Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 16

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


This archive page covers approximately the dates between Jul 06 and Aug 06.

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 17. Thank you. --Rosicrucian 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about the lead

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud.

Laissez-faire capitalism is arguably the most important aspect of anarcho-capitalism (hence the existence of the term capitalism in the name), so why is there no mention of laissez-faire capitalism in this defining sentence? Why do I have to wait until the middle of the paragraph to see a mention of capitalism? Moreover, I would like someone to tell me the specific source(s) from which this definition is dervied (in particular, the clause about "initiatory coercion and fraud"); otherwise, there is no way for me to verify it and I will have no other choice but to consider it original research. -- WGee 02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary exchange...a free market. Some people define capitalism in other ways. I agree it needs a more definitional type intro sentence. Here is one from a source: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and national defense. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a system of private property based on individual rights is the only moral system - a system that implies a free market, or total voluntarism, in all transactions. (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. 99. (Article is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an anarcho-capitalist.)) TheIndividualist 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I read the introductory paragraph three times, and I am still rather confused at the exact definition of anarcho-capitalism. There needs to be a solid definition, not the bs™ that's there now - "Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud." - well it's interesting it's based on that, but what is it? "Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals." - That doesn't help define anarcho-capitalism either, and some individuals may encounter difficulty even comprehending that sentence at all. In fact, this entire article should be cut down and simplified a bit, and could someone insert a solid definition into the first 2 sentences? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put a first sentence definition in there. "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism that proposes that all goods and services, including defense of liberty and property, should be supplied in a free market rather than by the state." TheIndividualist 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a highly contentious claim. I removed it. --AaronS 15:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, looking like if you call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, you get folks coming out of the woodwork. Wild stuff, and this seems to be one of those topics that engenders a lot of strong opinions.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence that is there now sounds about right - Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the coordinatation of all functions of society, including justice and national defence, by the free market.. It's a definition, at the least. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism or Libertarianism?

While I can certainly see a case made for either, isn't two sidebars a bit much? Unless we can move one of them down so they both occupy the same space on the right, it really clutters up the article layout. Personally I'd say Anarcho-capitalism has more in common with the articles in the Anarchism series (particularly Anarcho-syndicalism) than with articles in the Libertarianism series.--Rosicrucian 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

...and I just visited Template talk:Anarchism and figured out what a can of worms I just opened. Wow. Guess this will have to wait until the template debate is over (if ever).--Rosicrucian 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that two sidebars is too much, but I haven't removed either for the very reason you listed. They could at least be put one after the other rather than side-by-side. I will try that, hopefully it won't ignite passions. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Layout looks much improved as a result. I suppose we could have some contention over which one to put first, but I do hope we can all agree that the new layout makes the overall article more readable.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It certainly does, and I dearly hope we don't start arguing about which comes first. That would be quite silly. =) --AaronS 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the research is proving bewildering. Every time I delve further and come closer to saying "okay, this is closer to anarchism" or "okay, this is closer to libertarianism" I find another passage that swings me the other way. Certainly Rothbard believed this to be an anarchist philosophy, but so many of the ideals involved are libertarian in nature, and it certainly doesn't clear things up to find that the man also practically codified what we now identify as libertarianism in the modern sense. Until I can wrap my head around this better any edits and suggestions I make will be procedural and layout oriented rather than content-oriented.--Rosicrucian 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. One of the difficulties with these articles is that it does require a lot of background knowledge. I admit that my own understanding of all of the different anarchist philosophies is elementary at best. --AaronS 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

POV and OR

I added the tags, due to TheIndividualist's most recent edit. That anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is a highly contentious claim that does not belong in the article lead. It's also an example of WP:OR, becuase it's introducing a new synthesis of ideas into Wikipedia. Further, the MS Encarta source is misattributed. Finally, that "some people view it that way" is not enough justification for it to be in the article lead; those are weasel words. Please stop reverting. Thanks. --AaronS 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying "some regard as a form of individualist anarchism" is not "weasel words" if they are sourced, which they are. It is a true and indisputable statement that anarcho-capitalism is "considered by some to be a form of individualist anarchism." Your complaint is off the chain. TheIndividualist 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Off the chain? I'm not quite sure what that means. Read the guidelines on weasel words. Sources can be found to justify just about anything (especially primary sources). A while back, on Talk:Anarchism, I showed how one could make Karl Marx look like an anarchist simply by selectively citing the Communist Manifesto. Whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is already discussed in anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's where the discussion belongs. It certainly does not belong in the lead of the article. --AaronS 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Aaron is saying that those statements don't belong in the intro, i agree. they certianly should be included elsewhere, however. Blockader 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
And certainly they are included elsewhere in the article, complete with citation. Given that it is under dispute, it certainly shouldn't be in the first sentence as that will only give casual readers the wrong impression. The link between anarcho-capitalism and individualism is not core to the definition of the term, and thus should be left for later in the article where the nuances of it can be properly explained.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The core to the definition of the term is that it is an anti-statist free market philosophy. Why not use that as the lead, instead? Anarcho-capitalism might trumpet individualism, but that doesn't make it individualist anarchism, because individualist anarchism is its own philosophy with its own history and its own sphere of influence, and so on. "Individualist anarchism" isn't just an adjective-noun grouping -- it's a complete term, denoting a philosophy. --AaronS 21:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. Individualist anarchism is a broad school of anarchism. All individualist forms of anarchism are individualist anarchism. Common sense. Individualist anarchism is not a defined philosophy other than being an individualist form of anarchism. Every individualist anarchist has his own idiosyncratic philosophy. And there is not just one source but many sources. TheIndividualist 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Rothbard, who coined the term "anarcho-capitalism," said that he wasn't an individualist anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism may be individualistic, and it might possibly be anarchism, but it is not individualist anarchism. --AaronS 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. What the others are saying is that it doesn't belong in the lead sentence, firstly because it is a highly contentious statement that makes use of weasel words to create the illusion of neutrality, and secondly because it is not the defining tenet of anarcho-capitalism. Keep the defining sentence simple and concise, then explain these complex nuances later, and in much more detail. To say that it is an "individualist philosophy" is sufficient enough for the lead sentence. However, are there any non-partisan, reputable sources to attest to the assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a "philosophy"? If multiple sources are not provided, we should change "philosophy" to "ideology".
Moreover, your edits did make use of weasel words, which Wikipedia editors should avoid. You cannot say the article "exemplifies our very best work" while it violates Wikipedia guidelines in the first sentence.
-- WGee 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. --AaronS 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead to this: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist economic and political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, so that all goods and services, including defense of liberty and property, may be supplied in a free market. It can probably be improved, so tweak it as much as you want. I also removed the {{POV}} and {{OR}} tags. --AaronS 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Other-language Wikipedias

Non-English Wikipedias seem to place anarcho-capitalism within the rubric of liberalism or libertarianism, not anarchism. See the [Spanish article], for instance. The French Wikipedia places it in its series on libertarianism. Its lead is: L'anarcho-capitalisme est une théorie de la liberté. Combinaison du libéralisme et de l'individualisme, c'est une philosophie du droit basée sur le principe de non-agression. Rough translation: Anarcho-capitalism is a theory of liberty. A combination of libertarianism and individualism, it is a right-wing philosophy based upon the non-aggression principle. There seems to be quite a disparity, here. --AaronS 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there is a disparity. If people wish to assert as fact that anarcho-capitalism is a strand of anarchism, they must support that assertion with several reputable, authoritative sources. Saying that anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchism is to say that libertarian socialism is a genre of libertarianism, an assertion that virtually all political scientists rebuff. The two ideologies may share their desire for utter liberty, but they fundamentally disagree about what "liberty" should entail, or how to achieve this ideal. Ignore the semantics of the term for a moment and ask yourself: Does anarcho-capitalism share more in common with the pro-capitalist, state-weary ideologies of libertarianism or with the anti-capitalist ideologies of anarchism? The answer, I think, is clear. The fervently capitalist ideals of anarcho-capitalism simply aren't compatible with the vehemently anti-capitalist ideologies that comprise anarchism. -- WGee 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm still mulling it over myself. The originator calls it anarchism, and it calls for the abolition of the state which is a common thread throughout anarchistic philosophies. Its notions on government as a coercive control shew very closely to other anarchy movements.
However economically it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and the originator is one of the core theorists behind what modern political scientists recognize as libertarianism. He also does very little to distinguish it from his theories and musing on libertarianism, and many of the American Libertarian Party claim to be anarcho-capitalists.
It's a damnably fuzzy line to me.--Rosicrucian 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the ideology of "anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively new one. Although it derives ideas from ideologies that have existed for centuries, it is fundamentally new in its organization of these ideas. Usually it is the independent political science community who, some time later, classifies an ideology; but here it is the anarcho-capitalists who are classifying their own ideology right now. The question in my mind is: how can and why would the creators of anarcho-capitalism justifiably place it in a category comprised of ardently anti-capitalist ideologies? Anarcho-capitalism is despised by the anarchists and anti-capitalist anarchism by anarcho-capitalists, so it does not make sense to try to unite the two under the same category. The only connection between them is their support for the abolition of the state.
But does anarcho-capitalism's contempt for the state make it an anarchist ideology? I don't think so. Anarchism, in its general semantical meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. However, in its historical and political meaning (which is what we should be discussing), anarchism not only supports the abolition of the state, but full social, economic, and political equality, as well. The first self-declared anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, abhorred capitalism as a source of hierarchy and oppression, and that tradition continued in the dominate anarchist writers who superceded him, including Kropotkin and Bakunin. That political tradition does not change merely because of some 20th-century anarcho-capitalists who wish to become members of the anarchist clan.
-- WGee 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong that all anarchism is about equality. Individualist anarchists do not aim for equality other than equal rights. Equal wealth is out of the question. Only anarcho-communists want equal wealth distribution. TheIndividualist
You seem to be ignoring my main points, though— one of which is that, throughout history, the dominate contributors to anarchism and the overwhelming majority of anarchists were anti-capitalist, even the individualist ones (though not necessarily anti-market or communistic). In fact, no capitalist strand of "anarchism" has ever existed, except since the 20th century in the form of questionably-named anarcho-capitalism. It does not make sense to dump anarcho-capitalism into a sea of vehemently anti-capitalist ideologies; the historical precedent doesn't allow it. -- WGee 04:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The historical precedent has already been made. Anarcho-capitalism has been around for quite a long time now...since the 1960's I think. The anti-capitalist individualist anarchists (meaning anti-profit) were around first then the communism anarchism showed up. The anti-individualist anarchists denied that it was a form of anarchism because the communists wanted to abolish private property, money, and markets. Then in the 1960's another new form of anarchism showed up...anarcho-capitalism and of course there's going to be anarchists denying it is "true anarchism." The anarcho-capitalists are also individualist anarchists but they don't think profit is exploitative. There's simply smarter individualist anarchists than the anti-capitalist individualist anarchists because of advances in economics. No serious economist today considers the labor theory of value as valid. Because one painting takes more labor to create than another, you're exploiting one of the painters unless you pay them equal price for their paintings. Come on. Just because you don't oppose profit it doesn't mean you're not an anarchist. TheIndividualist 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
A historical precedent from the 1960's can't really be compared to the historical precendent set by Proudhon in 1840. But lets not incite political debate and begin to denounce or exhalt ideologies; that's just counterproductive and detracts from the improvement of the article. Central to this whole thread is that the assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is disputed (evidenced by the foreign language Wikipedias), and that any sources asserting such a fact should be presented with this circumstance in mind. Another central principle, true of any article, is that hefty assertions require hefty sources; I don't believe your sources are "hefty" or reputable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Let's use them elsewhere, where the controversy can be discussed in detail. Do you agree? -- WGee 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the foreign language Wikipedias say if they're not sourced. As you know anyone can write anything they want in Wikipedia unless someone is making sure everything is sourced. And no I do not agree that my sources are not reputable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Need a peer-reviewed journal? Here you go: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism...contemporary 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. 99. (Article is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an anarcho-capitalist.) You cannot get any more reputable than a peer-reviewed journal. Not only that but the author is a critic of anarcho-capitalism. TheIndividualist 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, that is a hotly disputed assertion evidently, and therefore should only be mentioned in appropriate context, not as a mere one-clause weasel phrase. If we were to state anything in the lead, it should be something to the effect of: "Anti-capitalist anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and political scientists frequently disagree as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a subset of the broader anarchist movement." The controversy has to be adequately documented. -- WGee 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
History, through the writings of virtually all self-declared and important anarchists to date, shows us that anarchism is an ideology dedicated to aboloshing all forms of hierarchy and coercion, including capitalism. It shows us that anti-capitalist anarchism is the only form of anarchism to have really existed, or at least the overwhelmingly dominate one. Any ideology that espouses capitalism is therefore incompatible with this historical precedent and should not be classified alongside the egalitarian ideologies of anarchism. -- WGee 03:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's patently false that anarchism is opposed to all forms of coercion. Defensive coercion is fine. Even initiatory coercion is fine for some such as anarcho-communists like Johann Most who advocated terrorism. There is nothing that makes something anarchism other than opposition to the state. TheIndividualist 03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not true, either, though. --AaronS 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't anarchism it wouldnt have the prefix "anarcho" attached. "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchists and now eco-anarchisms." -Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231. TheIndividualist 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence intended, but that is a rather lame rebuttal to what I've written. The semantical meaning of the term is irrelevant as I have stated, nevermind that it was developed by 20th-century anarcho-capitalists who have their own obvious biases. A reductio ad absurdum easily nullifies your inference: if political classifications were based solely on semantics, I could develop a communistic ideology called "communo-capitalism" and correctly declare it a subset of capitalism, even though it is actually contrary to capitalism. Absurd, isn't it? Thus, the semantical meaning of the term, and essentially the term itself, is irrelevant; what matters is its political and historical similarity to anarchism, of which virtually none exists. -- WGee 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The "rebuttal" was a quote from a mainstream political philosophy source. You can argue until the cows come home but mainstream sources consider it a form of anarchism and Wikipedia is about sourced information, not your personal ideas. TheIndividualist 03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
(Actually, your rebuttal didn't contain the quote when I first commented; you added it later.) -- WGee 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Chill about a bit, there, dude. I wouldn't say mainstream sources, but perhaps a mainstream source. --AaronS 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Anybody can right a book and assert a fact; what we need here are well-established, highly-esteemed, reputable sources. Hefty assertions require hefty sources, and a reference to a few unnotable authors is not sufficient. Interestingly enough, I could probably find various analyses of anarcho-capitalism which distance the ideology from anarchism. -- WGee 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The only writers you're going to find saying anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is anti-capitalist writers. No surprise there. TheIndividualist 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
On the Internet, perhaps, but not necessarily in libraries. Unfortunately, though, I don't have access to such a comprehensive library as you do, and am therefore not able to conduct any meaningful bibilographical research right now. That does not mean that your sources deserve mention in the lead (which would be an instance of allocating undue weight to them), nor does it imply that opposing views don't exist. Your suggestions that your sources are mainstream are moot. -- WGee 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Another problem is that, because anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new and absolutely uninfluential ideology, there is not much disscussion of it amongst the more reputable, well-known sectors of academia. Accordingly, it is difficult to say that any source is "mainstream", as a mainstream opinion on anarcho-capitalism doesn't really exist. -- WGee 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
And collectivist forms of anarchism are influential? I look around and a see the world becoming more and more capitalist and away from communism...not the other way around. I am not saying anarcho-capitalism is influencing this but to say other forms of anarchism are influential is ridiculous. They are becoming increasingly obscure by the minute and no one cares. TheIndividualist 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, I find that most general sources on anarchism don't even mention anarcho-capitalism at all. --AaronS 04:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, unless you can find mainstream sources (non-rabid anti-capitalist) that say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism your argument is just personal opinion and doesnt really matter for the article. There are plenty of mainstream references that say that it is. TheIndividualist 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit. Anyways, that doesn't make much sense. The positive claim is that anarcho-capitalism is considered to be a form of anarchism. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. You feel that you have provided that proof, whereas others do not. If I wanted to show that anarcho-capitalism was not considered to be a form of anarchism, I could let silence speak louder than words. But, in this case, all anybody really needs to do is show the myriad of "mainstream" sources on political philosophy that include anarchism but do not mention anarcho-capitalism at all. --AaronS 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
How many sources do you require saying that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism? TheIndividualist 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Although you're right that my argument in thus far personal opinion, it is intended to note that the insertion of a reference to anarchism in the lead is an ill-conceived and conentious idea. My argument is relevant to the use and placement of sources in this article, and so does matter some. It's not as though I'm not trying to insert any original research into the article.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily have to find a source which states that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. As Aaron point out, the fact that many writings on anarchism don't even allude to anarcho-capitalism is evidence enough that its classification as a school of anarchism is contestable. And as I've said before, your interpretation of what is "mainstream" is moot.

