Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

Anarcho-capitalism and Individualist Anarchism

Your honor is verging on creating an edit war over saying in the opener that Anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with Individualist Anarchism. I'd like this discussion moved to the talk page.

While there is plenty of evidence (as sourced above) that Anarcho-capitalism is a form of Individualist Anarchism, I balk at suggesting that they are synonymous. Murray Rothbard himself refused to call himself an individualist anarchist, since the term was preempted by Spooner and Tucker for their own (differing) philosophy (see The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View, page 7). While Individualist Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism do have a broad intersection, it is not accurate to say that Anarcho-capitalism is "also called" Individualist Anarchism. --Academician 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm making not making a claim that "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are necessarily synonmous. Usually they are, but sometimes they aren't. The claim is that the terms "individualist anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are often used interchangeably for the same philosophy. For example, Wendy McElroy calls herself an "individualist anarchist" and she says she is a Rothbardian. That makes her an anarcho-capitalist. And if you look at the reference books on anarchism, Rothbard is referred to in many of them as an "individualist anarchist" rather than an "anarcho-capitalist." They are often synonyms. The same for "free market anarchism." Not everyone is aware of the term "anarcho-capitalism." I heard it called "individualist anarchism" before I heard of the term "anarcho-capitalism." Your honor 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as economics goes individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not synonymous. Individualist anarchism is mutualism, they are in favor of private property but also subscribe to the labor theory of value. They both champion the individual but the economics are different. Anarko-Kapitalizt 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism too. Usually when someone is referred to as an "individualist anarchist" they're Rothbardians. Very few individualist anarchists are mutualists. Modern-day mutualist Kevin Carson says "Although there are many honorable exceptions who still embrace the "socialist" label, most people who call themselves "individualist anarchists" today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." -Carson, Kevin. Mutualist Political Economy, Preface. For example, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy does not refer to herself as an anarcho-capitalist but a Rothbardian "individualist anarchist" See McElroy, Wendy. The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens (2005) According to Simon Tormey, "there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be." Tormey, Simon, Anti-Capitalism, A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2004, p. 118-119 There is no rule that to be an individualist anarchist you have to subscribe to the labor theory of value and the outdated mutualism and Benjamin Tucker stuff. Your honor 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying that anarcho-capitalism is "also known by other names, such as ... individualist anarchism" implies that the two are synonymous. They are not. Even if most modern individualist anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, the implicit statement that the terms are synonymous A) is potentially offensive to the anti-capitalist individualists, B) is potentially offensive to anarcho-capitalists who refuse the individualist anarchist label, C) is disparaging of individualist anarchism's history, most of which - and the most well-known of which - came before anarcho-capitalism, and D) suggests that earler individualist anarchists, such as Tucker, Spooner etc., were anarcho-capitalists when they were in fact anti-capitalists. It is appropriate to note, in the section covering the wide variety of names anarcho-capitalism has been known by, that "individualist anarchism" is one of them. It is simply not appropriate to insert that one term (and not all the others) into the leading sentence. It would also be cumbersome to have all the various terms in the introductory sentence, which is why the section on other names exists.
Let me use an analogy. At the punk rock article, a user changes the lead to read thus:
Punk rock (also known as hardcore or pop punk) is an ...
Do you see the problem? Punk rock existed well before hardcore or pop punk came into existence. It is true that in the 80s, most of punk was called hardcore, and now, most of what is called punk is pop punk, but the terms are not synonymous. That edit would be liable to ofend people, and would be reverted instantly. Hardcore and pop punk are only subtypes - dominant subtypes, certainly, but subtypes nonetheless - of punk rock as a whole. That would be to neglect the history of punk rock.
And, similarly, inserting individualist anarchism in the lead of this article would be to neglect the history of both anarcho-capitalism, whose founder distanced it from individualist anarchism, and of individualist anarchism, which long predates anarcho-capitalism and the most well-known proponents of which were not capitalists. -Switch t 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if anyone is "offended." I'm not helping to create a "politically correct" encyclopedia. The fact is that anarcho-capitalism is just one of a few other names that refer to the same philosophy. There is no legitimate reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence. I put a parenthetical note there stating that not all philosophies that are referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same as this one, so I don't see what the problem is. I'm not sure you understand. It's not just that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism. It's that anarcho-captalism IS individualist anarchism. It's an alternate name for it (regardless of whether or not other philosophies are called individualist anarchism too). Not all anarcho-capitalists refer to themselves as anarch-capitalists. Many refer to themselves as individualist anarchists instead. As the Kevin Carson source pointed out, most who call themselves individualist anarchists are Rothbardians. And it's not just self-labeling. Many scholars refer to it as individualist anarchism instead of anarcho-capitalism as well. It's simply an alternate name for the same thing (not always, but often). Your honor 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it does matter if people are offended because Wikipedia says something false. Individualist anarchism is not just another name for anarcho-capitalism. If there's "no legitimate reason to exclude the alternate names that are nearly as popular as the term "anarcho-capitalism" right there in the first sentence", then why do you insist on only adding one of them, and that one being the most controversial and misleading? The parenthetical not ewas messy, made the sentence hard to read, and added nothing to the article that isn't noted elsewhere.
It's not that "not all philosophies that are referred to as "individualist anarchism" are the same", it's that the philosophy referred to as "individualist anarchism" is different.
The information is already in the article. You are only trying to confuse the matter, conflate two seperate ideologies, and make the article harder to read. There's no reason to do that merely to give prominence to information you like when it is already in the article in the appropriate place. -Switch t 07:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
He has a legitimate point. There are Rothbardians who don't call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" but "individualist anarchists" such as Wendy McElroy or "market anarchists." Benjamin Tucker was a market anarchist too but not an anarcho-capitalist. A lot of anarcho-capitalists don't like the term "anarcho-capitalism" because it leads to confusion by people who are not familiar with how free-market capitalism is defined.Anarcho-capitalism 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, here's a source right here using "individualist anarchism" as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism: "*"[David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society and the State, University Press of America, 1983] [e]xamines the doctrine of individualist anarchism or "anarcho-capitalism," a branch of libertarianism, which desires to universalize the market as the primary mechanism for coordination of social activity. Reviews the range of economic positions encompassed in anarchism, from anarcho-communism at one end to individualist anarchism at the other, pointing out that anarchism, in this view, is compatible with capitalism." Review in Journal of Economic Literature (JEL 83-1167, p. 1620) of David Osterfeld's Freedom, Society, and the State, University Press of America, 1983Anarcho-capitalism 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Consequentialist?

Consequentialists such as Friedman disagree,

I don't have The Machinery of Freedom on hand right now, but I'm pretty sure there is a passage where David D. Friedman not only very explicitly denies being a consequentalist, but in fact expresses his amusement about the idea. Instead, he puts up philosophical arguments to show that both naïve consequentialism and naïve deontological/natural-rights ethics can lead to absurdities when taken to their logical extremes. In general, Friedman seems not to worry about this too much. Unlike staunch everything-from-first-principle rationalists like Rothbard, but notably very much in the spirit of Popper and Hayek, he doesn't seem particularly committed to an all-ecompassing grand axiomatic System Of Ethics And Law, but prefers to show how his ideas make sense under a variety of reasonable assumptions, and analyze them more from the perspective of a social scientist than that of a moral philosopher. I think this derives from a relative lack of interest in actual politics. Friedman does not seem to be worried that having subtler ideas or a more mess-with-your-mind writing style would make it harder to attract a political following than a more Randian "I'm always right and this is how the world works" style. Sjeng 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Here he is talking about it in a debate with rights-theorists libertarians: What's Right vs. What Works. Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. Liberty. January 2005, Vol 15, No 1 Anarcho-capitalism 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I liked that article a lot. I will stop the inappropriate chatting on the talk page now.Sjeng 04:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another real-world example

Don't some people consider Somalia as another example? Fephisto 18:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source for that.Anarcho-capitalism 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156902250X Sunbat 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_stateless_somalis.htm and here an article by the same author Sunbat 05:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
But those don't say it's an example of anarcho-capitalism. A source would have to say that explicitly or it would be deleted out of the article for being "original research."Anarcho-capitalism 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I havent read the book, so i cant give you any quotes alas. maybe someone else can, check mises.org maybe? Sunbat 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This? [1]. However, upon looking, I'm getting a lot more articles saying it's not an example, so, nm. Actually, doesn't the [Anarchy in Somalia] article point to Anarcho-capitalism being there? Fephisto 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article far too large. Split!

There is too much information on this page that doesn't need to be here.

Suggestions,

  • Reduce the size of the introduction!
  • Reduce the size of the non-aggression axiom section and move relevant information to that page
  • Reduce the size of the section on Classical liberalism (and so on...)
  • Reduce the size of The Austrian School school section
  • Reduce the size of the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section.

Basically, pages exist on all these topics, independently of this topic. Therefore, you don't need to duplicate the information here. The introduction is not meant to provide everything about the topic either.

I would do it, except that I have a lot of stuff in the real world just now, and it is easier to suggest to other people. Also, I'm not really a contributor to this article, so you people might get annoyed if I did it without asking.

And I've suggested basically the same thing over at the anarchism page as well, once you are done here, you might pop over to help there. AFA 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "too much information." This article is definitely not large. It's pretty small.Anarcho-capitalism 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with User:Anarcho-capitalism this is normal size for a featured article. Lord Metroid 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that it is duplicating information found at other pages. As such, we are maintaining two versions of the same information. What is the point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talkcontribs) 11:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
If that is the case, than the duplicate information should be removed from the least essential article for the specific topic of the duplicated information and be replaced by a smaller conclusion and referal Lord Metroid 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is too large, please look at wikipedia policy.--Dwarf Kirlston 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

What's the crazy shit about mergeing. A Featured Article being merged with market anarchism. 2 different topics. No way I would agree with that. Lord Metroid 12:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Intangible2.0 18:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't "market capitalism" include the anti-capitalist Proudhon's Mutualism? I oppose a merge. ~ Switch () 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I oppose a merge as well. If anything there could be subsection of market anarchism titled Anarcho capitalism.... which would re-direct you here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoweLeif (talkcontribs) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

just open greed?

I have thought for some time that anarcho-capitalism is a very bad thing. Most anarchist sects want freedom from government in order to correct some injustice in their system or such, but I am of the opinion that anarcho-capitalists simply seek to increase their wealth by abolishing any and all laws binding them, thus letting them run rampant. Invadra 13:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct place for discussing this subject as the talk pages are meant for discussing editing of the article associated to the talk page. If you want to discuss philosophy, I know that the messageboard of Free Domain Radio discusses moral and political philosophy and because the host of Free Domain Radio is an anarcho-capitalist that message board is populated by people that would gladly discuss anarcho-capitalism with you. Lord Metroid 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

List of sockpuppets

User:Crashola is a sockpuppet of a banned user. For details, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Billy Ego. -- infinity0 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Here I will start a centralized discussion about sources on anarcho-capitalism (not) being a form of anarchism so that we don't need to repeat same arguments on several pages.

  1. I agree with argument that since "The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought" only refers to specific individuals associated with individualist anarchism, one of whom was Nozick, it shouldn't be used as a source for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism.
  2. "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with anarchism" can't be used for argument that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. According to Wikipedia:No original research policy, synthesis of published material serving to advance a position is not allowed. Concretely: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. In this case this means that the fact that some people claim that capitalism is not compatible with anarchism cannot be used to advance the position that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.
  3. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought says: At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a significant tendency in the libertarian New Right. They don't speak about individualist anarchism as a dead philosophy but as a living philosophy in the form of anarcho-capitalism.
  4. "Dictionary of Marxist Thought" makes a claim that anarcho-capitalism is a contemporary variant of individualist anarchism. That is all that matters. Tertiary sources are allowed per WP:NOR.
  5. "BASTARD Press", "SPUNK Press" and "Frontlines" seem to be do it yourself publishers and are sources of questionable reliability. As such they should only be used in articles about themselves per WP:V. -- Vision Thing -- 20:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I upped the subsection for "Sources that do not consider capitalism to be compatible with anarchism". Many of the sources are relevant. One of the sources (Tucker) predates the term, but discusses the relationship between anarchism and socialism as a socialist individualist anarchist. And it's largely his legacy that's disputed. Generally, these divide into (1) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be non-anarchist (2) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to be non-capitalist and (3) those who consider anarcho-capitalism to mix non-anarchist capitalist and non-capitalist anarchist elements.
  • A fourth subsection, divided into pre-Rothbardian and post-Rothbardian subsections, of market anarchist works on the relationship between anarchism, socialism, and capitalism might be better. Jacob Haller 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

2 - Nope, this one doesn't work. The argument is not "A and B, therefore C". It is "Not A, Not B, therefore Not A+B". Its a logical deduction (heck its really a tautology) akin to A=A and Not A=Not A, and thus not covered by your above wiki-policy quote. Unless you are claiming that anarcho-capitalism means something different than anarchism + capitalism. Evidence for that claim would be welcomed, perhaps you are saying that anarcho-capitalists use the term anarchism differently than any other anarchists do? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research policy clearly states: precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. Authors you listed didn't publish precise analysis in relation to the topic (anarcho-capitalism). -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no precise analysis here. There is a logical tautology. If you think that is precise analysis, I suggest you look up the meanings of the words involved. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Determining whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism definitely requires a precise analysis. Also, those authors didn't wrote about anarcho-capitalism (which is required by OR policy to use them as a source). -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no determination here, any determination is left to the reader. The text is merely stating a fact, that these writers do not consider anarchism and capitalism to be compatible. The idea that these sources should be removed because they do not specifically mention anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous when they are clearly talking about the relationship between anarchism and capitalism. To remove them on this standard would require that we remove all the quotes by Molinari and others, is that something you are advocating? Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I overlooked one of your last edits were you have changed the text. Current version is acceptable with rewording. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

3 - Okay, that makes sense. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

4 - I don't see the point of using a tertiary source when there are plenty of primary ones, but whatever floats your boat. Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

5 - Spunk press is not a do it yourself publisher. They have a long history of publishing many authors well-known in the field. Do you have evidence that Frontlines and Bastard are self publishers? If so I would like to see it. It is odd that you are holding these particular sources to such a high standard, when several of the sources already in the article fail it. You don't mind if I begin to remove sources that are obviously self-published? Etcetc 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"BASTARD Press" is DIY publishing to produce content for the InfoStall [2], for Frontlines I haven't managed to find any information which is evidence enough about their notability, and "SPUNK Press" is not a publisher but an online archive. By the looks of the article you used as a source [3] it hasn't be published anywhere. In general I don't have anything against self-published sources if they are used for sourcing of uncontroversial content, but for controversial issues like whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism only reliable sources must be used. If you look through the sources used for claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, you won't find any self-published source, or even source coming from anarcho-capitalist (and there are many of those). -- Vision Thing -- 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This is simple then, you've made clear that this is a controversial topic, reference to which you keep changing in the text. Since you've now based your argument for rejecting my sources on the claim that this is a controversial issue, you've no reason to continue to remove indications of such from the text itself. Also, to help you stick to your own standard I'm going to remove Ralph Raico, since he is a libertarian with a vested interest in portraying anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I'm keeping the Frontlines bit, cause I don't think your inability to find evidence of their notability counts, I could say that about a lot of the references in this article, controversial or not. Etcetc 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
To me a question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is not a controversial issue, anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism without a doubt. It also isn't controversial issue for those scholars who say that it is a form of anarchism. It is only a controversial issue for those scholars who argue that it is not a form of anarchism. Since they are in minority their view shouldn't be presented as a generally accepted.
Who is in the minority? The vast majority of anarchist theorists have argued that capitalism cannot survive without the state, which implies that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, oxymoronic. These fork into arguments which hold that non-socialist-anarchisms are not anarchist, and those which argue that non-socialist anarchisms are not capitalist. Jacob Haller 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That can also imply that anarcho-capitalist theorists envisage their version of capitalism in a different way than those anarchist theorists did. -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ralph Raico is libertarian but as far as I know he is not an anarcho-capitalist. However, I will agree on his removal if you will agree on removal of your libertarians and anarchist as sources for claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism on the same basis (subjectivity).
Concerning, "Frontlines" I can't even find any evidence that such publisher exists, and that is enough to put into question their reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to play this both ways. When it comes to the text you claim that the status of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is non-controversial, and continue to remove any reference to controversy. When it comes to sources you disagree with you claim that it is controversial, and continue to insist on leaving only those sources that referance AC as a form of anarchism. You ignore and dismiss all sources that would demonstrate the controversy and insist they they must be in a majority without any evidence at all to back up that claim. This is not a discussion you are engaging in, but an attempt to push through a particular viewpoint.
Anyway, its a strange standard you are advocating, if we are going to remove sources due to the political ideology of the source then you will find more than just Raico left out, Susan Brown and Paul Avrich would also be removed, among many others. Or are you suggesting we remove only those sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and keep the rest? Its certainly seems to be what you are suggesting in your edits. Etcetc 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm leaving it for you and other editors to decide. For me it works either way. -- Vision Thing -- 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Etcetc, can you provide quotes for "Sources that consider anarchism and capitalism mutually incompatible"? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I? Of course. Are you asking me to dig up every reference and provide you with a full quote? If so, why? Etcetc 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I tried to check something and I found some discrepancies. But anyway, we had the same procedure for sources which support claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, so it is only fair to follow it here too. -- Vision Thing -- 12:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Give me a single example of a discrepancy and I'd be happy to give the quote to justify the reference. As to the anarcho-capitalist sources, many of them failed to correspond to the text when I check them and were posted by individuals now banned from wikipedia for engaging in blatantly anti-wiki behavior. In other words, ALL of the anarcho-capitalist sources are suspect. I'd be happy to provide a quote from each and every source I have posted if you do the same with the anarcho-capitalist ones. You have already reinserted several suspect sources, indicating that you have no intention of being intellectually honest about this, but if you've changed your ways I would be happy to oblige your rather strange request. Etcetc 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, you can find all quotes here, under Sources section. As for discrepancies in your sources, I have read page 238 from 'Political Theorists in Context' by Stuart Isaacs twice and I'm not clear how you have concluded that he argues that anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The quote you've called into question is "Anarchism was a movement based upon equality and, like communism, it sought a working class revolution to overthrow the state." The quote is on page 240, I suppose the page must have flipped over while I was typing in the citation. