Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 13

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


This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 05 and Aug 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 14. Thank you. Saswann 12:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Continuing NPOV problems

First, I would like to point out some of my previous notes in the talk archives [1]. While a couple of these points were dealt with others were not, and some were simply reinserted after being removed or corrected. Currently this article continues to slant toward a heavy anarcho-capitalist POV. This includes the presentation of anarcho-capitalism in relation to anarchism, which is expressed as drawing criticism from only a particular portion of the anarchist community where in fact that portion is the vast majority. In addition, the individualist section now makes no statement at all concerning the fact that the individualists which ACs claim tradition to universally disavowed capitalism. Also, the section on individualism continues this inane process of adding bullet points for every minute agreement between individualism and anarcho-capitalism, some of the areas it now refers to are badly misrepresented, such as:

"Both individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists advocate "free banking" where any individual or group of individualists would be allowed to create and lend private currency."

makes no mention of the fact that "free banking" to the individualists was in fact free, interest at the level of cost, whereas "free" to the anarcho-capitalist simply means absence of government regulation.

That's not a correct interpretation you have there. "Free banking" just means that anyone is allowed to set up a bank and print their own currency. The individualists believed this would naturally lead to the inability to lend money for a profit due to competitive pressures. "Free banking" doesn't mean "free money." It means the same thing to both traditional individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that anarcho-capitalists don't think free banking would lead to the inability to make a profit through lending. This is from the site: "Individualist and mutualist anarchists like William Greene [Mutual Banking], Benjamin Tucker [Instead of a Book], and J. B. Robertson [The Economics of Liberty] viewed the money monopoly as central to the capitalist system of privilege. In a genuinely free banking market, any group of individuals could form a mutual bank and issue monetized credit in the form of bank notes against any form of collateral they chose, with acceptance of these notes as tender being a condition of membership. Greene speculated that a mutual bank might choose to honor not only marketable property as collateral, but the "pledging ... [of] future production." [p. 73]. The result would be a reduction in interest rates, through competition, to the cost of administrative overhead--less than one percent." Traditional individualists and anarcho-capitalists both support free banking. However, they may differ in their opinion on what would result. RJII 15:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I see no compelling reason to accept your interpretation over my own given the very evidence you cite yourself. From what I can tell, free banking includes rates being driven down to cost or near cost, something that anarcho-capitalists do not advocate. Kev 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalists don't advocate a particular result? You don't advocate results, you advocate policies, and you believe they would lead to certain results. From RJ's quote above, it's clear that individualist anarchists believe the same thing ancaps do: that anyone should be free to start a bank and issue currency. The difference is over what effect they believed would result, not what system they advocated. No ancap would ever go up to a mutual bank and say "No interest? No, no, no, you're doin' it all wrong!" Likewis, it's clear (RJ probably has the quotes) that individualist anarchists would never forcibly stop people from offering loans at interest in an anarchist society. So in this specific respect, it appears their desired system is the same. Hoping that people would make different choices within a system does not mean you advocate a different system. 02:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualists do not object to unequal wealth distribution."

there are -many- times in which Tucker and Warren decried vast concentrations of wealth as being anti-thetical to the free market, this bullet point glances over that fact and claims it as a similarity.

This is a valid concern. But, they don't oppose unequal wealth distribution when no one is enforcing banking and currency monopolies and land monopolies. Anarcho-capitalists don't either. But, i'll modify the statement a bit. RJII 15:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
They do oppose vast degrees of unequal wealth when it is not being enforced by the state as being anti-thetical to the market, they simply do not oppose it as strongly as being immoral. Kev 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Many relevant points have been removed or tweaked into saying something else one after the other by RJ over the last few weeks. These include:

"Anarcho-capitalists believe that protection of individual liberty and private property be should be performed by private, and competing, institutions rather than by a tax-funded government monopoly."

a false dichotomy that entirely rules out the anarchist argument against both private and public institutionalized coercion.

I have no clue what you're talking about there. This is talking about anarcho-capitalists only ..not anyone else. And, it's true. RJII 15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not true, as it gives the false impression that there is only one alternative to private competing institutions, and that the alternative is the state. It needs to be rewritten to express the fact that anarcho-capitalists believe their institutions are an alternative to the state without implying that they are THE alternative. Kev 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

RJ also removed the fact that most modern mutualists reject anarcho-capitalism. He claimed in his edit summary that most individualists believe anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, besides giving no evidence whatsoever for this claim it would not itself justify removing mutualists as well.

most anarchists who follow in the collectivist traditions of anarchism strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchy.

This sentence is overly qualified. Most anarchists strongly maintain this claim period, the fact that they are collectivist is a side point (and actually somewhat inaccurate) that merely creates the image that ac is more broadly accepted.

That's fine. I have no problem with it just saying "anarchists." The reason I modified it is it made a claim that individualist anarchists believed that too, but I've only seen evidence that individualist anarchists do believe it to be a form of anarchism. RJII 15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of anti-capitalist political movements, and use a general definition that includes rejection of capitalism.

