Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 12

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

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 05 and July 05.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 13. Thank you. Saswann 13:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Corporations & Limited Liability

In the Individual Anarchist section, I going to delete the following bullet point:

  • Both oppose the existence of corporations, as they shield individuals from liability.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I have nothing against corporations (unless they receive some kind of special privilege or subsidy from a State), nor against limited liability. To me, a corporation is just another voluntary organization, like a commune or a partnership, that happens to be owned via "joint-stock" arrangements. As for limited liability, this is a reasonable and voluntary arrangement whereby passive (non-decision-making) owners reduce risk. Why should a shareholder lose his house (rather than only the value of his shares) when a CEO does something criminal? Of course, limited liability shouldn't apply to the criminal. A standard home loan is usually a limited liability contract. If the homeowner defaults he loses at most the home, even if the amount owed is more than the value of the home. At any rate, in a free society I'd expect some/most private courts to support limited liability, and even now anyone can set up a limited liability entity ("virtual corporation) in cyberspace simply by staying anonymous. --Hogeye 04:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can't do original research on wikipedia Hogeye. I'm sure you can find some prominent anarcho-capitalists who agree with your notion, it sounds familiar to me, so please do so and referance them and then the deletion would be fine. Your arguments, interesting as they may be, only count if they happen to be arguments used by a significant portion of other anarcho-capitalists. Kev 05:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


How about the horse's mouth? Murray Rothbard in "Power and Market" here in the chapter on triangular intervention. "It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations."

Am I the only one who reads Rothbard?

Here's a mutualist blog (Kevin Carson?) agreeing: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/05/corporations-state-capitalism-and.html "In fairness to corporations (words I never expected to write), I have to agree with Murray Rothbard that limited third-party liability against torts, while clearly an illegitimate grant of privilege, is of relatively minor significance compared to limited second-party liability against creditors; and the latter can be accomplished entirely by voluntary contract."

One point I should make here is that a corporation (under US law) is a different animal than Rothbard's formula (this might be another sidebar definition) in that the US legal formulation limits all liability, including the corp's actions with parties not part of a "contract" ie. you are limited in your ability to retaliate against corporate "aggression" (i.e. a company tears down your house by mistake, sells a fraudulent drug that results in death, absconds with your pension.) Saswann 12:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's an excellent article by Gary North about limited liability - a simple and elegant exposition of the issue (where I got the home mortgage example from). Billy Bob sez check it out! Limited Liability and the Right of Contract

Stephan Kinsella (User:Nskinsella) writes in a blog: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/004382.html "My view is that corporations are essentially compatible with libertarianism. As for voluntary debts being limited to the corporation's assets; this is no problem since the creditor knows these limitations when he loans money. What about limited liability for torts or crimes? As mentioned, the person direclty responsible for a tort or crime is always liable; sometimes the employer (which is often a corporation) is also liable for the employee's actions, via respondeat superior. Who else should be responsible? In my view, those who cause the damage are responsible. Shareholders don't cause it any more than a bank who loans money to a company causes its employees to commit torts."

Good. Now you can delete the statement, though I would recommend against it for two reasons. 1) removing content is generally frowned upon, the more accepted route would be to alter the statement to show that there is disagreement in this area, and tag on of your above quotes to show that some support corporations. Also, add part of the analysis you provided above for why and to what degree some capitalists support corporations while others do not. Unless of course your contention is that none of them do, in which case it could be deleted. 2) When a statement that many people believe is true is flat out delete, even if it turns out that it is false, it inevitably happens that later on a wiki reader will visit the page and put it back in, unaware of previous events. On the other hand, if a statement is given concerning the falseness of the general impression, or the divide surrouding it, that reader won't assume that the information isn't there. Kev 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I revised the The Contractual Society to reflect Rothbard's definition of corporation vs. the current legal definition. Saswann 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gustav de Molinari

For others doing research, here is a dynamite bio (3 parts in pdf) of Gustav de Molinari, with the scoop on how his "friends of liberty" buddies (Bastiat et al) reacted to his "Production of Security" essay when he presented it to the econ club.

Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition

Here are some links where you can find "The Production of Security" and "Soirées on the Rue Saint-Lazare." The latter is a conversation between a socialist, a conservative, and an economist. (The economist being the anarchist.) Good stuff!

http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Author.php?recordID=0338

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm#molinari

Debate over Lead Paragraph

Def is POV

The description is POV:

  • Anarcho-Capitalism is a branch of libertarian political philosophy which calls for a free market, private property, and a society without a state. Anarcho-capitalists favor a completely private system of law and order based on common law and explicit contract.
  1. Anarcho-Capitalism is not neccessarly a libertarian philosophy. (like Friedman)
  2. It's not necessarily political.
  3. The term private property is also indeterminate for ancaps, example: land
  4. State is no problem for me as ancap. The problem is that I must take part.
  5. Why should I favor a system of common law? This is nonsense.

I prefer

  • The term Anarcho-Capitalism is used by people who describe a philosophy of society with a free market and at least without coercion to partake in a state system. All Anarcho-capitalists refuse the force monopoly and favor a completely private system of law and order. Many (but not all) use also terms like private property and libertarianism to describe their idea.

If you dont like it, then search an other. But the current one is POV and I delete it. --Alfrem 19:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All this is as difficult to decipher as the definition you proposed. The definition that was there was clear. RJII 19:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
clear POV. --Alfrem 19:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, Alfrem. I understand your points, but don't agree with some of them. But first may I suggest better wording for your definition?
The term Anarcho-Capitalism is used to describe a philosophy of society that has a free market and allows people to opt out of state systems. All anarcho-capitalists oppose the state's monopoly of force, and prefer completely private systems of law and order. Many (but not all) use terms like private property and libertarianism to describe their idea.

I'm sorry, I don't think that Alfrem's version is an improvement. I'll discuss some specific points below. I may choose to revert to an earlier version some time in the future. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Anarcho-Capitalism is not necessarily a libertarian philosophy.
Why is this? Are you from a part of the world where "libertarian" means "socialist"?
No. I am ancap. But I agree with Friedman that stateless order must not lead to libertarian results. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. Anarcho-capitalists desire and call for libertarian results, even if they are realistic in admitting that nothing can 100% assure that they will be achieved. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No. Libertarianism is a meta-ideology of an ideal. In this ideal (without social dilemmas, irrationality and market failures) Libertarianism is wonderful. And it is a desire to aim at idealism. But this doesn't mean that a ancap must submit to a meta-ideology. --Alfrem 21:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by meta-ideology. - Nat Krause 10:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily political.
I disagree. Anarchism is by definition political, since it deals with the ethical aspect of power. Anarchism is the philosophy/belief that the State is unnecessary and oppressive, and should be abolished.
This depends on your meaning what is "political". When I ignore the state and do my own things, this is not political in my view. Therefore, you cant decide what is political by defintion, so it is useless to say by definition. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When you ignore the state, you are not calling for its removal. Once you begin to have ideas vis a vis political organization, such as anarcho-capitalism, those ideas are political ideas. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Politics is for me the active intervention in the process and method of making decisions for people. But A. is not a collective method of making decisions. It is a process in the market. --Alfrem 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The market is a means of making collective decisions. However, it is not political. The intended results of anarcho-capitalism are not political, but the theory itself is a theory about politics, therefore, it is a political philosophy. - Nat Krause 10:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The term private property is also indeterminate for ancaps, example: land
Yes, there is disagreement between ancaps and Geolibertarians (and individualist anarchists) on whether land is valid property. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalists do support private property. The details of the property system can be described elsewhere in the article.
No. The term private property is disputed in details. You can't make a generalization. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't follow you. Yes, private property is disputed in details. Anarcho-capitalists are in favor of it, but there are some details which are disputed. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • State is no problem for me as ancap. The problem is that I must take part.
Perhaps a better name for your philosophy is "panarcho-capitalism." If you are not fundamentally against the State, you are not an anarchist. You may enjoy the essay Panarchy, written by a Frenchman named P. E. de Puydt
The topic is Ancap, but not Anarchism or Panarchy. When Rothbard would have had the possibilty to abdicate the state, he wouldn't had claimed any ancap theory. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the topic is Ancap—however, your arguments are applicable to something else. You should return to the subject. Anarcho-capitalists call for a society without a state. I didn't understand your second sentence. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why should I favor common law? This is nonsense.
Yes, you are right, Alfrem. Good catch. Common law is merely one historical example of non-statist law. Thanks for your ideas. Hogeye 19:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is merely one historical example of non-statist law. An other is customary law in Somalia. Nobody can know what I or you prefer. --Alfrem 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought that common law (in the sense that we use it) is the same thing as customary law. Either term is acceptable because they have the same meaning. Anyway, the current version is incorrect: anarcho-capitalists do not rely only on explicit contract. Most of them, anyway, don't believe that you need an explicit contract situation to prohibit or punish, say, murder. - Nat Krause 13:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian?