-- WGee 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any text that about anarchism that doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism is simply not an exhaustive source on anarchism. There are LOTS of texts about anarchism that aside from not mentioning anarcho-capitalism don't even mention individualist anarchism but that doesn't mean individalist anarchism is not anarchism. It just means that it's not a through text on anarchism. TheIndividualist 04:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Any text that about anarchism that doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism is simply not an exhaustive source on anarchism. Yet there are several comprehensive sources that are exhaustive lists. And when those non-exhaustive lists exclude anarcho-capitalism, it may very well be because it has not been intellectually influential enough throughout history to deserve mention.
That brings me to my next point: when I spoke of influence, I meant intellectual influence throughout history (although several examples of anarchism in practice have been documented by academics). Anti-capitalist anarchism has dominated anarchist intellectual thought, insofar as to constitute the only credible, historical form of anarchism. Out of all of the important anarchist theorists, none of them claimed to be or are widely considered to be pro-capitalist. Its this historical precedent, as I've stated before, that makes the classifcation of anarcho-capitalism as "anarchist" hotly contested. -- WGee 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aaron that you should tone town the rhetoric, some of which I consider incivil and all of which I consider unnecessary. I'm not trying to insert original research into the article, as you insinuate; I'm simply suggesting, through my argument, a more enlightened placement, use of, and labelling of references which consider anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism. Of course your sources aren't irrelevant; my underlying point is that they are highly contenstable and should therefore be presented as highly contestable.
Remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground; Aaron and I are not acting as POV warriors, and niether are you, I assume. Likewise, remember to assume good faith; in other words, assume that our intentions are to improve the encyclopedia, not harm it. Once that mentality prevails, rather than the "us versus them" mentality, the editing process will flow much more smoothly.
-- WGee 05:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What??? Where have I been uncivil? And when did I ever claim you trying to put original research in the article? All I did was point out that anything you put in has to be sourced, just in case you wanted to put your own opinion in. Which is the same thing you and Aaron have been saying to me, by the way. I provided a source and can provide more. TheIndividualist 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I said that you insinuated that I was trying to insert orignal research. Perhaps "uncivil" was too strong of a word; to be more precise, some of your comments, I feel, served to increase tension and promote an atmosphere of heated contention. -- WGee 05:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
And I think you and Aaron have been insinuating I'm putting original research in the article, when in fact I've been putting sourced information in. TheIndividualist 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you've been putting exaggerated, 'ill-placed, and weaselly-worded information into the article, but not original research. In fact, I acknowledged your use of sources, stating: "Of course your sources aren't irrelevant; my underlying point is that they are highly contenstable and should therefore be presented as highly contestable." -- WGee 05:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Weaselly-worded? It's not weasel words if it's sourced. And look at what I wrote. I didn't say it is a form of individualist anarchism. I said "some consider it a form of individualist anarchism" and attached like 8 sources. That is not "weasel words." TheIndividualist 05:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Iceland

Is this section necessary? Does it conform to WP:NPOV? Is it original research? Some people have expressed concern about it in the past. What do you all think? --AaronS 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is huh? How is it orgingal research when half the section is an extended quote by a ancap writer, and the other half is a heavily sourced respose to it? I can see an NPOV argument about ancap/anarchist terminology, but this seems to be attacking the article simply for the sake of attacking the article. I'm not going to remove the tag, because I'm not really involved in editing this article at the moment, but your issues with the section come across as bizzare to me. (Oh and FWIW, the complaints about this had to do with the Somolia part of this, which no longer exists-- I think the consensus about that was the writing on anarco-capitalism in Somolia never rose above the level of blogging.) --Saswann 02:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Woah, there. Just throwing it out there. I wasn't attacking anything, just asking questions. You're right that it doesn't qualify as original research; I suppose that my point, there, was that it doesn't seem to be a significant discussion, so selling it as "anarcho-capitalism in the real world" might be a new synthesis. But, you're right, it's more of a WP:NPOV issue. --AaronS 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
On what grounds it's a NPOV issue? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight. The section should exist, but should be qualified and reduced. --AaronS
Undue weight says "that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In that section equal weight is given to the claim that Medival Iceland had some features of an anarcho-capitalist society and to claim that it "was a communal rather than individualist society". Section can be reduced but I really don't see a point in that. -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You're giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. I think that you misunderstand the policy. All you did was restate the gist of WP:NPOV. You didn't read the undue weight section. If David Friedman, and perhaps a couple other people, think that Medieval Iceland resembled an anarcho-capitalist society, then that's a minority viewpoint. --AaronS 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is article about anarcho-capitalism, so presenting anarcho-capitalist view on certain things is not giving undue weight to that view. That (presenting a-c theories) is the exact purpose of this article. If we were to add a-c view to the article about history of Iceland, that would be giving undue weight; here it's not. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's probably true. Good points. --AaronS 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad that we can agree on something. -- Vision Thing -- 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the example of the Old West can be added in that section. There is an article about that attached to this article. TheIndividualist 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ironic that the article comes from The Journal of Libertarian Studies. I'm not really sure that one academic essay is enough, though. --AaronS 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The Journal of Libertarian Studies is a peer-reviewed journal. It is enough. TheIndividualist 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What is so "ironic" by the way? TheIndividualist 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This was also published in a peer-reviewed journal. But I understand your point. If you want to include it, it would have to be qualified, of course. I said that it was ironic because you have been arguing that anarcho-capitalism belongs in the anarchist tradition instead of the libertarian one, and here you present us with an essay about anarcho-capitalism from an academic journal focusing on libertarian studies. ;-) --AaronS 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The Journal of Libertarian Studies was created with the undertanding that libertarianism referred to individualist anarchism in the US. Individualist anarchism in the 19th century and early 20th century used to be called libertarianism. Old books about Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner refer to them as "libertarians" and anarchists interchangeably. Libertarianism and anarchism are synonyms in old anarchist literature. Murray Rothbard and others just continued the term for the pro-capitalist individualism. TheIndividualist 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That's probably because earlier books were influenced by Proudhon and European anarchism, which was much more significant at the time. In French, the dominant political and philosophical language of the time, and the language of Proudhon, "libertaire" means anarchist, whereas "liberal" means libertarian. Confusing, yes. --AaronS 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Karl Hess founded with Murray Rothbard Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought in 1965. I think that may have been before the term "anarcho-capitalism" was invented. They just considered themselves anarchists. TheIndividualist 05:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


The introductory section of the article is rather dense with information, perhaps needlessly so. If one can't see the ToC without scrolling at 1024x768, I think things may have gone somewhat awry. I'd favor coming up with a more concise introductory paragraph, with any other information moved to the appropriate section of the article as needed. It fits Wikipedia:Lead section better that way.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No thoughts on this? Surely we can be more concise than what's up there right now.--Rosicrucian 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Your relevant and uncontroversial point might have been lost in the bickering. ;-) --AaronS 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Upon further inspection, it does look like VisionThing tidied it up a good deal, and I just missed it. Kudos, VisionThing, that's definitely looking like a step in the right direction. I'll give it another look in 1024x768 once I get back from work, as I don't have local admin rights to adjust my workstation's resolution.--Rosicrucian 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Improper Citations