This sentence, while true, is a false characterization in the comparison it makes. Traditional anarchists do not merely refer to anarchism as a specific tradition, they also refer to the essence or meaning of anarchism as inherently anti-capitalist.

Fine, add it then. What's the big deal? RJII 15:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've already explained my reasons for not freely editing the article, they consist of you removing or reverting almost any changes I make. Kev 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For all of these reasons and more I feel the NPOV tag is still necessary. I would happily change all these lines rather than take the time to detail them here, but I'm sick of RJs continuing edit war philosophy and unwillingness to compromise or find mutually agreeable solutions. So the NPOV tag will probably stay until he leaves or someone else gets the energy to deal with his constant insertions of rhetoric, or he begins to be reasonable. Kev 12:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not going to compromise on the NPOV policy, and not going to compromise the quality of any article on Wikipedia. If something is true, I'm not going to compromise by agreeing to not reveal it. You want me to compromise into veiling the truth. That's not going to happen. RJII 15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've never asked that anyone compromise on NPOV policy, but that is not what this is about. You call your own perspective "truth" and edit articles as though your own opinions are fact. They are not. Actually, they are a POV, and if you really cared about NPOV policy, you -would- compromise on those edits because it would uphold NPOV policy in the process. You do not hold some absolute grasp on the truth RJ, and besides being flat out wrong on many occasions, most of your edits are simply unverifiable POV mongering. Kev 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Blah, Blah, Blah. RJII 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixing Kev's Issues

1 "free banking"

no longer exists

2 "Both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualists do not object to unequal wealth distribution."

no longer exists

3 "Anarcho-capitalists believe that protection of individual liberty and private property be should be performed by private, and competing, institutions rather than by a tax-funded government monopoly."

now reads
"Anarcho-capitalists would protect individual liberty by replacing a government monopoly that is involuntarily funded through taxation with private, and competing, businesses."

4 most modern mutualists reject anarcho-capitalism

the article points out the two are incompatible, it reads
"staunch advocate of the mutualist form of private property, which holds to the labor theory of value, in contrast to the marginal theory of value held by Austrian School economists and anarco-capitalists"
This doesn't really make sense. There is no "mutualist form of private property." I'll see if I can modify that. RJII 00:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

5 "most anarchists who follow in the collectivist traditions of anarchism strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchy."

now reads
"most anarchists strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism."

6 "The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of anti-capitalist political movements, and use a general definition that includes rejection of capitalism."

now reads
"The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to a particular group of anti-statist, anti-capitalist political movements that hold to an intrinsic labor theory of value that believe anarchism is defined as being opposed to capitalism as well as the state."
This part simply is not true according to many subscribers of those traditions themselves. I've rewritten it to better reflect what they believe their core distinctions from anarcho-capitalism are. Kev 07:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
and if that didn't define anti-capitalism as central enough, the lead section reads:
"Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state"

Given that all these compaints have been delt with or no longer apply, I'm nuking the NPOV tag until I hear some specific addressable issues with the article as it stands now. Saswann 21:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you did an excellent job of dealing with my criticisms. I have changed a few of the other edits RJ made in the interim, and with the exception of one of the passages above which I have also changed in the article I think my objection can no longer stand. I've also beefed up or altered a few parts of the criticism section that seemed to be introducing even the criticisms of anarcho-capitalists from their own perspective. Thanks for your efforts Saswann. Kev 07:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Rothbard on land

Rothbard never says one can legitimately own vacant land does he? Everything I've read is always about mixing labor with land, and therefore, making it property. Anyone seen anything? RJII 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I found out that Rothbard thnks that original appropriation is not legitimate unless it's by use of the land. One can't merely claim it or fence it in. But, if afterwards he decides to stop using it, it's still his since the transformation is the product of labor. RJII 07:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Crit picture