The lead line is ok as it stands, but am I the only one who feels the loss of the relationship to libertarianism is a signifigant loss? To a certian extent the origins of anarcho-capitalism and libertarian philosophy (in the US) are one and the same. Saswann 16:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say put it back in. The only objection so far is that the libertarian David Friedman thought that statelessness might not automatically lead to libertarian results (but was likely to.) Ancaps are definitely libertarian. Hogeye 16:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say put the old definition back in. I don't know what that guy was thinking. RJII 17:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not necessary to discuss this point while people like Jeremy Sapienza, or Friedman, or I are seen as Ancaps but not as Libertarians. --Alfrem 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you just said. Are you objecting to or agreeing with my point? Are you identifying Jeremy Sapienza & Friedman as Libertarians? If they are, how is that germaine to anarcho-capitalisim and its origins? Saswann 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW- I think the first line reads like crap now, but I'm not going to start a revert war over it. Saswann 15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Libertarian" simply means "anti-authoritarian." I don't think we should cater to Alfrem's bizarre non-standard notion of libertarianism. Jeremy Sapienza & Friedman do identify themselves as libertarians (small L). Now, if Alfrem had said that where he's from "libertarian" means "anti-statist socialist," I would have had some sympathy for his position. I still don't know exactly what he thinks "libertarian" means. Alfrem, have you looked at the "Ideology Map" in the article? What do you think about the "libertarian" label there? Hogeye 16:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article might by relevant: [1] RJII 17:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sapienza is not libertarian. Some other guys on anti-state.com aren't it also. Friedman likes the libertarian position, but he doesn't identfy himself as Libertarian. Libertarianism is for me also not important to explain my ancap position. --Alfrem 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Where does Sapienza say he's not a libertarian? David Friedman is definitely one—it's right on his website, http://www.daviddfriedman.com
Ask him! --Alfrem 17:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Friedman: "This page has links to things I have written likely to be of interest to libertarians". That's all. Laughable! --Alfrem 17:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A libertarian is someone who believes that individuals should have complete freedom of action as long as they don't infringe on that same freedom of others. That idea is foundational to anarcho-capitalism and they state it explicitly. Have you been living under a rock? Of course anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism. RJII 20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is the idea, but it is not libertarian. Everybody has also the freedom to use force as so long as he can enforce it. And the libertarian definition is also very imperfect. What is a violation when we dont have any consent? --Alfrem 09:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, the more I read what Alfrem writes, the less I understand what he means. There comes a point where one has to start ignoring it. - Nat Krause 10:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You know, you are libertarian, aren't you? ;-) --Alfrem 11:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really have no clue how Alfrem defines "libertarian" and why he objects to its being connected in any way to anarcho-capitalism, or even termed a political philosophy. *Dan* 12:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The term Anarcho-Capitalism is claimed from many different people. They are not all using the NAP to explain ancap-ideas, and they argue not all in political ways by defintion. Something else is nonsense. --Alfrem 12:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree with the last sentance Saswann 13:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) (When it read "This is nonsense") Saswann 12:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem, will you please define what you mean by "libertarian"? I still have absolutely no idea why you disagree with, All anarcho-capitalists are libertarian. Give an example of a belief or position that is anarcho-capitalist but not libertarian. I'm really trying to understand what you mean. To me, any philosophy, belief, or position that favors less power for the State is libertarian. Since you don't want the State to bother you, you are libertarian. Hogeye 19:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tell you my position to refuse the state. I think it is useless to call for a treatment I will never get (i.e. no force against me) and no initiation of aggression is also no aim of evolution. I don't stem me against evolution because then I would stem me then myself. Force is a possibility to resolve social dilemmas. But it is only one option among many options. I cant know which is the best. But state cant be any standard and any aim of evolution. --Alfrem 19:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Lead

Anarcho-Capitalism is an economic philosophy developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state. It was developed as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.

I think it would require a severe intellectual contortion to argue that this is somehow unfactual or POV. Saswann 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some people think Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist. RJII 14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not true! Rothbard did the most in this time to claim the term, but he was not alone, and the Austrains were not alone. LOL. --Alfrem 14:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate your effort, Saswann, but Alfrem's right: some of the statements in the new lead are debatable. It's an improvement, but I think it would be best to go back to the version of a few days ago. - Nat Krause 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I reverted the lead to what it was before this argument started. I think everyone would appreciate a reasonable sourced and coherent argument before it is changed again. 66.94.94.154 18:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How old are you? --Alfrem 18:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attempt #2

Anarcho-Capitalism is the term for an economic philosophy that combines anti-statist principles with a capitalist economic system. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state. The modern incarnation developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century was an attempt at a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.

Ok, no grand claims that this will satisfy any revert warriors-- but I think this addresses all the complaints voiced over the first version. Saswann 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3rd time the charm?

Anarcho-capitalism refers to an anti-statist philosophy that embraces capitalist principles. The first modern version of anarcho-capitalism that identified itself with this term was developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.

Attempt at pithy, comprehensible and accurate Saswann 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And where is the free market? --Alfrem 14:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By anarcho-capitalist's own definition, it's contained within the definition of capitalism. And the whole free-market debate is so nuanced (got to stop using that word, someone have a better one?) that it cannot be integrated in the lead in any way that doesn't make some sort of assumption. Leave the fine gradations for the body of the article. Saswann 14:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

free market and unlimited private property rights

Alfrem, traditional individualist anarchists and some classical liberals advocate a "free market" but don't believe individuals should be granted title to unused land. A landlord charging someone rent for land that he didn't have a choice of being born on is tantamount to being a government. He didn't agree to choose to have a landlord or not. Rent was imposed on him. That's basically the reasoning. So, it's arguable whether "unlimited private property rights" are consistent with a "free market." You could be right in your point, but in order to differentiate between other philosophies that say that advocate a free market, i think it makes sense to state explictly that there is there is no ethical limitation of private property in anarcho-capitalism. Besides, capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production with decisions being made in a free market. Just saying "free market" is not quite enough. RJII 20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But, "unlimited" is vague and misleading. I.e. Some anarcho-capitalists believe that IP (intellectual property) is valid, other's that it is simply a monopoly enforced by State. So something like "neo-Lockean" may be better. There is still an ambiguity (sticky property permissable vs. sticky property only), but no need to open that can of worms in the intro. "Propertarian free-market" may be best. Hogeye 21:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is all too complex in the intro. The intro should hold only the important things, no insider-wording or misleading terms. --Alfrem 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hogeye, I think you're trying to embed too much nuance into the lead. Because the lead is only a few sentences, it is going to be a generalization. The body of the article is where we should get into markets and property issues specific to the issue at hand. In fact, looking at my own current rewrite, I wonder if the phrase "calls for a free market and unlimited private property rights" &c. is needed at all anymore. Saswann 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Non-aggression principle

I just wanted to tell Alfrem that my revert was not personal. I'm actually glad that there's a Non-aggression principle article now. However, I'd ask for a little more care next time, a lot of that section was Ancap-specific, and does not belong in a general article on this segment of libertarian thought. (Unless it becomes a much broader article surveying all the philosophies that adhere to it.) Also, just dropping the section was removing content that was central to the article— unlike, say, the tangent about Crypto-anarchism— the principle is essential to understanding the whole. Saswann 17:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see only one ancap-setence: "The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom." The rest is also important for libertarians and should not hold in this article due to redundancy. --Alfrem 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The general points are now in the general article. The Rothbard quote belongs in the Ancap article as a citation showing an Ancap philosopher upholding the principle, and the remaining sentence is needed so that the non-aggression axiom is actually defined in this article. Leaving only the phrase "non-aggression axiom" with no accompanying explanation or citations is really opaque style. Saswann 19:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am impressed with the quality of the aritcle

It is well written, has nothing to raise the wrath of my anarchist (broadly socialist) principles ('cept the fact that it is claimed that anar..., but you address that). Thus I would like to congratulate the editors. --harrismw 04:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words. A lot of editors have done a lot of work to bring this article up to snuff, and I think a lot of the disputes over content have been comparatively well mannered-- if extraordinarily wordy :) Saswann 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

I'm putting this up for peer review since (aside from the recent debate over the lead) the form and content seems to have stabilized Saswann 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Original appropriation

"This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchisim."

I don't agree with this. Many collectivists believe in possession property, which was also presumably appropratiated originally. A bigger difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism is in the abandonment criteria. Broadly speaking, ancaps keep their property until and unless they consent to trade or gift it, while ansocs keep it only as long as they are using it.

I'm going to think about this and probably revamp this section, renamed "Property Theory" or some such. Maybe I'll include that property system comparison table:

Anarchist Schools Collectivist Individualist (traditional) Anarcho-Capitalist
Is land legitimate private property? No Yes (qualified)
  • as long as owner uses it
  • it can't be used as collateral.
Yes
Are man-made capital goods

legitimate private property?

No, in most cases. Yes Yes
Is it immoral to collect profit

from capital and interest?

Yes.
It's a crime, and

should be expropriated in most circumstances.

Yes.
It's a vice, but

should not be expropriated.

No.
It's permissable,

and generally a virtue.

Hogeye 22:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full lead section

One of the Peer review coments is the sparse lead section. This has been a side-effect of POV battles, but I'm hoping that things have calmed down on that score. With that in mind, I added a second paragraph that I hope starts to build a feature-quality lead for the whole article Saswann 29 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

I had a hard work to eliminate the word "libertarian" from the intro. And now you come again with the libertarian doctrine. I must delete it. I am sorry. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
 ? I am afraid I don't understand what you mean. Rothbard was a libertarian. . . Saswann 29 June 2005 18:44 (UTC)
Read the discussion above. I can't be bothered with this dispute again. --Alfrem 29 June 2005 18:58 (UTC)
Alfrem, you started the dispute again, so the onus is on you to explain why. While I'm not arguing with your motives, that is at least in part because I really don't understand them. You need to clearly explain why Rothbard, one of the founders of the Libertarian party in the US, should not be called a libertarian. Saswann 29 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
No, you are starting the dispute again. You must only read what is alreday written. There is not only one exegesis of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard was not alone. There are also ancaps, which are not described as libertarians (Friedman, Sapienza and other). --Alfrem 29 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
Alfrem, please stop hassling the editors of this page. Have you ever produced any evidence contrary to the obvious conclusion that Sapienza and Friedman are libertarians? Judging from this talk page, the answer is no. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)
You are hassling!
David Friedman is a subjectivist in ethics and he rejects Rothbards moral arguments altogether and instead proposes an economic argument where private defence/protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individual's utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)
This seems to be another case where you have your definition of "libertarian" beforehand, and then you exclude anybody who doesn't fit with that definition. Nevertheless, what you say about David Friedman is true and he is a libertarian. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 08:49 (UTC)
Friedman don't qualifes himself as libertarian. Why should he? Why do you must? What does qualify him as Libertarian? Nothing unless your own political view. And you can ask him yourself. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)
Alfrem, unless you have a print source where he denies that he is a libertarian, your plea "Ask Him" amounts to original research and does not belong on wikipedia. Saswann 30 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)
Have you a print source of the counterpart? And there are more which are not libertarian. This is known. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)



Too much generalization in this:

  • "Anarcho-capitalist philosophy is based on self-ownership, an absolute right to private property, and a prohibition against the initiation of force against other persons or property. From this is derived a rejection of the state (an entity claiming a territorial monopoly on the use of force) and the principles of capitalism (allowing any voluntary transaction between any two parties.) Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and movements that see the rejection of capitalism as being just as fundamental to Anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Despite this tension, anarcho-capitalists see Individualist Anarchist thinkers such as Benjamin Tucker as extremely important in their own philosophy."

It is not completely wrong but a genaralization. Compare it with economic views. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Alfrem, I'm going to say this as non-confrontationally as possible: you need to calm down and stop trying to impose a non-standard interpretation on this article. If you have legitimate sources that you can cite for your view, fine. However, you have not. As I said, the onus is on you to provide legitimate sources aside from your own personal feeling if you're doing something as drastic as deleting a whole paragraph that is "not completely wrong." Saswann 30 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)
Your generalization is completely wrong. You can fix it with Friedmans economic view. This must be clear enough for you. I can not change 3 words and all would be nice. You must deliver NPOV. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)
Alfrem, No. You can "fix" it with Friedmans economic view, with proper references and citations. You cannot randomly slash content and then do some hand-waving and say that you did it because you once read something that you thought disagreed with it. I have been very patient with you, but it seems that you are unwilling, or unable, to back up your assertions. I might point out that in Chapter 43 of Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman says: "One could describe most of this book as a utilitarian approach to libertarianism" You, my friend, should explain how someone who is allegedly not a libertarian would write a whole book on the economic principles of libertarianism.
Heh, you wrote POV! Friedman is of the ancap/market anarchist camp. And you must take it into consideration without generalization. An utilitarian approach to libertarianism is an approach (harmonization, aproximation), but not more. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
So your response to an opposing citation is a flat denial and a reassertion of your own personal view without any supporting facts. Alfrem, any possible point you might have had is completely lost under your refusal to follow any reasonable approximation of academic honesty. All you do is cite your personal feelings as fact and claim that anyone who disagrees with your own personal idiosyncrasies is the one pushing a POV. POV is not a magic word that makes everyone who doesn't think like you go away, nor is it a justification to slash content with no factual basis other than your own personal assertions. I've tried to be accommodating, since you seem to have some familiarity with the subject, and English does not seem to be your first language. However, it is apparent that trying to reason with you, or even trying to get some comprehensible explanation of your position, is a hopeless endeavour. All I can say is, I tried, and showed a lot more patience than was justified in your case. Saswann 30 June 2005 14:05 (UTC)
Do you not see your genaralization? --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

