre, etc. I'd like to see concise "criticism" sections throughout the anarchism pages. The rules of Wikipedia are not exactly an aid in creating solid, scholarly pages on subjects like anarchism which have not received all that much serious published attention. We need, I think, to adopt at least some of what I have proposed above to give ourselves and our readers a fighting chance at getting really high quality information. fwiw. Libertatia 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I avoid editting on this article because of the ongoing conflict but, for what it's worth, I'd support your proposal. - N1h1l 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism/Right-Anarchism

At this point we really have to ask why anarcho-capitalism et al is folded into the article because of the gulf demonstrated by edit wars and comments. The problem is that anarcho-capitalism and other forms of right-anarchism are the only branches of anarchism with no strong historical commonalities. In other words, you have global left/postleft-anarchism on one hand, and you have a set of largely American political philosophies on the other. I can't see any way in which both of them could or should be a part of any detailed article without misleading the reader. And given the tone of the discussion and certain edits, it seems clear to me that the inclusion of right-anarchism in the core anarchism article is the result of an activist agenda in action.

This means that any edit has to refrain from somehow questioning the anarchist part of the right-anarchist designation, while denying an agenda whose intent is less to inform than to popularize and create the illusion of a broad, global political philosophy. AFAIAC, that means a short article on anarchism proper pointing to detailed, broad treatments of left and right-anarchism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootingdice (talk • contribs)