This may be controversial (it is kind of hard to find pictures to illustrate abstract concepts) but I thought that the strike picture seemed to resonate on a number of levels. First it's a literal illustration of the fears people have w/ an Ancap society-- exploitation of workers who are suppressed by force. . . but it also is sort of an Ancap Rorschach test. After all, in the picture, the Teamsters are attacking the cops. Who's coercing whom here? Also, a strike to a certain extent would be a legitimate recourse in an Ancap society. This might not be the right picture for the section, but I'm open to suggestion. Saswann 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems pretty POV to me. Especially the caption. And, yes, unions and strikes, being market forces, are quite compatible with anarcho-capitalism. I don't like it. RJII 17:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Personally I like the picture of the Teamster strike violence. It livens up a very thorough but very dull article. I didn't quite understand at first what it was or why it was there, however. I'll see if I can do something to make it clearer.--Bcrowell 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Saswann, what's wrong with the ancap symbol? The libertarianism article has the symbol while it was a featured article. I don't understand what you think the problem is. RJII 20:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you drew your own. Nice. RJII 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
FWIW there was a complaint about the license during the prior fac attempt [2]. Saswann 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, a two-fer: the section on the use of force refers to the American Revolution, a great opportunity for a dramatic picture, and I pulled out a Rothbard citation that backs up the assertion. Saswann 15:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've stuck in an image of a postage stamp showing the Icelandic Althing (parliament), with a caption briefly explaining David Friedman's theory that medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist. This is basically an attempt to make the article more inviting to the reader, and to try to show that the political theory has at least some connection to reality. I realize, OTOH, that Friedman's theory is controversial, and that a controversial theory may be out of place in the lead; however, the caption does clearly explain that it's only one person's theory.--Bcrowell 19:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This might be woth spinning off into the article proper-- maybe "Ancap in practice," which might refer to some of the other possible examples (I think a few people keep citing Somolia) Saswann 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The article comes off as extremely theoretical and hypothetical. I'm not qualified to do the section myself, though.--Bcrowell 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking about that too. I don't think it needs another article though. I think just a small section mentioning some things like Somalia and Iceland thing. RJII 21:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a Past and present anarchist communities article. Iceland is in there, with a small discussion of Somalia. RJII 15:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Stop accusing me trolling. And what is this supposed to mean: "I know, you define private property differently than they do" ??? RJII 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reffering to effect, not motive. There are a lot of folks out there who are hyper-sensitive to the subject. As for the definition of private property, tell me you and Kev haven't danced around and around and around on the definition of private property and what constitutes opposition to it. :) Saswann 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
He just didn't know what private property was. First he was trying to convince himself that individualist anarchists didn't support private property, then after that was shown to be false, he resorted to the belief that they were opposed to private ownership of the means of production. That has been shown to be false as well. Given that he had been claiming he was an individualist anarchist, I suspect he'll be moving on to another philosophy. We can't tailor an article around one editor's ignorance of the subjects. RJII 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
RJ, I'm not going to step between you two, I'm just pointing out that these aren't universally accepted issues. I'm not even talking about "facts" here, just the way they're presented. Saswann 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

I've started breaking out this section. (again) It is a topic that could keep expanding without limit, and this article is getting huge again. I haven't pruned anything yet, but I think we can cut out all but part of the first section (that makes the point) and the Left/Right section that refers to the chart. Saswann 15:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured article status!

Hooray! Thanks to all who put effort into this article. It's very nice and well-documented. MrVoluntarist 02:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No doubt. RJII 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Somalia pictures

It's cool that there's a Somalia picture in there, but that picture is from 1993. Things are much nicer now. It would be nice to get pictures something like these [3] or these [4] RJII 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone can find a PD/GFDL source for new pictures (The DoD isn't good for pics post-1994 :) Saswann 16:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's some more: [5] I don't know if they're PD or not. RJII 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The main site [6] has a copyright notice (struck out, hmmm...) so my guess is that it isn't a PD source, though the fact that Somolia has no government makes the question interesting. I suspect US law still protects the author of a work outside the US, but what do I know? IANAL Saswann 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
True. Somalia doesn't have copyright laws. Besides that, I don't think the former government signed any international treaty regarding intellectual property. RJII 20:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there an IP forum here where we can posit the question? Saswann 21:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you can ask in the intellectual property talk page. Or, you could just post a picture if you think copyright laws don't protect it. If someone challenges it, they'll do an RFC on it and take it down if it is protected. RJII 21:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I found the right page to ask, I posted a question here [7] Saswann 11:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a great picture that shows the competition in electricity. [8] I've emailed to see if they'll let us use it. RJII 03:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If they're willing, make sure that we get some sort of free-use license, permission and non-commercial use aren't ggod for a featured article.
Well, I got this back from "Mahadsanid xiriirka aad lasoo yelatay Emailkaan waxaa haddakaaga soo jawaabey computerka. Marka aan emailkaaga akhrino ayaan jawaabta ku haboon kuusoo diri doonaa, insha Allah. -Mahadsanid," it looks like it's ok. RJII 15:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Again for us english speakers? Saswann 19:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"Something something something something Email something something something computer. Something email something something something something, God willing." MrVoluntarist 04:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Molinari trouble again

I was going to go ahead and make this edit, but I didn't want to jeopardize the article's chance of appearing on the front page, so I thought I'd discuss it first. This statement has been troubling me for a while: "While some current adherents of liberalism and anarchism wouldn't call Molinari an anarcho-capitalist, his thoughts were influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries." Now, is there any reason someone would believe Molinari would not meet the current definition of anarcho-capitalist? Because if liberals and anarchists are merely objecting to the connection because it would shatter their worldview if it were the case that anarcho-capitalist beliefs have been around since the mid 19th century, obviously (at least I hope it's obvious), such an objection doesn't merit inclusion. On the other hand, if there is a genuine reason to dispute Molinari's anarcho-capitalism, it would help the article immensely to include it. But then, that's the problem, isn't it? You see, I've asked numerous people who dispute the connection to name one - just one - political view Molinari had that would conflict with present anarcho-capitalists, and so far, no one's been able to come up with even a flawed one. So, would the liberals and anarchists please justify this position or remove that statement? MrVoluntarist 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, the baseless anarchist claim is out. MrVoluntarist 04:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)