David Friedman is a subjectivist in ethics and he rejects Rothbards moral arguments altogether and instead proposes an economic argument where private defence/protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individual's utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 14:37 (UTC)

Which would be an interesting expansion of the whole Natural Law/consequentialist issue in the criticism section-- feel free to flesh this out. It in no way justifies what youre doing to the lead section Saswann 30 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)
Critic of what? It is also a theory of market anarchism. There is not only one school. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)
I'm sorry Alfrem, I think you're reading a completly different article and I have no idea how to put it in terms you can understand. Saswann 30 June 2005 16:43 (UTC)
The article is not ready and I have no idea why you believe that. --Alfrem 30 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
Apparently we have determined that our use of the English language is mutually incomprehensible. Saswann 30 June 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Alfrem RFC

For those as frustrated as I, please go here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alfrem. I hope that if enough editors point out to Alfrem that his current behavior is not helpful, he might try a little harder to cite his position. Saswann 30 June 2005 14:11 (UTC)

Use of Force

This section could use some refrences/citations. It is the most weakly sourced section of the article. Saswann 29 June 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Questions

Under the Original appropriation title, the article states:

"Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him."

Do anarcho-capitalists place humans above everything else? In other words, if it benefits a human but negatively impacts something non-human, does the human still have the right to it? I'm curious to hear/read views on the anarcho-capitalists evaluation and placement of the human species in regards to everything else. 03 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)


199> "Do anarcho-capitalists place humans above everything else? In other words, if it benefits a human but negatively impacts something non-human, does the human still have the right to it?"
Yes. If there is no infringement of the rights of other humans, if an action doesn't "negatively impact" the person or property of other humans, then it should not be prevented by other humans. IOW there is a right to do that action.
This of course does not mean that the action is moral in the general sense; only that one has a right to do it. Hogeye 3 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
200?>So, anarcho-capitalists place human rights above non-human rights? Do any non-humans have rights to property or private ownership, or do only humans have the ability to exercise those rights? Also, where do anarcho-capitalists get this right from--themselves? I'm not trying to ask if it is a moral action, just where they get the right to that action. 04 July 2005 16:50 UTC


200> "So, anarcho-capitalists place human rights above non-human rights? Do any non-humans have rights to property or private ownership, or do only humans have the ability to exercise those rights?"
Well, to be exact, you need to replace "human" with "moral agent." We base individual rights on intelligence, not species. If an alien from Alpha Centari or a porpoise started talking to us and asserted individual rights, then they too would be a moral agent. But if you're talking about lower animals or plants or rocks, no these don't have any rights whatsoever. We derive rights from sentience, intelligence, and evidence of a moral faculty. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism

While I agree with what you said in your edit summary, that there is no controversy over whether or not anarcho-capitalists referance individualists, I do not think that is what the text implied. There are two reasons I disagree with your edit of individualism.

First, there is some controversy over the -degree- to which anarcho-capitalists are influenced by individualists. Some anarcho-capitalists claim that this is a very large degree, other anarcho-capitalists claim that it is minimal, and some non-anarchists claim the the extent of influence doesn't go beyond surface arguments for the core of an ideology that they had already taken from anti-state liberals and libertarians.

Second, I think that begining the individualism section with the claim that there is significant influence, when this is really a subjective call, is already caching the later debate in the terms of the anarcho-capitalists. They can claim some influence, of course, that much is a matter of fact. But I think it goes a bit far to begin the individualism section with a claim as to the amount of that influence, whereas introducing it as controversial at the outset puts the reader in the mindset that what is written in this section needs to be weighed against the views of many different groups. Kev 8 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Point taken, but I revised your edit somewhat. Saswann 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
Works for me. Kev 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)