And what? Youre obviously having your own activist agenda, to make sure right-anarchism is left forgotten and that your lovely left/postleft-anarchism is recognized as THE anarchism. You make me sick with your appeal to anarchism and to censorship at the same time! Anarcho-capitalism is presented under individualist anarchism, and critizied as well there! What you are running for sounds like control over the existence of a minority, a minority thats clearly just that, instead of developing, controlling your thoughts and getting at their philosophy by arguing against their arguments ... Oh and did i forget, do it somewhere else than Wikipedia! It doesnt belong here! --Fjulle 13:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fjulle, "Anarcho"-Capitalism is listed under the Individalist Anarchism banner and criticized there as well because Anarcho-capitalists are the ones who claimed they are part of that tradition. Individualist Anarchists did not invite them under that banner, An-caps put themselves under it to give their philosophy an air of legitimacy as an Anarchist philosophy. That's why many an-caps on this board are fighting so hard to ride the coattails of that tradition, it's the only thing that gives them any ties to Anarchism other than the name of their tradition. Personally I think "Anarcho-Capitalists" are just Neoliberals who want to privatize the State functions along with everything else in the economy and so call themselves "Anarchists" simply because they claim to be against the State. But that's just me and I'm not here to push that POV on the article pages. I just wish others would do the same and stop pushing pro-capitalist and pro-an-cap POVs on pages. Full Shunyata 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't speak for anarcho-capitalists. I care nothing about the "tradition." I don't want to be a part of the "tradition." I don't need to be part of a tradition to be an anarchist. I don't seek "legitimacy" from "anarcho"-commmunists. I don't care whether they think I'm a real anarchist or not, because I don't think they are real anarchists. But, the link between 19th century individualists anarchism is obvious. They are both "market anarchists." Both support the security functions of the state to be privatized. That's the definition of market anarchism. "According to 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." (Lavoie, Don. Democracy, Markets, and the Legal Order: Notes on the Nature of Politics in a Radically Liberal Society. Published in Liberalism and the Economic Order, by G. Tyler Miller. Cambridge University Press, 1993. p. 115)Anarcho-capitalism 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"You don't speak for anarcho-capitalists." I know. Just like you don't speak for Tuckerites, Spoonerites and Mutualits. "I care nothing about the "tradition." I don't want to be a part of the "tradition."" I don't quite believe you here. If you don't care anything about tradition, why do you refuse to define socialism out of the "common" or "traditional" understanding as "state ownership"? Why are you unwilling to part from tradition or majority opinion (you being such an 'individalist' and all) on what "socialism" is? Why do you care so much about whether or not mutualists and individualists oppose the "past/traditional" or "current" definition of capitalism? "I don't seek "legitimacy" from "anarcho"-commmunists." Anarcho-Communists are not the only anarchists opposed to "Anarcho"-capitalism. If you haven't gotten that through your head yet, then you are very ignorant on Anarchist issues. Your whole thing about anyone who opposed "Anarcho"-Capitalism must be a communist anarchist or at least a social anarchist sounds very McCarthyite of you. Believe you me that I have Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists friends who are more opposed to "anarcho"-capitalism than I am. This isn't just a "communist" thing. "But, the link between 19th century individualists anarchism is obvious. They are both "market anarchists." And no one has ever denied such. But to be a market anarchist is not equivalent to supporting capitalism. Being a market system is not synonymous with being a capitalist system just as having a planned system is not synonymous with being a state socialist system. I've never argued that Individualists (non-capitalist) and Mutualists don't believe in markets. What I have argued is whether or not belief in markets makes them capitalists. I argue "No" because they have many differences with anarcho-capitalism (aside from the LTV, which some mutualists and individualists don't believe in) that are significant enough to make them non-capitalist or socialist. One being their belief in workers' self-management. And I know many who would agree although I'm sure you could pick some Individualist Anarchists who are more friendly towards "Anarcho"-capitlalism who would argue otherwise. Full Shunyata 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know how market anarchism is defined, obviously. Market anarchism is defined as a philosophy that supports the market itself providing police, armies, etc to protect the market. Modern individualists (anarcho-capitalists) and 19th century individualists who were confused by the labor theory of value both favor this. That's why they're both market anarchists. That's all it takes to be a market anarchism - to believe that the security functions of the state should be replaced with private institutions and private funding. Pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism has nothing to do with it.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"You don't know how market anarchism is defined, obviously." I like how when someone disagrees with you, you resort to snide remarks like "You don't know [insert X], obviously." As if you are the ultimate authority on all subjects and anything that disagrees with your narrow definitions is therefore, hitherto incorrect. I am an active and very well-educated Anarchist and I am completely familiar with what market anarchism is. I have 'Market Anarchist' friends in real life. "Market anarchism is defined as a philosophy that supports the market itself providing police, armies, etc to protect the market." Depends on who you talk to. I don't hear my Individualist and Mutualist friends saying stuff like that. The people I usually hear talking about such issues are Randites and Rothbarians. "Modern individualists (anarcho-capitalists)" So anti-capitalist Individualists today are less modern? Even as a non-Individualist Anarchist, I find the fact that you use "modern individualism" as a synonym for the capitalist school of anarchism to be very insulting. It's like equating being a social anarchist with being an anarcho-communist. "who were confused by the labor theory of value both favor this" Ha, you just can't accept that there is an anti-capitalist/non-capitalist branch of Individualism (which is arguably older), can you? The Individualist dissent against capitalism is far deeper than a petty LTV. Not all Individualists and Mutualists believe in the LTV. One of the key things that seperates them from capitalism, as I said before, is their belief in workers' self-management. But you are so deep into redefining those schools to include them under the banner of "anarcho-capitalism" that you don't really seem to know what they believe outside of your convenient revisions and selective quotes from Spooner and Labadie. "That's why they're both market anarchists. That's all it takes to be a market anarchism - to believe that the security functions of the state should be replaced with private institutions and private funding." I know, and I've never disagreed with this. Market Anarchism is a very vague term that includes different and sometimes contradictory schools. However, the definition of 'private property' is an issue of disagreement between "An"-caps and Individualists and Mutualists. "An"-caps define things like combs up to large businesses as "property" where as Indies and Mutualists define "property" as 'means of production' pretty much (similar to Marxists whom you despise). "An"-caps have no problem with one-man management or propertyless workers who don't own or have any control over their workplace where as Indies and Mutualists do have a problem with such. "Pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism has nothing to do with it." Support for the market is not enough to make one a capitalist. There are socialist forms of the market system just as there are non-laissez faire forms of capitalism such as Keynesianism and Fascism. You argue with anarchists on this discussion page who are Individualists (I suspect User:Libertatia is one) who obviously are not capitalists in any meaningful sense of the word. Perhaps instead of trying to lecture me, a very well-read and dedicated Anarchist (and one who fully supports "Anarchism Without Adjectives") on what market anarchism is, you should go meet and talk with some outside of selective texts and academia essays. I have non-cap Individualist and Mutualist friends (both casual and organizational) in real life and at infoshop meetings (in person) and online forums. Most of them are no more capitalism-friendly than I. Full Shunyata 09:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, I also found this point from User:Anarcho-capitalism to be rather damning, "Market anarchism is defined as a philosophy that supports the market itself providing police, armies, etc to protect the market." That says it all right there. Mr. "Anarcho-capitalism" is not opposed to the functions of the State. He simply wants them to be privatized and carried out by private institutions. His "anarchism" amounts to simply being opposed to the State (but rejecting almost every other cornerstone of anarhcist philosophy such as egalitarianism) because he thinks the State carries out functions that private institutiions on the market should be doing instead. As long as private firms are the ones owning police and court systems throwing people in jail and waging army wars, and not that nasty old State, it's all good. That reminds me of an old anarchist proverb, "From the point of view of a worker, it doesn't matter whether the force oppressing them is a capitalist hammer or called the 'Hammer of the People' (state socialism). Oppression is oppression." Anarchists know, and "an"-caps need to get this idea through their head, that the State, like the market, is an ACTIVITY, not an ENTITY. Just because you don't call something a "state" does not make it any less so as long as it carries out the activities of a State. If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it looks like a duck.........