Many of the sources now being inserted into the article by TheIndividualist were originally inserted by editors RJII and Hogeye, who have now been banned and have a history of inserting sources that do not back the claim or are not properly referanced (i.e. no page number/chapter for entire books, referancing the editor of a compilation of essays without mention of specific essay/author, etc). Given that these referances were first inserted by dubious sources, and given the high likelihood that theindividualist is a sockpuppet of one of the aforementioned now banned users, I'm calling for a citecheck for this article and several others which have been stuffed with the same sources for the same claims. In particular, I would like to know if the texts actually support the specific claims being made, and will begin to visit my local university library in the coming weeks to check them. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. It is true that most of RJII and Hogeye's citations were selectively quoted. Sometimes they would be contradicted on the very same page. --AaronS 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I would add that it does seem peculiar that TheIndividualist appeared out of nowhere and is making the same arguments and using the same sources in the same fashion and with the same tone as RJII, who, last we heard, victoriously vanished in a cloud of smoke with a maniacal, villainous cackle, after being banned. --AaronS 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. Hogye is banned because of personal attack and RJII for the way he left Wikipedia. Can you show some examples of sources that do not back the claim? -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed several today from the individualist anarchism article one at a time and indicated when the source did not support the claim, the examples can be found in the history of the article. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What does it matter WHO inserted the sources? The article is well cited. TheIndividualist 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It matters because there is a necessity of trust involved in sources that cannot be easily checked. If the individuals have a pattern of behavior that suggests they include improper sources, and a pattern of behavior of abusing wikipedia, then it becomes difficult to check their sources. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any pattern of such a thing. Have you? Can you provide evidence? It seems you go around claiming that RHII and Hogeye were putting in improper sources but it is just empty claims. TheIndividualist 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Look through the edit history of the pages involved and you will find dozens of instances of myself pointing out when and where and how the referances were misused or improperly cited. If someone who isn't clearly a sockpuppet of RJII/Hogeye asks for individual examples I would be happy to provide them. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I ask for individual examples of misused or improperly cited sources in this article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I suspect he won't provide examples with the claim that you are a sockpuppet of RJII/Hogeye. That seems to be a common tactic. If all else fails, accuse them of being a sockpuppet. IndividualistAnarchist 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This comment is really funny, now, considering that you were a sockpuppet. Bye, bye. --AaronS 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You should probably note that you're a sockpuppet of User:TheIndividualist on your user page, IndividualistAnarchist. I'm not sure why you removed that note. Also, the fact that you're using two usernames to edit the same article might be in violation of Wikipedia policy. It certainly is needlessly confusing. --AaronS 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not violating any policy. I'm no longer going to use that username. That's why I removed the note. I removed teh note by this usename so anyone could see the new username. IndividualistAnarchist 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
These are a few that I've already removed from the anarcho-capitalism article, they are also being used in this article, as well as individualist anarchism and anarchism. [1], [2], [3], [4]
As for evidence of VT being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of RJ/Hogeye, I already presented it. [5] The commonality of the "tactic" of suggesting that individuals editing these articles in similar ways to Hogeye and RJ may be sockpuppets is seconded only by the number of sockpuppets they seem ready to supply [6], many of which have already been banned. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, so I'm a sock-puppet of RJII or Hogeye? And maybe RJII was Hogeye's sock-puppet, or Hogeye RJII's?
I only see that you removed sources, not that you showed that they were misused. -- Vision Thing -- 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You asked for sources that were improperly cited, the reasons for being improperly cited are in the edit summaries. I've never claimed that Hogeye and RJ were the same person, but you are a sock-puppet of RJII. This claim isn't anything new to you, I brought this up on your talk page long before I brought it to the admins, you just ignored it. Now you are trying to press the claim to discredit it, but the evidence kinda speaks for itself. You would have to be one hell of an obsessed meat puppet to go through these pages and find so many of RJs edits and resurrect them word for word, its much more likely that you simply are RJII. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've seen you deleting sources just because RJII/Hogeye put them there. You're not checking the sources. You're just outright deleting sources with the claim that RJII/Hogeye insert bad sources. Then you come out and claim that RJII/Hogeye have a history of putting in bad sources when you're the one starting the rumour. TheIndividualist 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge in all cases I have removed sources because they were insufficiently documented or misattributed or ambiguous IN ADDITION to being inserted by RJII or Hogeye. If you can point out any instances where I did not provide reasons to remove the citations apart in addition to their dubious editors please do and I will happily change them back myself. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Dictionary of Marxist Thought (1992): "Although anarchism rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist thought. But one important distinction is between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion. 'Anarcho-capitalism' is the a contemporary variant of this school." Intangible 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a page number? IndividualistAnarchist 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Page 21, under the section "Anarchism". Intangible 17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From "The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought" (2002), edited by William Outhwaite: "At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right." Page 14 -- Vision Thing -- 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppet straw-man

I am extremely tired of hearing people revert edits and discrediting editors on the basis that their arguments resemble the arguments and edits of banned users. This is straw-man logic, and also a form of ad hominem, appeal to motive and composition. If you cannot refute the arguments and/or sources on their own grounds, then you haven't a leg to stand on. I have tried to be extremely cooperative in the hopes of forming a consensus by taking into account the opposing views, and have even aided in editing of the article which inserts a questioning tone into the article for the sake of trying to appease those who claim the article is POV, but it doesn't seem like it's ever enough.

I hereby leave this article to the dogs, and hope that one day the conflict will be resolved (hopefully not to the absolute detriment of this article) and would like to return sometime to help patch up and rebuild. Until then, farewell. Two-Bit Sprite 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that all of your edits -- which are much appreciated -- have been countered by a few users who refuse to budge an inch in the other direction. While I assume that they are acting on good faith, and respect their opinions, TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist and company haven't really tried to reach a compromise at all, whereas a lot of other editors have. The sockpuppet charge, while tiresome, is unfortunately understandable, considering the proven and self-admitted harrassment, disruption, and POV-pishing that has occurred on anarchism-related articles on the part of RJII and Hogeye. Further, it has always been added as an afterthought, and has never really been the meat of anybody's claims. There are other, more important issues at hand. I understand that you feel strongly about the subject of this article, and I respect that. I certainly hope that you won't leave as a result of the recent heated discussion. Your input is appreciated, and you're welcome here.
You're right that the sockpuppet argument is very, very difficult to substantiate. But, like I said, I'm sure that, after thinking a bit about the situation, you might understand where some people are coming from. For years, we've dealt with sockpuppet abuse on these articles. The people behind the abuse have no lives outside of Wikipedia and troll it like an AOL chatroom. Sockpuppets are probably Wikipedia's greatest weakness -- along with gaming the system. Both will probably contribute to Wikipedia's demise, if nothing is done about it.
Anyways, I hope that you decide to stick around and not let any of the heated debate get to you. It doesn't need to be this heated -- I agree with you on that -- so maybe we can work to calm it down a bit. --AaronS 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure there are sock puppets on both sides. Obviously Wikipedia was designed to allow sockpuppets. People may need to get things done that they couldn't if they had to be traceable to the same username all the time. Wikipedia is very anonymity friendly. I don't see anything wrong with having sockpuppets at all. IndividualistAnarchist 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know Blah from outside of Wikipedia, so he's not a sockpuppet. Francis is an admin, and he's from the UK. I'm me. That's leaves TUF, who is not a sockpuppet, by process of elimination. But I think it's silly to break it down into "sides," anyways. The issue was that sockpuppets have made the same edits that you have made. Not damning evidence, but it is grounds for reasonable suspicion. Everybody should probably just calmn down. --AaronS 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Being that I am a sockpuppet, I agree that they can be legitimate. However, using a sockpuppet to avoid a ban on your IP is a violation of wikipedia policy, and using sockpuppets to over-represent your position or avoid the 3RR destroys the purpose of the project. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The RJII account was blocked for being a multi-user account. More than one person was using it. No specific user of the account was banned from using Wikipedia. So it make no sense to call anyone a sockpuppet of RJII. Who is RJII? Anyone who edited under that account is free to come on and edit Wikipedia. I'm one of those people. IndividualistAnarchist 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks RJ. BTW - You never finished your manifesto. Could you get back to it before you get blocked again? Thanks. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about abusive sockpuppets. --AaronS 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't make reverts based solely on the belief that they were made by sockpuppets, unless those sockpuppets have already been banned themselves for being sockpuppets, in which case wikipedia policy calls for it. Its not like sockpuppet use by previously banned users is rare around here, as Lingeron and Drowner have very recently demonstrated. If they had the decency to abide by wiki standards when they enter the community, learn from their mistakes when they are temporarily banned and come back ready to start over (or don't come back at all), then things would be different. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Another even more recent example of a banned sockpuppet editing these pages Individualistanarchist.


Some user has put a tag to this article again. What specific cites are being questioned? Intangible 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As has been said -- although I have a fuzzy memory, but it's safe to assume -- the ones placed by the aforementioned banned users, who have been known to misattribute citations. --AaronS 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, those couple of references that I could and did check were ok. Such as The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought and the Dictionary of Marxist Thought. There are other references on Template_talk:Anarchism as well, which are not referenced here, but could. Alas, I cannot attest to the older books, but I guess one just has to assume good faith on those ones. I have no reason to believe that those are incorrectly cited, since two have already been proven correct. Intangible 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no reason to assume good faith with any of those users. They have shown, over and over again, that they are undeserving of such an assumption. --AaronS
I've cleant up the section that this was pertaining to (at least I guess it was this section). Please refer to any other specific reference that you think is unfounded. Otherwise I will have to remove the citecheck tag from the article. Intangible 13:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm too busy to deal with the citecheck, but I do believe Blah said he was working on it. Perhaps we should wait until he satisfies his own curiosity with regard to the matter, before we remove the tag. --AaronS 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we should first have some evidence that there are references which don't support some claims. -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
To best of my knowledge, RJII and Hogeye are not known to misattribute citations. Do you have any exaples of that? -- Vision Thing -- 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

medieval iceland

What's the NPOV tag about? The sources seem to be ok. Intangible 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight, as explained above. --AaronS 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead sentence

People keep on changing it with ostensive disregard for the sources discussed on this talk page, and with ostensive disregard for this talk page in general. The current sentence reads as follows: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, replacing tax funded defense of liberty and property with with voluntarily funded private suppliers of a judiciary, policing and defense. This definition is confusing, grammatically awkward, and actually incorrect. It suggests that anarcho-capitalists only advocate the privitization of jurisdiction, policing and defense; in actuality, however, they advocate the privitization of all functions currently carried out by the state.

Here's one verifiable definition: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and national defense."[7]

Based on this source, I will reinsert my original definition, with some changes: "Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the provision of all of its functions—including jurisdiction, policing, and national defence—by the free market. In the future, I ask that people verify their additions with sources.

-- WGee 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The changes, while perhaps less than perfect, did address a few problems with the sentence as you reverted it:
  • Not all functions of the state will continue under AC - some are inherently coercive, and will be abolished
  • Policing and military defence are not really the same function, and the description doesn't make clear that "national defence" covers defence against internal predators
  • "Systems of justice" doesn't make clear that both civil courts and criminal justice are included.
Argyriou 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I will address your assertions point-by-point:
  • That anarcho-capitalists reject "initiatory coercion" is well documented in the lead, so this first sentence will not be misleading. The current wording, I feel, is the clearest and most accurate way to define ancap in one sentence. Plus, it's sourced, unlike some of the alternatives.
  • These are just a few general examples intended to emphasize the fact that ancaps promote laissez-faire capitalism in all areas of society. Thus, we don't need to be utterly precise in these examples. Remember: this is just the lead; more detail is provided later in the article.
  • I disagree: both civil courts and criminal courts are part of the justice system, aren't they? This example is intended to be inclusive, not exhaustive.
-- WGee 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Your sentence is bad, just as the source's sentence is bad. "All" of the functions of states would not be replaced. Taxation is a function of the state. Censorship is a function of the state. Prohibition of drugs is a function of the state. Banning private ownership of the means of production is a function of the state. What the state's functions are depends on what state you are talking about. The only functions that would be left to the free market would be provision of non-aggressive functions that states have been known to perform, such as protecting individuals from violence perpetrated by other indivduals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by O-boy (talkcontribs) (O-Boy).
I agree, but your propagation of that was ineffective, confusing, and mired by anarcho-capitalist jargon and technicalities. The basic idea of ancap was well-conveyed in my original sentence, no matter how imprecise you believe it was. In any case, I altered the lead sentence to reflect your concerns and the concerns of Argyriou. The result is a slight increase in vagueness; nonetheless, the definition is still factually accurate and as precise as we can muster in one sentence. -- WGee 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Since I was the one who started chaning the intro some short time ago, I will say this:
  • The essential services are recognized as such by anarcho-capitalists. They want these to be provide for by the free market. Anarcho-capitalists do not see them to be essential functions of the state.
  • civil defense vs. national defense. The latter is confusing, since the concept of nation is highly similar to state.
  • jurisdiction vs. judiciary. The latter is necessarily provided for by a government
Intangible 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion for the lead paragraph:

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the provision of legitimate services usually provided by the state - a judicial system, protection from criminals, and protection from foreign aggression - by the free market. Central to the philosophy is the idea of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud, including the tax function and monopoly of force of the state. Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists, property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject the state as a systematic aggressor that should be eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual "has the right to own the product that he has made."[1] and that profit is a natural occuring and non-coercive part of trade. This embrace of capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state.

Here are my reasons for the changes:
  • There needs to be a distinction between legitimate functions and non-legitimate functions provided by the state. ACers believe that a judicial system, police protection (only against what ACers consider crimes), and national defense, so long as there are still states, are legitimate services, but that a monopolistic government cannot legitimately provide those.
  • Some functions of the state which are considered legitimate by nearly all non-anarchists are not considered so by ACers - taxation and maintaining a monopoly of force.
  • The sentence which began Anarcho-capitalists reject the state ... was overblown and redundant, so I trimmed it.
Argyriou 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the concept that needs to be put across. Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker (predecessor of anarcho-capitalism) explains it like this: "defense 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;... and, finally, that the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent of its villainy because it enjoys the unique privilege of compellhlg all people to buy its product whether they want it or not" (O-Boy)

I'd rather give a different description. Instead of political philosophy, I'd say philosophy or philosophy of the individuum, because it certainly is not only a political philosophy - M.S.

But is that an accessible definition that belongs in the lead sentence?--Rosicrucian 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Here is the lead paragraph as it stands now:

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, and the provision of all goods and services—including essential services such as jurisdiction, policing and defence—by the free market. Central to the philosophy is the idea of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud, including state-imposed restrictions on commerce. Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists, property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject "the state" as an unjustified, monopolist thief and systematic aggressor that should be eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual "has the right to own the product that he has made."[1] and that profit is a natural occuring and non-coercive part of trade. This embrace of capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state.

I tried to incorporate the concerns of Argyriou and others into the paragraph without making use of anarcho-capitalist terminology, which can be confusing and off-putting to the uninitiated. For example, what exactly is the "monopoly of force of the state"? What are "legitimate services" in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists? What does "the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud" entail in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists (I've tried to explain in laymen terms that it entails an opposition to all restrictions on commerce imposed by the state, which seems correct from what I've read in the rest of the article). These vague terms and phrases should not be utilized in the lead, although they may be acceptable in the main body, where they can be explained in detail.

Some constructive input on my edits, and on the lead in general, would be appreciated, as I hope to reach a consensus on the lead sometime soon. But please keep in mind my primary concern while offering a critique: that we should avoid vague terminology in the lead and simply "tell it like it is".

-- WGee 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My revert

The current version is fine the way it is for the most part, and there are a lot of POV problems with the old version which have already been rectified in recent versions. Editing of the intro by several editors is not signs of controversiality, but most are minor fixes and clarifications. If resurection of the old intro can be justified here on the talk page, please do so; until then we will continue to work on the existing version. Two-Bit Sprite 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I must say, seeing the size contrast between the old version and new version, I do have to admit that the new version has grown substancially, and has a lot of specific information which is later repeated in other sections. I.e. For anarcho-capitalists, property... might be a bit too much detail for and intro? And the last paragraph I think is well covered already in the History and Influences section... Two-Bit Sprite 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the old version which has been resurected:

  • Usage of language like "private property norms" which implies that a) anarcho-capitalists aim for the status quo in terms of property, which is definately not the case, they instead wish to establish much simpler conceptions of property. The "norms" of property involve states and include such things as imminent domain, search and seasure (occasionally without warrent), etc.
  • "unlimited right of contract" — this is disputed even among anarcho-capitalists. Some ancaps argue that, i.e., one cannot contract oneself into slavery.
  • "aggressor against sovereign individuals" — uses ancap lingo in the voice of wikipedia, implies that wikipedia assumes that individuals are indeed soverign without question.
  • "laissez-faire" — does not preclude all forms of state intervention, i.e. from the laissez-faire article, "It is generally understood to be a doctrine opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights." (emp. mine).
  • Talk of a "government monopoly" in the voice of wikipedia — some would argue that the government does not hold strict monopoly as courts, defense and property enforcement are still offered suplementarily on the free market. Again, ancap lingo.
  • "involuntarily funded through taxation" and "private, competing businesses that provide voluntarily-funded services" — Again, libertarian/ancap jargon, greatly begging the question.

I do agree that the recent versions are getting a bit long (see my comments above) but replacing the current version with an older more slanted version is not the solution. Please try to work with the other editors who have spent time and energy attempting to correct instead of going back to those things which we have intentionally removed. Two-Bit Sprite 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unlimited right of contract" before that it is stated that each individual is sovereign, which implies no one can own someone else.
"laissez-faire" is indeed correct. Since anarcho-capitalist reject the state, your definition is wrong.
A government is indeed a law monopolist.
I see nothing wrong with the intro, except that it might need some wikifying.
Intangible 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"an older more slanted version is not the solution". This is an unfair rule. The older version was a feutuered article. You should be careful before you edit this version as you want. For example, it is no political philosophy. Abolotion of the complete state is no political goal per se. --Uiofvnondc 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How is not wanting 'older more slanted' versions of an article an "unfair" rule? As for featured status, this does not mean the article could stand improvement. Featured status is not immortality, if it was, the page would become locked to edits as soon as it got the status. Two-Bit Sprite 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There were more deliberate editors at the older version. Should we always start to discuss a new version to correct the old version? --Uiofvnondc 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states that anarcho-capitalists believe that individuals are sarcasm. I realize that one could argue that this implies the prohibition of signing oneself into slavery, this is not for wikipedia to judge. This is original research, drawing conclusions in the article which are not backed by sources other than by direvation. Wikipedia does not form conclusions like this, but merely documents the theories and conclusions of others. The language in the old version makes it sound like wikipedia believes that individuals are soverign and that "obviously" this means that one can/cannot sign oneself into slavery.
No this is simple logic. Individual sovereignty implies that no one can own someone else. Your notion "of signing oneself into slavery" is irrelevant to the anarcho-capitalism article. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Now we're into a discussion of the logical coherancy, which is not appropriate on wikipedia, no matter how 'simple' the logic is. The point remains the using the voice of wikipedia to make that connection makes it sound as though wikipedia endorses the premiss. Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That fact that anarcho-capitalists reject the states does not imply that laissez-faire automatically means non-state. If you have source which say otherwise, perhaps you should edit laissez-faire.
There is a difference between a positive and negative definition of laissez-faire. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Care to explain? Are you trying to make the argument that "true" laissez-faire is "naturally" anarchistic? Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As for government being a law monopolist, while it is true that most (perhaps all) ancaps believe this, the old version of the article makes it sound like a matter-of-fact. Two-Bit Sprite 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Law is meant here in a greater sence, namely that the state can dictate a certain social order. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't made clear, and is still using the voice of wikipedia to present this. Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been significant progress on the article since it gained its featured status. Let's not get into the old argument of "well it was featured once, so we should revert it to its featured status." It wasn't cute when Shannon did it, and theres' really no justification for it.--Rosicrucian 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Two-Bit Sprite 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have had some concerns about how topheavy the intro is getting though, as stated above. VisionThing did some good work on it to trim it, so it's certainly gotten better since I originally brought that up.--Rosicrucian 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Then tell me why it should be a political philosphy? This is wrong or at least overweight in the first sentence. --Uiofvnondc 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--Uiofvnondc 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia article political philosophy:
Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term "political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.
Three central concerns of political philosophy have been the political economy by which property rights are defined and access to capital is regulated, the demands of justice in distribution and punishment, and the rules of truth and evidence that determine judgements in the law.
Seems accurate to me.--Rosicrucian 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism kinda undercuts the argument for it to be a political philosophy. Intangible 19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Heck, even if you're one of the folks that say it's a form of libertarianism, it's still squarely a political philosophy.--Rosicrucian 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It is a philosophy about concerning politics, thus a political philosophy. The fact that anarcho-capitalists sit around and think about/discuss political institutions like government makes it fairly identifiably political. Two-Bit Sprite 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Then look to politics. "Politics is a process by which decisions are made within groups." "It is the art or science of government." This is no issue of anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering that Anarchism is described in its article as a political philosophy, you are perhaps putting the cart before the horse here.--Rosicrucian 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Classical Anarchism is something treated in political philosophy because it has positive approaches to a kind of politics. But not anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Calling something a political philosophy is not a value judgement as to whether it is statist or anti-statist.--Rosicrucian 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine. And why should one call it "political"? --Uiofvnondc 20:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Why shouldn't one call it "political"? Under what non-POV definition does "political" not apply to an article that is part of the "Politics Series" under both the Anarchism and Libertarianism templates?--Rosicrucian 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Categories and so on are only for order and organization. --Uiofvnondc 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You are talking in circles. Yes, categories are for order and organization, mentally as well as on wikipedia. You still have not shown why wikipedia should not consider anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy? What's your agenda, what are you trying to get at, it is hair splitting. I understand that maybe some nut job libertarian might say that it is "anti-political", but that should be sourced and attributed, not in the voice of wikipedia. The average person is going to consider this a political philosophy and this is what the wiki should reflect regardless of your (or someone else's) personal philosophies on "what is politics, really", etc... Two-Bit Sprite 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The editor must deliver the evidence for his knowledge. But you have no knowledge as you are stating yourself. You want to use vernacular weasel terms to serve an "average person". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and no soap box. --Uiofvnondc 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the average person defines "politics" in such a way that it would include anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy and we have no reason to break that convention other than your "philosophical" musings about "no wait, I think politics really means this". The point remains that the primary focus of anarcho-capitalism is the abolition of political government, meaning ancap is a philosophy which concerns itself with politics (it just so happens that it's philosphy on politics is that it should be abolished) therefore it is a political philosophy. Two-Bit Sprite 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Political philosophy makes only positive approaches about politics and "fundamental questions about the state, government, ... blah blah". You can prove this easy. Anarcho-capitalism isn't listed in almost no reference book and is not content of the curriculum in any political philosphy course. --Uiofvnondc 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It was formulated by political philosophers. It is primarily debated by political philosophers. It seeks to answer fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. How is it not a political philosophy?--Rosicrucian 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC) "enforcement of a legal code by authority." Sure not! --Uiofvnondc 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact the it isn't mentioned in most text books simply prooves that it is a fringe movement, not that it isn't political, your logic is flawed. Two-Bit Sprite 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
How can you prove that it must be a political philosophy? And, how can you claim that it would be important, when it is not treated as political theory by political philosophers? Not even ancap scholars are decribed as "political philosphers". --Uiofvnondc 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard is a "political philosopher" and he formulated the philosophy.--Rosicrucian 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is he called "political philosopher"? --Uiofvnondc 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
See here Two-Bit Sprite 20:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) is writing about political philosophy. This does not mean that it is. Search yourself. --Uiofvnondc 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You tried to argue that "Not even ancap scholars are decribed as 'political philosphers'." and I'm showing you a source which is very ancap-oriented having pages upon pages talking about political philosophy. Two-Bit Sprite 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So what? I write also comments about political philosophy. I am no political philosopher. And even if I would be one then it wouldn't be clear which kind of a political philosopher. You are poking in the fog. --Uiofvnondc 07:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You are setting yourself up as a straw-man. Rothbard is a published political philosopher. You are fogging up the room with your abstract musings about the definition of politics (which you can't provide sources for) and then accuse people of poking in the fog when they are making strong points (how far can we stretch this analogy? :P). Two-Bit Sprite 13:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

@Two-Bit Sprite You don't work for a consent. This is unacceptable. I don't speak with you. Deliver references for your controversial edits or hold your horses. --Uiofvnondc 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Two-Bit-Sprite that we should restore the former introduction, for all the reasons he stated. The current revision is confusing, off-putting, and tendentious because of its heavy use of anarcho-capitalist, idiosyncratic jargon, as Two-Bit-Sprite noted. The former lead, which I and others had worked on extensively, is a better platform for improvement and can eventually be modified to everyone's liking, I'm sure. The restoration of the current lead was unnecessary and actually degraded the quality of the article. It may have a place in anarcho-capitalist literature, but not in a neutral encyclopedia that's intended to appeal to a broad array of users. -- WGee 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think you ought to calm down, Uiofvnondc. Please remember to be civil. -- WGee 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You are new to this article and have no place to be critisizing my edits, if you were to look at my edit history and my comments on not only this talk page, but my talk page and the talk pages of other users you will see that I have been fighting for consensus for weeks! Please to not blindly accuse me of not attempting to make consensus when you yourself have just plopped yourself right in the middle of it out of nowhere and started making outragious, counter-consensus edits without discussing them on the talk page. The version you want in place reads like a libertarian panphlet and confuses the reader with jargon and rhetoric. This is not only counter-productive for wikipedia, it also gives anarcho-capitalists (I am assuming you are one based on your (albeit, short) edit history) a bad name for refusing to be self-critical and rational about the subject. Please stop. Two-Bit Sprite 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You put POV without any reference into the article. I warn you. --Uiofvnondc 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Uiofvnondc.--Rosicrucian 20:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Then deliver references for your version. This is good faith. How much time should I give you? --Uiofvnondc 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Idle threats aren't advancing your position at all and only serve to make you seem like a spastic nut-case. Your edits are no more referenced than mine, so you haven't much of a leg to stand on, but I will oblige you. What would you like references on? Two-Bit Sprite 05:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be inflamatory, I'm merely suggesting that you calm down a bit and attempt to discuss this with us rationally instead of ignoring my points (as I have several above which you have not responded to) or making vague threats about "I warn you" or "How much time should I give you?"... This is not productive. I am very happy to discuss this with you openly, but only so long as you are willing to be civil and open to my input and ideas. You speak of consensus, yet I see only one other person agreeing with you and several disagreeing with you, yet you refuse to discuss the issue rationally accusing others of not forming consensus with you. Two-Bit Sprite 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

@Two-Bit Sprite Your personal attack: "Idle threats ... make you seem like a spastic nut-case" Thanks.

Your are not willing (and not able, of course) to deliver a reference for "political philosophy". This is the first point in the first sentence. I have still not started to discuss much about the second and third issue but you are already making trouble at the first one. It's no problem when you have different opinons or that you claim that my arguments are not better but you are deteriorating the article with POV or wrong weighted opinions. So, you ignore Wikipedia NPOV policies. --Uiofvnondc 08:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've already stated, I feel you need to present a well-founded argument for how AC is not a political philosophy as it seems you are the only one who seems to hold this position. What definition of "political" are you using which excludes AC. Anyways, I said I would indulge you, so here it is:
Miriam-Webster defines politics as "5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view"
here is Rothbard talking about political philosophy specifically by name.
"Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory." David Gordon, here.
"Rothbard's evolving political views..." Justin Raimondo, "An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard", p. 33
"Other differences, which also still exist, are more philosophical: should we be Lockians, Hobbesians, or Burkeans: natural rightsers, or traditionalists, or utilitarians? On political frameworks, should we be monarchists, check-and-balance federalists, or radical decentralists?" (em. mine) Murray Rothbard, "A Strategy for the Right" in "The Irrepressible Rothbard" p. 5
Two-Bit Sprite 16:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not familar enough with basic wikipedia polices:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Your "references" are all no proof. You have only bad indications. I need only one reputable source. Which one should be one? Which one should I confute? --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the trouble is we're just not operating on the same wavelength here. We don't really understand why you're objecting to calling it a political philosophy, when 90% of anarchist and libertarian movements are political philosophies, and your explainations for the objection have been rather vague, even after we've explained that calling something a political philosophy is not a value judgement on whether it is statist or anti-statist. Especially in the case of anarcho-capitalism, its view that the preservation of public order should be provided by private means is a view on "the enforcement of a legal code by authority." Anarcho-capitalism has strong views on what is and is not a legitimate government, and where a government derives its authority to do what. That makes it a political philosophy by most definitions. You seem to be operating from a different viewpoint, but have taken little time and words to actually explain that viewpoint so that we may debate and achieve consensus.--Rosicrucian 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have explained this. Ancap is no subject of political science because there is almost nothing political. And there is no "politics" in this movement. The only thing which could be political is an "public right" to "ignore" the state. That's all. This is far away from the whole history of political philosophy. The second claim "that calls for the abolition of the state" is also misleading. It is not the intension of Ancaps to take away the state from the whole world or a whole country because it is a individualist ideolgy. But your phrase implies a collectivism. This is wrong. --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sidestepping your usual vague argument about "it's not political," let's take a look at the abolition of the state argument. The article repeatedly reiterates that "Anarcho-capitalists reject the state as a coercive monopoly that derives its income from legal aggression (i.e. taxation) and thereby violates the non-aggression principle." Which means that anarcho-capitalists are calling for the abolition of the state, or at least the abolition of the state as we know it. This is a common thread running throughout the article, and thus deserves to be summarized in the lead sentence or at the least the intro paragraph because it is so entwined with the article itself.--Rosicrucian 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
What you reiterate about the article is an ethical/ideological consequence. What the article's intro describes could be a political doctrine. When you blame me for "vague arguments" then you should not defend them yourself. --Uiofvnondc 19:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. What I really want to know is what motivates you to oppose its being called a political philosophy. -- WGee 17:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV, and you? --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern Somalia

We have to add something to this example, because it doesn't hold to truth anymore. Since the uprisings of the Islamic Court Union in early 2006, the anarchism in Mogadishu (were it was most prevalent) has almost ended. We now have a situation of crisis between the "federal government" and the ICU. Mogadishu is more of a theological dictatorship than anything comparable with anarchism. I think we should therefore add this to the column to prevent misunderstandings. - --Moddy 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Somalia reference has always been invalid, for how on earth can it be cited as an example of a stateless capitalist society when Somalia itself is a state? The recently-unfolding events in Somalia make the reference even more unwarranted. If this were the laissez-faire article, then perhaps the reference would have merit. -- WGee 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I think the reference was skewed to make Somalia seem like a real-life example of anarcho-capitalism; I doubt the book even mentioned the word anarcho-capitalism or said that Somalia was a "stateless" society. Note that an unregulated market economy is not necessarily an anarcho-capitalist one. -- WGee 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read the book. The authors didn't write about a state. Governments are far away of peoples live in wide regions of Somalia. Of course, an unregulated market economy is necessarily an anarcho-capitalist one. What else? --Uiofvnondc 18:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism takes great pains to avoid coercive practices of any type. Somalia was ruled by brutal warlords, and stumbled upon an unregulated market economy more or less by accident. I would say it falls well short of the anarcho-capitalist ideal.--Rosicrucian 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1. When Somalia was ruled by brutal warlords, what is your problem with Somalia today. 2. There are many states - if not all - far away of a democratic or constitutional ideal. Should we say, there are no really states? --Uiofvnondc 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Somalia is ruled by warlords who murder their opponents and loot and destroy their property, thereby violating the non-aggression principle. The country is also ruled by Islamic clerics who impose strict Sharia law in their strongholds. The militias of the Islamic Courts Union and the warlords do not operate out of contract, as they would in anarcho-capitalism; rather, they oppress their subjects with physical intimidation and local hierarchies. Moreover, albeit it a very unathoritative one, Somalia does have an internationally-recognized national government and that does legislate beyond the bounds of natural law. Thus, there can exist a free market economy that is not anarcho-capitalist; your suggestion otherwise is ludicrous, because anarcho-capitalism is much more than an economy, as evidenced by this article. -- WGee 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The U.S. are ruled of a warlord. Somaliland and Puntland are not ruled by "warlords". Every crime violates the non-aggression principle. Must an "ancap society" be without crime? Anarcho-capitalism is not only made by libertarian thinkers but also by economists without NAP-doctrination. And Somalia isn't ruled of Islamic leaders. The Islam is a strong holded religion in Somalia. This is no rule of authoritative people but it is costomary law enforced by private arbitrators. Every Somali may become a private arbitrator but he must seek confidence. This is often near by private property law. Your "internationally-recognized national government" is not present anywhere in the north. Puntland and Somaliland have also sockpuppet "governments" with a laughable budget. A Somali told me something about 15 million $ per annum. I am not clear about this. Probably from international fonds. But interventions of a government is not noticeable in the north. Your governments are a bad joke. Of course, anarcho-capitalism is much more than an economy. I don't deny this. So what? Democracy is also much more than an economy. But when you search a comparison then Somalia is an example (well or not) of a currently stateless society as so much as the U.S. are an example of democrazy society, isn't it? --Uiofvnondc 06:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm having much trouble understanding your argument, I can say for sure that your understanding of Somalia is skewed, to say the least. Somalia is ruled by a combination of Islamic militiamen and secular warlords, and their strongholds are not bound by political borders (e.g. Somaliland and Puntland). These two hetereogeneous groups have de facto replaced the government as the rulers of the nation. Much like an authoritarian government, they physically intimidate civilians who oppose them, and through this intimidation they pillage homes as they wish and impose idiosyncaratic laws (such as Sharia law) in their strongholds. Just because a "government" doesn't practically exist, it does not mean that other oppressive rulers have not assumed power. Somalia thus does not resemble an anarcho-capitalist society. Why would any anarcho-capitalist want to associate their ideology with the humanitarian distaster that is Somailia, anyway? -- WGee 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't help but think a great many anarchists of varying flavors have gotten a disproportionately rosy look at the "anarchism" of Somalia out of wishful thinking and a desire to say "Look! Anarchism works!"
Which ultimately is a pitfall of any political philosophy that doesn't have a real-world counterpart to point to as a proof-of-concept.--Rosicrucian 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is no rule of authoritative people but it is costomary law enforced by private arbitrators. That's an oxymoron: arbitrators are necessarily authoritarian. (Though maybe this oxymoron stems from the fact that English is not your first language?) In any case, the militias are not operating out of voluntary contract, as would be necessary for anarcho-capitalism to exist; rather, they are violently imposing their will upon various, often unconsenting populations. In other words, nobody is voluntarily paying the militias to protect "natural rights"; the militias have arbitrarily decided to rule, with no limit to the extent of their authority. Surely that cannot be compatible with the anarchist ideal that anarcho-capitalism claims to espouse. -- WGee 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you want to discuss with me you have to accept some prepositions