Just for good measure, let's take a look at what privatized police forces owned by "the market" (actually private firms, not the market system as whole) do in reality as opposed to "anarcho-capitalist" theory:

http://mediafilter.org/caq/CAQ54p.police.html

Yeah, as long as private companies run the police isntead of the nasty ole State, everything is gonna be alright...Full Shunyata 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." (Victor Yarros) "[Anarchism] does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." (Benjamin Tucker) Some of what the State does is good (non-aggressive functions, such as protecting property and body from criminals,) some of what the State does it bad (aggression, including theft of property). Completely privatize what the State does that is good. That's market anarchism. "Anarcho"-communism provides no mechanism to protect people from criminals. But of course, that's because "anarcho"-communism is a philosophy of criminality itself. It's the anarcho-communists that the individualists need to be protected from, as well as from the State.Anarcho-capitalism 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

""Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion." I never said that Anarchism meas no laws. All anarchist societies had laws. But, Anarchism DOES mean an end to coercion. Coercion is the bitter mote of inequality and hierarchy which create authoritarianism. The basis of the State is coercion (specifically protection and governance). You should also know that we anarchists don't give a damn about dictionary definitions. The dictionary is not "academic" anywhere beyond the 7th grade, so I sure as hell won't confine myself to dictionary definitions. "Completely privatize what the State does that is good. That's market anarchism." Well, that's part of a specific market "anarchist" ideology called 'Anarcho-capitalism'. In Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism, militaries and police are different. They are owned by worker-owned cooperatives (and we can assume the workers at cooperatives live in the communties of the forces they own). But anyway, thank you for admitting what your 'anarchism' is all about. It's not "anarchism" at all, it's simply a form of Neoliberalism that wishes to privatize the State functions but doesn't fundamentallly disagree with them. You confirmed my beliefs that you and those like you are not Anarchists. You are simply Neoliberals who want to hand the State over to private capitalists. This is a perfect time to quote Donald Rooum. "There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists." --Donald Rooum "Anarcho"-communism provides no mechanism to protect people from criminals." You don't know jack about anarcho-communism, so you should really keep quiet about it until you learn more about it. Anarcho-communists believe in community-owned police and voluntary militaries rather than State or private militaries. Read up on the Ukranian anarchist military. "It's the anarcho-communists that the individualists need to be protected from, as well as from the State." Haha, more of your paranoid McCarthyism. Of course "anarcho"-capitalists need to protect themselves against worker revolutions. Bosses should be afraid of the workers they make money off of by selling the products of labor of their employees. That's why, when it comes to property, "anarhco"-capitalists are no different from state-enforced capitalists or Fascists. The only difference is who owns the militaries. Fascists use the State and 'an'-caps use privately-hired goons. That's it. I think it's apparent for all here to see that you are most definitely NOT an Anarchist. Unless anarchism can be reduced to the dictionary definition of simply being "anti-state" (although you are not anti-state, you just want to privatize it). But thanks again for breaking down and admitting your true motives. I appreciate it. Your strand of "anarchism" is simply an ideology that seeks to protect the privileges of management. For all your anti-Communist ranting, you are essentially not much different than Lenin when it comes to workplace organization. He too believed in one-man management in which workers are required to give themselves to their bosses. You can fool some people some of the time but not all the time. Full Shunyata 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." (Victor Yarros) Coercion is perfectly compatible with anarchism. It's aggressive coercion that is not. Defensive coercion is fine. "Anarcho"-communism is an aggressive philosophy that seeks to deprive individuals of the product of their labor and trade through aggressive coercion. Market anarchism seeks to protect non-thieves from "anarcho"-communists and the state. "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." (Clarence Lee Swartz) Anarcho-capitalism 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchism means no government but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical" Please stop arguing against a point I never made. I said that Anarchism means no state government, no coercion but still the existence of laws. The only part of your statement that I argued against was the coercion part. Coercion is the basis of hierarchy and statism. Coercion would cause some people to have to limit their freedom and submit to the will of other people. Thus, creating the basis for hierarchy and the State to arise again. As for the whole taxation thing, you are burrying yourself deeper and deeper showing how you are in no form an "anarchist". NO school of Anarchism (not even Individualist and Mutualist anarchism) call for taxes. Taxes are the income of the STATE. If taxes are being paid, that means they are being paid to a state-like entity. Like I said, the State is an ACTIVITY, not an ENTITY. You can call it a "private defense association" or whatever, but if it still acts like the state (collecting taxes, working at the behest of an elite group or individual above the people, etc.) IT'S A DAMN STATE. No matter what you call it. Just like you can put bunny ears on a dog and claim it's a rabbit, but it's still a damn dog. ""Anarcho"-communism is an aggressive philosophy that seeks to deprive individuals of the product of their labor and trade through aggressive coercion." I think you have it the other way around. "Anarcho"-capitalists are the ones who argue that if workers don't own their tools, they have no right to the product of labor. They have no problem with propertyless workers giving their liberty and products of labor to a private property-owner to be sold on the market. Anarcho-communists are against the idea of labor altogether. We don't believe in ownership, we believe in usership. Things should be controlled by whoever is using them at the time or by whoever things are being produced for. We don't believe in submitting our liberty to private capitalists, we like our individual freedom just fine, thank you. I don't want to give up my freedom to become a worker drone or become someone else's boss. "Market anarchism seeks to protect non-thieves from "anarcho"-communists and the state." Stop lumping "market anarchism" together. We've already established that 'market anarchism' is a vague term with various and contradictory philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#What_is_.22Market_Anarchism.3F.22). And we've also established the difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism. You sound plum ignorant and I'm sure many anarchists on this board are laughing at you. You argue with 'market anarchists' all the time here (like User:Libertatia and User:PhilLiberty) who are obviously not capitalists of any sort. Socialist Market Anarchism seeks to give control of the market to workers. "Anarcho"-capitalists are pro-management property thieves who want to hoard property and force the propertyless to work it for them so they can make money from their employees. Then protect the stolen property with their own private totalitarian state forces. "State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." We only oppose private ownership of things that are used for public production (such as means of production). We are not opposed to private ownership of things that people use to produce for themselves. In fact, we are opposed to all forms of ownership as a mythology. We believe in usage or possession (which can be social possession or private possession). I'm sorry, repeating "Anarcho"-capitalist propaganda will not save you from the fact that your ideology (or at least your particular brand of "Anarcho"-capitalism) is not anarchism and is quite authoritarian (if not totalitarian). You can repeat the same lines over and over until you turn blue in the face. It won't make them any more true. Quite frankly you're just making yourself look like a programmed robot. Full Shunyata 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Voluntary taxation" is simply a way of speaking - it's not to imply that it's actual taxation. All it means is that instead of being taxed to protect our bodies and property, we voluntarily pay people to protect us. That's market anarchism. As far as the rest of your rant, I don't really feel like reading it. I only read a sentence or two when you reply to me because you're writings are frankly a big incoherent mess. So you're better off not even replying unless it's only a sentence or two. Just a word of advice so you don't waste your time.Anarcho-capitalism 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Voluntary taxation" is simply a way of speaking - it's not to imply that it's actual taxation. All it means is that instead of being taxed to protect our bodies and property, we voluntarily pay people to protect us." In other words a *dramatic music* STATE. That's exactly the same MO of state goverments. Which is one of the main reasons I'm very wary of "anarcho-capitalism". An-caps disagree with about 3/4 of the cornerstones of every other anarchist philosophy (such as non-coercion, egalitarianism, etc.) and have a reputatoin of being some of the most prominent defenders of Management against Labor. "That's market anarchism." That's one particular market 'anarchist' philosophy ("anarcho"-capitalism). The same can't be said for all market anarchist philosophies. Just like all social anarchist philosophies do not reject the concept of ownership like anarcho-communists do (anarcho-communism is the only social anarchist philosophy that rejects the concept of ownership). You shouldn't lump all market anarchist theories together just like you shouldn't lump all social anarchist theories together as "anarcho-communism". The anarchist world is bigger than that. Some market anarchist philosophies are market socialism while others are market capitalist. Some social anarchist theories are socialist while others are communist (yes, there is a difference). Some social anarchist theories even accept the market, there is a more recent form of anarchism that is a melding of Mutualism and Parecon. "So you're better off not even replying unless it's only a sentence or two. Just a word of advice so you don't waste your time." Yes, at times my writings can seem frantic lately because I'm in the middle of writing essays right now. Full Shunyata 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, support of private defense is not "just one particular market anarchist philsophy." It's all market anarchist philosophy, by definition. By definition, market anarchists support privately funded defense of person and property - what you're erroneously calling a state. A state taxes. If I ask you for money to protect you and your property, I'm not a state. If you don't want to purchase my services, fine - you just won't receive them then. Benjamin Tucker explained: ""[D]efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." If you want to call voluntarily funded defense a "state" that's up to you. But it's not proper terminology. You need to realize that there is a difference between a business and a state.Anarcho-capitalism 06:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And theres differences as well, important ones, and the article pt. des a great job at that! Its in oeverybodys interesset to get all the different scenarios when trying to reach an idea about a better society, that means the ideas you dont agree with as well. --Fjulle 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When speaking about market anarchism id like to remove the many from the sentence "Most individualists are market anarchists.[citation needed]Most individualists are market anarchists." since it is not a quote ... any objections? --Fjulle 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I put that in because I thought it was obvious. I could be wrong though.Anarcho-capitalism 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No need to jump to assumptions. How are they appealing to anarchism? What indication is there that the user above is an anarchist? If anything the above user seems to be trying to look at the article from a broader perspective. Personal attacks are highly unnecessary. Owen 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a need to turn personal attacks around an right back, cauz if its done well nothing has come out of it! That was what i was trying to do, to use his own retorics against himself(or herself) ... --Fjulle 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "Market Anarchism?"

"Market Anarchism" doesn't mean "Anarcho-Capitalism." On the face of it, "Market Anarchism" would include all anarchist systems with primarily market economies, as opposed to anarchist systems with primarily gift economies, primarily communist economies, Parecon, etc. That would exclude anarcho-communism, not really categorize collectivism, and include early mutualism, later mutualism, geoanarchism, agorism, etc. The proponents of these models are often opponents of capitalism. Jacob Haller 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Market Anarchism is a vague category that includes all anarchist schools of thought that believe the market should be the economic system of anarchism. "Market Anarchism" spans all the way form 'Anarcho'-Capitalism to Anarcho-Socialism such as Individualist and Mutualist Anarchism. Some would even argue that Parecon, which is basically a modernized 21st century form of Collectivist Anarchism, is a type of market system. The thing is, there is no uniform agreement on what a market system should be like, so it can range from a capitalist market controlled by private owners, to a socialist market where independent propertied producers [laborers/workers] merge together to form employee-owned cooperative companies. If there is an article on market anarchism, it should include the various anarchist market philosophies. Some of them support capitalism, like "Anarcho"-Capitalists, Agorists and such. Others, such as Indies, Mutualists and some Green Anarchists, are opposed to capitalism and could be considered a stateless form of "market socialists". Capitalism does not have a monopoly (no pun intended) on the market system. Full Shunyata 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to that that there is some diversity in the definition of "capitalism" among an-caps. Libertatia 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that too. The definition of "capitalism" among 'an'-caps is obviously very different than the Agorist or Randite definition of "capitalism". Full Shunyata 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition anarcho-capitalists use is just the normal everyday commonly-accepted mainstream definition: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." (Merriam-Webster, unabridged) It's the definition pretty much everybody uses today, including Randians.Anarcho-capitalism 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Still using the dictionary, I see. Jeez man, only on Wikipedia. Nowhere else in any place of academia would a dictionary be accepted as "scholarly research". Only on Wikipedia would someone think they could get away using sources that wouldn't even be accepted by an 8th grade teacher. *shaking head* Full Shunyata 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Third International Unabridged Dictionary is a superb scholarly source.Anarcho-capitalism 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha. I tried to use that dictionary as a source for a 10th grade article I wrote. It was automatically rejected by teacher who straight up told me that dictionaries are not considered valid sources after middle school. Last year a person in my college used it as a source several times and their report was automatically downgraded. If you think dictionaries or encyclopedias count as "scholarly sources" anywhere in the academic world, you are sorely mistaken. Even now in college they are viewed as the scholarly equivalent of a Geocities or Angelfire website. Full Shunyata 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What better source for a definition than one of the most respected dictionaries in the world? Anyway, all I did was point out that that was the definition of capitalism that anarcho-capitalists and most everyone else accepts. I wasn't providing as a source for the article anyway, so I don't know what your problem is. I was just mentioning that we anarcho-capitalists use the mainstream definition of capitalism and as an example of such a definition I gave the definition from one of the most widely consulted dictionaries in the world. If a definition from that dictionary is not commonly accepted, then I don't know what is.Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most capitalists do not believe that capitalism can be done without a State. And there isn't a consensus amongst capitalists on how exactly to achieve a "free market", let alone a "perfect market". Capitalists can range from European social democrats and Christian democrats to Keynesians, Neoliberals, Neoconservatives, Libertarians and 'Anarcho'-Capitalists. I don't think they all have the same view of capitalism. Just like Marxists and Mutualists don't have the same concept of socialism and Marxist-Leninists and Anarcho-Communists don't have the same concept of communism. Full Shunyata 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But capitalism is defined as a non-statist system. The means of production are owned privately, as opposed to by the state. And pricing, distribution, production is determined by the private sector rather than by the state. Most think you need a state (an entity that taxes) to protect people and their property. Individualists (market anarchists to be precise) think it can be done by the private sector. But, the definition is the same. It's a private system, as opposed to a state system.Anarcho-capitalism 05:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick comment: it depends on your definition of "state." Even Merriam-Webster, which you seem to prefer as your chief academic resource, is ambiguous on the matter. Anarcho-capitalists attempt to slip by this by claiming that states, by definition, must tax. But, clearly, this is not a necessary part of the definition. If one were to employ your dictionary standard, then we have several definitions that do note bode well for anarcho-capitalists: "a body of persons constituting a special class in a society," "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign," and so on. Most scholars, I would say, would call a "state" any institution whose monopoly on violence is widely regarded as legitimate. Any of these definitions would include the property owner. Thus, any system of ownership probably immediately implies the existence of some kind of state. Of course, a dictionary would not tell you that, because that's not what a dictionary is for. --AaronS 19:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And non-static systems cant work in relation with static systems? But today theres both capitalist companies and states all in one big mess, together. Id say thats a very much different definition on non-statism as an attribute to capitalism than the one your giving us, right? How come it is false, if you are right? If you add this line: ", which cannot function properly in relation with static systems." you got you view of capitalism, what, in your perspective, is the right definition. This is how wikipedia is supposed to function right? --Fjulle 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Labor for Labor, Value for Value

I think the following passage (in the Ancap section) should be removed. The most obvious reading is false, though less obvious readings are true. By putting "labor for labor" next to "value for value" this suggests that "labor for labor" contradicts "value for value." AFAIK, "labor for labor" simply means trading labor for labor, regardless of different amounts, just as "goods for goods" simply means trading goods for goods, regardless of different kinds. It can be extended to other barter as well as independent-currency trades. AFAIK, "value for value," depends on the sense of value, which may mean anything from immediate utility to replacement cost. I suspect most non-communist anarchists and non-communist libertarians (from collectivists though whomever) would support both "labor for labor" and "value for value" in some sense of each term. Jacob Haller 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Whereas Tucker believed trade should take place on the basis of "labor for labor," anarcho-capitalists see nothing wrong with trading "value for value.""

I agree it's unclear, so I went ahead and removed it.Anarcho-capitalism 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. There's definitely some differences between different traditions here so if you can find better words that might help. Jacob Haller 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

voluntary and compulsary communism

If the "utopian communism" to which Proudhon was objecting is in some sense "voluntary," it is not so in the same sense that the "voluntary communism" of the anarchist communists is supposed to be. That is, it is hard to interpret Cabet's communism as libertarian, which is what Tucker means when he draws the line. Wording needs work, but the distinction also needs to be made. Libertatia 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In What Is Property?, where he makes one of the criticisms of "communism," he lists a range of projects all anarchists would consider "authoritarian" (and all, of course, pre-anarchist-communism.) Tucker refers to Proudhon's statement about the "religion of poverty and slavery." Any idea where that was originally? Libertatia 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to be NPOV in editing this section. I certainly don't have any personal axe to grind for communism. Vision Thing has raised some questions about the terms "libertarian communist" and "anarchist communist," and cited a a Wikipedia definition that makes the latter a subset of the former, with council communism one of the forms of the former not included in the latter. Fair enough. But that doesn't change the sense of the Carson quote, which suggests that the members of the broader category will have to cooperate in the "panarchy" he sees emerging eventually. Libertatia 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both the communism and capitalism sections are improved as of late. Congrats, Blockader 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On the use of dictionaries

1. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how words are commonly used, not how they should be used, or which words should be used. Ex: the OED insists upon the etymologically correct "-ize" suffix, but the majority of British English writers use the "-ise" suffix, not incorrectly (or, in the States, Webster's insists on "e-mail" where "email" is common and correct enough).
2. Dictionaries are incapable, by definition, of explaining even slightly complex systems of thought.
3. Dictionaries, by necessity and nature, are conservative (in the general sense).
4. For these reasons, dictionaries are not good academic resources. They are, at best, grammatical resources. The definitions that they provide are ironically far from definitive; in terms of giving the meaning of a concept, they should be used lightly. Ex: a dictionary is better at defining "to walk" than it is at defining "to be." Just ask Martin Heidegger.
5. No serious scholar uses a dictionary for research, unless one is a linguist. And we know that the best, most cunning linguists rarely refer to Webster.

Enjoy this note. Really, these points are evident to anybody with a secondary school diploma, which is why I was surprised to see an actual discussion occurring here on the use of dictionaries as scholarly sources. Next time someone says, "Anarchy is X or Y because Dictionary Z defines it as such," kindly point them here. I'll now return to lurking. --AaronS 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your point 1, it doesn't matter how words "should be used," whatever that means. What matters on Wikipedia is how words are used, whether you believe them to be used wrongly or not (besides, how words are commonly used is by default the "correct" usage because meaning of words is determined by consensus). And, yes, serious scholars do use dictionaries for research. There is nothing unscholarly at all with referencing a definition from a well-respected dictionary.Anarcho-capitalism 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that dictionaries are almost never used for academic research, unless that research is linguistic in nature. Certainly, they are hardly ever used in any sort of discussion of systems of thought. Real research in philosophy and theory requires tomes. As for how words "should be used," the concept really isn't a difficult one. There are many reasons (historical, academic, political, etc.) for believing that a word should be used in one way and not another. The examples that I provided, which showed that dictionaries are not prescriptive, are clear enough. Also, you'll note that my contention is not with the referencing of dictionaries. Dictionaries exist for reference. I simply take issue with the argument that a dictionary is a sufficient or definitive reference in the explication of any even remotely complicated theoretical framework.

While an interesting theory, I think that many philosophers of language would disagree with you that the meaning of words is determined by consensus. That subject is quite unresolved, even at the beginning of the twenty-first century. --AaronS 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that dictionaries are often referenced in academic research that is not related to linguistics. Almost no one (you're an obvious exception) would disagree with me that the meaning of words are determined by consensus usage. Meanings of words change over time, and what causes them to change is the changing ways in which they are used. Dictionaries employ researchers to determine how the world is using a term and adjust definitions accordingly. Definitions of words are not static. They evolve.Anarcho-capitalism 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A-C, a simple contradiction is a poor argument. Dictionaries are very rarely referenced in academic research that is not related to linguistics. I know this from experience, because I am very much involved in actual academic research (far from what passes for research here on Wikipedia). Outside of linguistics, they are usually referenced only insofar as a word's etymology is pertinent to a discussion, or if it provides an interesting insight.

Arguments and conclusions regarding any idea beyond the class including simple concepts like "to walk" or "to ingest" are almost never made on the basis of a dictionary definition. Unless it were a very special case, any such attempt would not be taken seriously. Again, I ask you to find a dictionary definition that adequately explains the meaning of "to be." If you do, you might want to present your amazing ontological findings to a philosophical journal. You'll be famous.

Moreover, your appeal to majority opinion is fallacious. I am not the one making claims about what the meanings of words are; you are. Your claim that they are based on majority opinion (a claim, which, ironically, you simply back up with majority opinion, apparently unaware of the logical fallacy involved) ignores both linguistics, semiology, and the philosophy of language. For that reason, it can be easily refuted with a very simple example: the majority thinks that Word X means F, but the minority thinks that Word X means G; both are correct.

What is important to remember, however, is that we are not talking about words. That is why it is almost always preposterous to bring a dictionary to the discussion, thump on it, and then proclaim victory. If you cannot understand this, then I feel sorry for the people here who have to work with you: this is a discussion about concepts, systems of thought, theories, philosophies, ideologies, and so on. It requires books, volumes and volumes of books. Dictionaries might provide interesting insights here and there, but, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, they are an inappropriate tool for this discussion. --AaronS 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)