  1. There is no "the one Somalia" with struggling (islamic) "warlords" everywhere. The North is quiet and peaceful. When you make all in one judgements without any proof then I must dismiss you. When you say that "Islamic militiamen and secular warlords ... are not bound by political borders" then just this is an image of "private security agencies". They are defending their property (rightful or not). So they are "property owner" with the same right for correctness.
  2. Nobody says that Somalia, resp. the quiet and peaceful part, is an ideal of an anarcho-capitalist image or that it is an anarcho-capitalist society. But the comparsion is allowed in the same way as democrats would claim that the U.S. are a democracy. In your understanding, the U.S. is no democracy since it doesn't fullfil the ideal of a democracy. Furthermore there is no democracy in the whole world because all states with "democratic" governments fail in to be rightful democratic. So, what's wrong with your understanding? Quite simply, anarcho-capitalism is only a meta-system of thinking like perfect democracy is only an theoretical ideal which can never be reached.
  3. The fall of government is no "humanitarian distaster" in Somalia. Obviously you are bad informed.
  4. When disputing parties voluntarily agree to an arbitrator then this is not "authoritarian". Please stop with telling your private wisdom.
  5. One of the strengths of Somali law is that it is close to natural law as Van Notten says in his book. You must not agree. I tell you only a fact of an imho reputable source.
  6. Last but not least. Conventionalism to the NAP in a ancap society is desirable in the libertarian impact. But there is no requirement in a stateless society to an "anarcho-capitalist" to act on NAP. The anarcho-capitalism of Freedman doesn't need any NAP. --Uiofvnondc 09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Earlier, we'd moved the Libertarianism sidebar down because having it right beside the anarchism one squishes the layout terribly. The discussion is above. I don't mind moving the Libertarianism sidebar up a bit, but I do think we can't have them right next to each other. It's just messy. Perhaps put Libertarianism on top, and anarchism below?--Rosicrucian 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh... I didn't realize someone else had already talked about this, anyways, I have more comments below. --Two-Bit Sprite 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That was my original goal: to have libertarianism on top and anarchism below. I just didn't know how to effect that change and ended up inadvertently placing the templates side-by-side. -- WGee 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


While I agree that both libertarianism and anarchism play a very large role in anarcho-capitalists theories, I have to object with both templates being at the top for asthetic reasons. I think we need to pick one, and move the other down. In 1024x768, having both templates at the top squeezes the intro such that it doesn't all fit in the first screenful. I feel the intro is perfectly sized as it stands, and could withstand any reduction, so I say the only option is to move one of the templates... Thoughts? --Two-Bit Sprite 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit

Firstly, there are several spelling and grammatical errors, but those are minor slights. Primarily, the problems are, in contextual order:

  1. Confusing the reader by lack of explaining the theory as a political philosophy, and then immediately discussing politics. Reference to "the state" outside of the context of politics is confusing as it has multiple meanings. State of mind? Is it refering to the phyisical concept of state?
  2. Immediately explaining the ideology in negative terms (i.e. what it rejects).
  3. "The free market ideal of a stateless society..." sounds like wikipedia is claiming the the ideal free market is a stateless society, when plenty of people disagree (see most economists).
  4. "profided by an economy and social system of privacy of all goods and services..." — mispelling of the word "provided" and misuse of the word "privacy". Also, undue weight with the italics; "all" means all, no need to over-stress it, you are not argueing with anyone in this article (which is what it sounds like you are trying to do).
  5. Makes reference to mysterious "Rothbard" figure without explanation or even a full name or wikilink. Even if this were provided, it is a bit early to introduce historical figures until the concept itself is fully explained.
  6. "Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require collective regulation to be successful..." — still has an antagonistic tone, as though the article is a rebuttle to something, which it isn't supposed to be. Sounds like Wikipedia is preaching to the "evil collectivists". This is not encyclopedic.

Two-Bit Sprite 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Before I start any discussion about the edit style and issues of taste - this is not the main point in Wikipedia - you have to deliver a reputable source. See above. Moreover you have more changed than "my last edit" and you have removed more than my work. --Uiofvnondc 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "political philosophy", both Anarchism and Libertarianism are defined as a political philosophy and Anarcho-capitalism as a form of both can't be nothing else but a political philosophy. As for the sources, here and here anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a political theory. -- Vision Thing -- 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Concerning "political philosophy", both Anarchism and Libertarianism are defined as a political philosophy and Anarcho-capitalism as a form of both can't be nothing else but a political philosophy. -- is a new syntesis. See W:NOR. (It is also wrong but it is the same.)
As for the sources, here and here anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a political theory.
-- You need a reputable source that ancap must be a political philosophy. Your 2 references don't tell anything about it. On Rothbard: "His areas of interest were economics, history and political philosophy and he has written works on economic history," So what? I am also interested in political philosophy. "Perspective on the History of Economic Thought26; a history of the American colonies from the 17th century to the American Revolution, Conceived in Liberty27; works on economics, Man, Economy and State28 and Power and Market,29; works on political philosophy," So what? Rothbard commented historical and contemtorary political philosophy.
"political theory" in the title of a essay. -- So what? One may quest what should it mean? The word "political" is often used in a vernacular sense. --Uiofvnondc 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sources or not, I don't see how it is not a theory concerning politics. The fact that it is against politics is proof that it concerns itself with politics thus making it a philosophy of politics. I don't see how this can be questioned. Saying I need sources to "proove" this, is like saying I need sources that say it is a theory. It simply is so by definition of the term "political". It is a philosophy that criticises politics, therefor it is a philosophy about politics, plain and simple. --Two-Bit Sprite 18:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't the slightest clue why you think referring to anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy is an NPOV violation. It certainly is not orignal research or a "new" synthesis, either, because a referenced article on political philosophy already exists. If you keep objecting to the term, we may have to replace it with the generic, broad term ideology, whose pertinence to anarcho-capitalism is indisputable. -- WGee 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
@Twobitsprite: This is your new synthesis. This new synthesis is not allowed by W:NOR. It is nothing more to say. And I have no problem with "anti-political philosophy". --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
@WGee: In your "referenced article" is a list of "Influential political philosophers". For example, Hayek shall be one but Rothbard not. Or Friedman: Friedman has coined his important part to anarcho-capitalism. How can Friedman be a political philosopher? When anarcho-capitalism must be a political philosophy then every person coining the term must be anyway a political philosopher or there must be at least an other way to coin the term but which one? There is no remark about it but political shall be so important that is must be noticed. Why? To speak with your words: I haven't the slightest clue why you think referring to anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy. I have no POV-problem with "ideology". The only thing of anarcho-capitalism which could be "political" would be a public right to ignore/leave the state to an own sovereignty. (And this is now my unreferenced sysnthesis of "political".) The rest is absolutely apolitical. You can say it is also a "social theory". Ok. I would agree. But a social theory must not be political. To say, it is political, is far away from of a neutral tone and far away of the actually practise in political science. --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I unequivocally agree with Two-Bit-Sprite's Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit. -- WGee 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no democracy. --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battleground, either, though your defensive and sometimes aggressive tone suggests otherwise. In any case, to say that anarcho-capitalism is not political is abosultely ludricrous: anarcho-capitalism intends to radically restructure the entire political system as we know it.
To say, it is political, is far away from of a neutral tone and far away of the actually practise in political science That is such an outrageous, groundless, and ridiculous postulation. I encourage you to read any scholarly political science text, or even to just read some Wikipedia articles: socialism, anarchism, communism, fascism, conservatism, liberalism, social democracy are all political ideologies—anarcho-capitalism is no exception. You insist on impeding progress in this article over one word; what's worse is that your arguments make utterly no sense and are not supported by a single source or precedent (because none supporting your argument exist). I'm convinced that your opposition to the word "political" is a corollary of your unfamiliarity with some conventional English semantics. -- WGee 22:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How am I aggressive? Are your arguments dieing down that you need personal reviews? At first you have to deliver a reputable source for your edit. This couldn't be so hard if you would be right, isn't it? --Uiofvnondc 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Our statements of fact are based on the most simple deductive reasoning:
  1. Premise: Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority.
  2. Premise: Anarcho-capitalism studies fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority.
  3. Conclusion: Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy.
To which one of the premises do you object?
I assure you that no native English speaker would consider the word "political" a tendentious one: the word "political" merely means "relating to politics". You have failed to present a coherent argument as to why the use of the word "political" is an NPOV violation and why anarcho-capitalism is not a political ideology or philosophy. Please read Ideologies of parties, for example, where you will find that anarcho-capitalism is defined as a political ideology. Please briefly read also the articles on politics, political science, and political philosophy.
--WGee 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well put. --Two-Bit Sprite 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources are unnecessary for things that are god-damned obvious. That's why we don't have to sprinkle the ghosts article with sources from scholarly journals repudiating the existence of ghosts. --AaronS 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It was obviously no "political" philosophy during years in Wikipedia and a featured article without it. But now, surprisedly, some people will hoick it with all power. Why? --Uiofvnondc 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article's FA status is moot, because it is currently under review, and as comments have shown, it probably should not have ever been accorded such status. We're working towards that goal, now, but it will be impossible as long as this discussion is occurring. If you do not think that anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, then I invite you to write a treatise on how a philosophy can discuss politics without being political, advocate altering politics without being political, and so on, and then have it be published. I think that you may be confusing a notion (which, I believe, probably does not exist) like politicist with a descriptor like political. The former would denote advocacy, whereas the latter simply informs us that it deals with questions of politics. For anarcho-capitalism to be anti-political, it would have to advocate the rejection of politics in favor of I do not know what. Even then, it would simply be an anti-political political philosophy. --AaronS 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
on how a philosophy can discuss politics -- Which politics? The NAP is no politics. To reject the state is no politics, economic theory is no politics and so on. without being political -- What is political? What do you mean exactly? advocate altering politics without being political -- Only a small and inapplicable part of all ancap theories advocate anyway an "altering" of politics. Anarcho-capitalists wouldn't longer write critics on the state when they could simply secede. And when they could secede then they wouldn't make any critics about the state or any artful suggestions about politics because it wouldn't be their matter. It is only a statist view that anarchists are involved into politics. --Uiofvnondc 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As a problems of political philosophy Rothbard saw: "nature and role of liberty, property, and violence." (The Ethics of Liberty) -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What's your argument? --Uiofvnondc 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are the problems on which anarcho-capitalism tries to answer. Political philosophy doesn't need to have anything to do with government, elections, parties, etc. -- Vision Thing -- 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Specifically, it (Crusoe economics) can aid greatly in solving such problems of political philosophy as the nature and role of liberty property, and violence.[2]" A comment about political philosphy. The same is when I say: "Political philosophy need more accuracy and thruthfulness." This is no politcal statement. It is only a statement about political sciences.--Uiofvnondc 15:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what are you trying to prove but here is one clear definition from Rothbard: "Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property)." -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This defintion is onesided. It is correct that politics is the proper role of violence in human life. But to say that property comes from the proper role of violence in human life depends on the term property itself. Rothbard used consequently in this book his natural law persepective to declare universal public rules. But many anarcho-capitalists don't follow natural law rules. For example, property is a voluntary treaty within two parties without violence. Nobody calls this "politics". It is not a treaty and it is not allotted property for the thirth and forth party or person. So, this property is no public rule for all and it so no deal with the proper role of violence because it is voluntary. You may say that Rothbard's theory is a natural law political philosophy. OK. But is anarcho-capitalism a natural law philosophy? Or is anarcho-capitalism a political philosophy by Rothbards controversial natural law part? No. No. No. This is much too easy. This leads to wrong assumptions and therefore it is POV. --Uiofvnondc 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)



  1. about "political" and "related to": Please, look to the connotations of "political" on M-W. or and then say me which connotation you mean.
  2. deductive reasoning: Your premise is wrong or at least inexact. Political philosophyAnarcho-capitalism is not the study of ... "law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority." Nevertheless it would be a new synthesis. This is forbidden by W:NOR.
  3. Rothbard made an important comment about political philosophy which is not evaluated in Political philosophy. Rothbards effort and intension was always to establish a "philosophy of liberty" which would be pertinent to the political scene. Of course, his wish was to construct a political philosophy of liberty because this would mean at least that his ideas of liberty would be affiliated anyway in the political sciences. His work "Ethics of Liberty" "attempts ... to set forth a systematic ethical theory of liberty. It is not, however, a work in ethics per se, but only in that subset of ethics devoted to political philosophy." So, he wanted that other people would assimilate his ideas into contemporary political philosophy. This had not happened because political philosophers in whole history have made only positive approaches of any political systems or hierachical public orders. Also the classic anarchist philosphers like Prodhun aimed to an authoritative political order. Rothbards work is until today absolutely not compatible to political philosophy. To claim it would be purely political now is a new and unusual thesis in the political scieces. If you reflect to a vernacular sense then it would be a weasel term. --Uiofvnondc 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Other source says "Rothbard's political theory of anarcho-capitalism", but I agree with AaronS and WGee, sources are really a non-issue here. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"Other source" is no reputable source. And agreements to mysticsism is no Wikipedia like behavior. But I see you want to enforce this opinion against my reasoned arguments. Then I add a section in the article reflecting how ancap is a political philosophy and how not. Maybe for your disgrace. --Uiofvnondc 12:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What will the new section say? "Uiofvnondc has argued (poorly) that Anarcho-capitalism should not be considered a political philosophy.[1]" ???
At first, your POV statement in the intro is poor. --Uiofvnondc 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're dodging the question... I'm asking you what your new section would say. —Two-Bit Sprite 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Only some facts in relation to political philosophy and political science. You have started this topic as to be so important. --Uiofvnondc 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that:

"Political philosophy is not the study of ... 'law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority.'"

If you're contesting another Wikipedia article's definition of a term, that argument would be better made on that article, rather than attempting to redefine it without consensus for this article.--Rosicrucian 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've read your correction. However, anarcho-capitalism does have a view on "law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority." That view is that the state does not have any special authority to enforce a legal code, and that its practices in doing so are illegitimate and monopolistic. As we've been stating all along, even being antipolitical is a political viewpoint.--Rosicrucian 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now you mean, "a view on" is "the study of". Which sense shall it make in our discussion when you bend the terms as you need it? The view that the state would have no right to enforce a legal code is no study of law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. The task of political philosophy was always to develop political theories of law and law enforcement to justify and establish public rules. Anarcho-capitalism cannot deliver any contribution to this because it would be a contradiction in itself. When you agree that this is an anti-political view why do you not write that it is anti-political? --Uiofvnondc 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is a problem with your understanding of English. Anti-political is not the same as un-political or non-political. Two-Bit Sprite 23:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What again? I answered to Rosicrucian. He had used the term. Read this before you turn on me. --Uiofvnondc 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that Rosicrucian used the term, I am merely giving my input. He used the term 'antipolitical' and you distorted that term to mean 'nonpolitical'. You are dodging my point. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You are confused. I have not used the word non-political. --Uiofvnondc 15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
But that is what you are saying, that anarcho-capitalism is non-political, i.e. is not political. Two-Bit Sprite 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have used clearly the word anti-political. One time more, then I become abusive. --Uiofvnondc 08:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you have used it incorrectly, is what Sprite is saying.--Rosicrucian 15:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Your entire argument is that anarcho-capitalism is not political, therefore you are saying that it is non-political, yet now you change your argument such that you assert that it is anti-political, which is not the same thing. Anarcho-capitalism is not a philosophy the criticizes the study of political philosophy, instead it is a political philosophy that criticizes most other philosophies of politics. Also, are you attempting to make threats at me with you "then I become abusive"?? If so, you will not get anywhere with your idle threats, except maybe banned. Two-Bit Sprite 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


@Uiofvnondc You earlier said that: "Not even ancap scholars are decribed as "political philosphers"." However, in introduction of The Ethics of Liberty it is said: "Accordingly, Rothbard saw himself in the role of a political philosopher...".

Also, "Libertarianism as developed in The Ethics of Liberty was no more and no less than a political philosophy". -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Political", in this context, means "Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state." [8] You said: The task of political philosophy was always to develop political theories of law and law enforcement to justify and establish public rules. That is utterly wrong. The task of political philosophy is to merely study and postulate on fundamental questions about political authority, not necessarily to justify the existence of authority. That statement of yours proves that you don't understand what political philosophy/politics/political science is; that is why you have been unable to present a sensible argument. Just because the ideology wants to abolish legal authority and the state, it does not mean that it is not a political ideology. Honestly, your argument is ridiculous and senseless, and the fact that you are impeding the article's progress over this is frustrating. -- WGee 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I have already answered to this at 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2. libertarianism and political philosophy - what a hard and overweight word! Walter Block (scholar, Austrian School) writes exceptionally: "Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation. That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification and answering misconceived objections."--Uiofvnondc 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"To reject the state is no politics. . ." Erm, yes it is. Refer to the definition above. -- WGee 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have asked you for the connotation of "political" on M-W. or Answer this! --Uiofvnondc 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, but it seems odd that you'd want to confine me to the use of two dictionaries. . . According to Webster's dictionary, political means "of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics" or "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government." Both of those definitions are applicable to anarcho-capitalism. In any case, Vision Thing has already presented sources attesting to anarcho-capitalism's status as a political philosophy, and I have directed you to Ideologies of parties, which lists anarcho-capitalism as a political ideology. Your argument is inherently flawed because it is based on an incorrect notion of English semantics. -- WGee 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
political means "of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics" - Anarchists don't relate to politics. They want only their freedom. (Example: "Voting is a political act")
Non-voting can also be a very powerful political statement/act. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Only when it shall transfer a political demand. But powerful? That would be new to me. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The act of open and vocal non-voting has been used by anarchist for decades. Demonstrations outside of voting centers, etc. I suppose 'powerful' would be subjective, but nevertheless it has been used. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Most ancaps who I know say only that it makes no sense to vote. That's all. --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
'Most ancaps who I know' is not a varifiable ro reliable source. Two-Bit Sprite 21:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you kow what I can support? Look to your own sources. --Uiofvnondc 11:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
or "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government." -- Ancaps are not the government. Could it be possible that you have not understand the meaning of these dictionaries? For example, when you say: "taxation is political crime". Then you relate to politics of government or state but not to yourself.
Again, I think you are misinterpreting the nuances of the English language. I think you are interpreting the word 'relating' to mean 'associated with', instead of 'relative to' or 'in terms of' as it actually means in this instance. I'm not even sure I understand what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, on are examples for the connotations. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You tell others not to use the vernacular meaning of the word, and then continue to refer to a single dictionary as though it were the end-all-be-all of the english language. But I will play your game. under 'political philosohpy' immediately cites Britanica, which says: "Branch of philosophy that analyzes the state and related concepts...". Yes, Anarcho-capitalism analizes the state and related concepts and it's analysis is that states are intrusive and unnecessary. So, according to your chosen source, a/c is political. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I said already that political philosphy makes only positive approaches to politics. This is an empirical fact of the political sciences. A fast defintion doesn't take this into account. And, the only relation is that it is a counter philosophy. --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the historian's fallacy, saying that in the past all Xers have always done Y means that Y is inherent to X. This is the same argument that claims that Anarcho-capitalism can't be a form of anarchism because anarchists have traditionally been anti-capitalist. This is like saying that Pragmatism is not a true epistemological philosophy because it breaks the traditional idealism of previous epistemologists. Two-Bit Sprite 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Therefore ancap is no classical anarchism and contemporary political sciences doesn't speak about anarcho-capitalism as philosophy (if at all). --Uiofvnondc 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You concede my point, then attempt to argue as though it supports yours. My point is that just because most political philosophers ponder how a state should operate does not mean that it is forbidden for another political philosopher to contemplate the justification of the state, and further to conclude that it is not justified. Two-Bit Sprite 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite simply, there is no suited connotation.
I don't know any anarcho-capitalist party. I think, you are making jokes. --Uiofvnondc 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of any anarchist party either, yet you earlier were talking about how anarchism is political in contrast with anarcho-capitalism. The lack of a party does not mean the lack of a political theory. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
One small "political" "theory" doesn't make yet a "political philosophy". These terms are very inexact. Philosophy should be a "field of study". Anarchocapitalism is quite no political field of study except of the legitimacy of the state. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The theory about the legitimacy of the state is the core of a/c theory, so how can you accnowledge that that core is political, and then claim somehow that a/c is not political? Besides, your understanding of the word 'philosophy' is a bit odd. I would say that 'science' is a "field of study", but philosophy is "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline."[9] Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The theory about the legitimacy of the state is only political by the fact that one can deduce a public right to secede. The core is much more. Economics, social theory, ideology criticism, private law enforcemnt, private security, private money, ethics, classic liberal history and so on. (I have only used the defintion of the wikipedia article. I am not sure if it is correct.) --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You are still argueing in circles. You admit that there at least some political aspect to it, yet reject the whole thing as non-political? The economics, social theory, etc all stem from this political insite of the right to reject coercive institutions, plus some abstract theorizing about how society would evolve to deal with the lack of a state. Two-Bit Sprite 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
On the whole it is non-poltical. How can you deny this? You have a statist view. The anarcho-capitalist social and economic theory is also valid when there would be no state. Maybe nobody would have constructed such theories without states or other mafias but something is not political only by the fact that it probably wouldn't exist without a state. For example, a book about the history of U.S. governments is only a bibliography. It wouldn't exist without states. But it is absolutely non-political. --Uiofvnondc 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalists postulate on how a state-less society would operate, but the primary arguments of anarcho-capitalism are its criticisms of the state; the rest is orthogonal. Ancapism is not in and of itself an economic theory — most anarcho-capitalists embrace Austrian economics, but this does not make it the core of ancapism. Look at the majority of Rothbard's books, most of them are about the state, and are criticisms and attacks on the state. Two-Bit Sprite 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Well I think User:Uiofvnondc is claiming that anarcho-capitalism might not in itself give rise to political actions, but that is not wholy correct. Rothbard would argue that there exists a political philosophy within libertarianism (and thus anarcho-capitalism), that would entail a strategy that holds liberty as it highest political end, and searches for means that will give rise to liberty in the quickest possible way. In an anarcho-capitalist society this question of course cannot exist, since everyone will live in complete liberty, with no political ends that come to mind. Intangible 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that Rothbard followed a strategy to construct a "political philosophy of liberty" in his book "Ethics of Liberty". But if you call this a "libertarian political philosophy" or if you call this the attempt to establish the right thinking into contemporary political philosophies is a point of view, either. I prefer the latter view. --Uiofvnondc 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to express. If anarcho-captialism seeks to, in your words, "establish the right thinking into contemporary political philosophies," it is a political ideology. -- WGee 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This was only an approach of Rothbard. There is no need to accomplish his political affairs as anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
From book's description: "The Ethics of Liberty authoritatively established the anarcho-capitalist economic system as the most viable and the only principled option for a social order based on freedom." Libertarianism, as developed in The Ethics of Liberty, is anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this book is a little bit political. This doesn't make Rothbard to a political philospher, not to mention complete anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's rather reaching to try to claim Rothbard isn't a political philosopher. The man was a founding member of the American Libertarian party.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So what? He left the party after he saw that the party couldn't help him.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the introduction of The Ethisc of Libery said that Rothbard is a political philosopher. That's a reliable source and I don't know why are you fighting with windmills here. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not true. Hoppe writes: "Rothbard was the creator of a system of social and political philosophy based on economics and ethics as its cornerstones." ... "Rothbard's unique contribution is the rediscovery of and philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism." ... " Accordingly, Rothbard saw himself in the role of a political philosopher as well as an economist essentially as a preserver and defender of old, inherited truths, and his claim to originality, like that of Mises, was one of utmost modesty. Like Mises, his achievement was to hold onto and restate long-ago established insights and repair a few errors within a fundamentally complete intellectual edifice."
As I statet above, you may say that Rothbard's theory is a natural law political philosophy. Not more. --Uiofvnondc 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Then it is a political philosophy, what is your boggle? Two-Bit Sprite 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A cup of tea doesn't make an ocean. --Uiofvnondc 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And clever saying don't make an argument, please don't sideline my points with your witty aphorisms. The rejection of the state is at the core of Anarcho-capitalism, all other points are merely postulations on how a society without centralized government would operate. Two-Bit Sprite 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop joking around?

Uiofvnondc has gotta be yanking our chains. How else can he claim, on the same day, that anarcho-capitalism is anti-political, not non-political,[10] but non-political, not anti-political?[11] His sense of indignation is growing inauthentic. I say we cap this discussion soon and move on to more important things. This isn't serious. --AaronS 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SIC. But your are serious?! Laughable. --Uiofvnondc 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph of intro

My suggestion:

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that embraces stateless capitalism, and calls for the provision of all goods and services—including systems of jurisdiction, policing, and territorial defense—by the free market. Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require regulation to be successful and reject the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange. They assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made and that property can only be legitimately derived through trade, gift, or original appropriation. This embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state. -- Vision Thing -- 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, we have a hard struggle about a correct intro with more than 3 wariers, all with different aims. Even if we would have a consensus about it then the next editor would change it in one week or two months. But I can agree with this version as a basis except for "political". --Uiofvnondc 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is still rather unencyclopedic:

Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require regulation to be successful and reject the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange.

I think the following might be a better way to put it:

The philosophy posits that market regulation is not a requirement for economic success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange.

Less redundancy, and a more neutral voice.--Rosicrucian 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It’s ok, but "posits" is not correct. Maybe something like this:
"This philosophy argues that unregulated/unhampered markets can do a better job than government in providing economic and social success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange"? -- Vision Thing -- 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kind of getting onto a different approach there. Perhaps:

The philosophy argues that the open market can provide social services and personal security more efficiently and effectively than government, which it views as having an unjustified monopoly on these commodities. It asserts that market regulation is not a requirement for social and economic success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange.

Breaks it down into two sentences, and avoids confusion.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would replace "open" with "free" and "commodities" with "services", but that's about it. Are there any other objections to this intro? -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it sounds a little bit utilitarian to me. That "the open market can provide social services and personal security more efficiently and effectively than government" seems to be a consequence of economic thinking, not of any ethical consideration of anarcho-capitalism. Intangible 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It is consequence of economic thinking; both Rothbard and Friedman are economists. We can't circumvent that. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this: "The philosophy argues that the free market should provide social services and personal security rather than government, as it views forced funding through taxation as counterproductive and/or immoral." That way you can get rid of the jargon about "monopoly" which doesn't make much sense, because obviously government doesn't have a monopoly on defense since there are private security guards. It certainly doesn't have a monopoly in providing food, etc. That'sHot 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
First part is already said in the first sentence of introduction, so it's redundant. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the current intro? What do you folks find disagreeable about it? -- WGee 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Again: I find disagreeable "political philosophy" and "calls for the abolition of the state". See above. But why do you ask at all? --Uiofvnondc 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your edit, I didn't find anything in the works of David Friedman about non-aggression axiom and individual sovereignty. So I would rather put that in the second paragraph. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is also a strong argument against "political" philosophy. What is so important that you must call it "political" philosophy in the first sentence without ifs and buts.--Uiofvnondc 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, first and foremost you seem to be the only one pushing for its removal, and the remainder of the participants on this talkpage seem to feel its inclusion in the first sentence is merited as the philosophy deals with fundamental political questions such as the legitimacy of governmental rule rather than more general philosophical ones. While you wheedle and ask us to source this, the evidence is in the article itself, as well as the correlations that it bears to the article on political philosophy. Bear in mind that there really is no "consensus of one," and the only real requirement for the rest of us to move on with the article and consider the dispute finished is a rough consensus, not a perfect consensus.--Rosicrucian 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Your artifical and makeshift term of "rough consensus" is as licentious as "political philosphy". --Uiofvnondc 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
My "artificial and makeshift term" is the same language Wikipedia uses regarding consensus. While Wikipedia can often be subject to the tyranny of the minority, it doesn't have to be.--Rosicrucian 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think that our friend forgets that one of the basic tenets of those who support consensus-based decision-making is that compromise is necessary; otherwise, consensus will never be reached. --AaronS 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nay, a compromise can mean half true and half false. But where is your compromise? For example "anti-political philosphy" or "in some parts a political philosophy".--Uiofvnondc 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you mean that Wikipedia couldn't often be subject to the tyranny of the majority. No, your argument is only of pragmatic kind to enforce your position. It is just easier to form a majority power against a minority than to deliver a reputable source for the own POV. --Uiofvnondc 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, when I say "monopoly" I'm using the actual phrasing the article uses later on, which is why I included it.--Rosicrucian 22:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did some research and according to Murray Rothbard, it doesn't have to have a coercive monopoly on defense services to be a state. It can simply be something that taxes. Here is a quote: "Let me say from the beginning that I define the State as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. Any institution, not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a "State"." (Society without a State) [12] That'sHot 23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this version? -- Vision Thing -- 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking your current revision on the article, Vision Thing. It's nicely tight, and fairly informative. I think it passes Wikipedia:Lead section swimmingly.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This clause is false: "Anarcho-capitalists assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made. . ." Rothbard's pertinent quotation says: ". . .if every man has the right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made." In this quotation, he is referring to natural resources that were previously unowned. In other words, if one mixes one's labour with unowned natural resources, then, and only then, does it become his property. If one is under the contract of a corporation and manufactures a computer, however, that computer does not become his property, even though it is the product that he as made. Thus, the clause is false or, at the very least, terribly misleading.
Moreover, we already mention the homestead principle in the lead, so the clause "Anarcho-capitalists assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made" (which is essentially a reference to the homestead principle) is superfluous.
--WGee 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As it was said in the same sentence, property can be legitimately obtained through trade, gift, or original appropriation. Work contract is a form of trade; one trades future products of his labor for money (wage). Nobody has stolen product of his labor from him, he simply traded it for money. -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Superflous perhaps, but I'm not seeing it as false per se.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, one could be conservative and say that it is misleading; but if it is misleading, it is inherently false (my logic being that if it is only "half-true", it is essentially not true, i.e. false). We cannot make such general statements about anarcho-capitalism in this case; we must clarify what Rothbard means when he says "he has the right to own the product that he has made."
Mutualists, other individualist anti-capitalist anarchists, and some socialists believe, unconditionally, in "the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [13] Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, believe in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced, only if the product was made using previously unowned natural resources. And to address your point, Vision Thing, (assuming I understand it correctly) trade does not necessarily imply a contractual division of labour, for trade is possible in anarchist economic systems such as mutualism, which do not recognize a division of labour. Even if your statement were true, Vision Thing, we shouldn't be confusing or misleading readers with vague implications or paradoxes.
Thus, to say, unconditionally, that "Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual has the right to own the product that he has made" is essentially false, because anarcho-capitalists only believe this to be true in a particular case: when one mixes one's labour with an unowned natural resource. (Note that in the paragraph from which the quotation is derived, Rothbard was specifically talking about the appropriation of "material natural objects in order to survive": that is, natural resources. In other words, "product", in that context, means "that which is made using unowned natural resources.")
--WGee 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What socialists are you talking about? The anarcho-communists don't think "the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." They say an individual has a right to be provided what he "needs" by the community. There is no right to individually own what you produce in anarcho-communism. If you're talking about the self-proclaimed "socialist" Benjamin Tucker, he is the same as the anarcho-capitalists as owning what you produced from the earth's resources or recieved through trade. The exception is on land, where if you stop using it, you don't own it anymore. That'sHot 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I will clarify then: mutualists, other individualist anti-capitalist anarchists, and some socialists believe in the right of the individual to own the product that he has made. -- WGee 03:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Right. That's what seperates individualist from collectivist anarchism......the right to individually own what you produce instead of it going into a collective pool where it is distributed according to need. That's why anarcho-capitalism is considered an individualist form of anarchism. All individualists oppose the authority of the community to decide (such as through democratic process) who needs what. If you produce it, you own it, until you decide to trade it for something else. I don't know why you say it's a false statement for Rothbard. Neither Rothbard or Tucker would think that if you take someone else's property and produce something out of it that it's yours. It only applies if you're working with materials that haven't already been turned into property by someone else. That'sHot 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You didn't understood me correctly, I'm not saying that trade necessarily implies a contractual division of labor. I'm saying that contract between employee and employer is a form of trade. But I agree that that statement is superfluous since it's already covered with original appropriation/ homestead principle. -- Vision Thing -- 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
To say that a contract between an employee and an employer is a form of trade is to say that trade entails a division of labor, which is not necessarily true. In any case, the statement is redundant, as you said. -- WGee 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not, speaking as a former entrepreneur, telling people what to do is labor. People need others to tell them what to do or little gets accomplished on the job. A lot of people choose to work for others exactly because they want someone else to tell them what to do instead of taking their own initiative to create their own jobs and tell themselves what to do. Most people prefer to have their hand held and be guided around, and that is the job of the manager or business owner. When people go to work for another, an exchange is made. "You perform the labor of telling me what to do, and I perform the labor of doing it because I don't know what to do and I need someone making sure that I don't slack off." If the business owner/manager doesn't peform the labor of guiding and pressuring the employees to produce, they will slack off, the business will fail, and everybody will be out in the street. Not everyone has the initiative and discipline to keep themselves from slacking off and not everyone knows what to do to make a living. That's where the employer comes in. A trade is made. Both parties labor in different ways. Besides managing the employees, you have to manage the cash flow and make sure the business stays liquid, you have to manage inventory, you have to negotiate with suppliers and merchants. Sometimes you even have to haggle and bribe government officials in order to get around oppressive regulations that interfere with the free market, especially here in Brasil. Anyone who thinks running a business with employees is not labor intensive is living in a fantasy world. When smoeone goes to work for an employer they are relieving themselves of a lot of labor and headaches. It is a trade. Like VisionThing said, it's a division of labor. DTC 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I see that Anarcho-capitalism is listed as needing a mediator. I am willing to mediate this case, as I have familiarity with (I think) all political and economic systems, including the variants of anarchist philosophy. Please leave a note if this is acceptable or not. Thanks. - MSTCrow 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your talk archives indicate you have recently been removed from the Mediation Cabal. Is it really appropriate to offer this?--Rosicrucian 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you notice, you don't actually have to be part of the Cabal to mediate. Not going to stop working simply because of politics. The users decide who mediates. So whether it's "appropriate" or not is rather subjective, policy-wise, it's fully appropiate. - MSTCrow 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that the trollish sockpuppets are gone, do we really need mediation? -- WGee 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think one might actually be back. See DTC's contribution history. He arrived over the weekend and began a flurry of familiar edits. I may be jumping the gun, but there's nothing wrong with some extra caution, considering the history of these articles. --AaronS 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say this is a different person, the writing style is much different, and a bit better. Also, the focus on labor in some of thier comments is a bit different. Although the user is still a bit suspicious in being a new user that seems so familiar with wikipedia and has a single directed goal. Two-Bit Sprite 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking a break

I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your temporary leave of absence is well warranted. I, too, have grown annoyed by the fanatical polemicism of the sockpuppets, which is why I've decided to stop editing this article for a while. Unfortunately, articles related to political science attract the most die-hard and ardent editors, who detract from the liesure of editing. -- WGee 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I think that the list of thirteen sources one after another in the Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism section is a little ugly... Maybe this could be fixed up to look better? Supersheep 20:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)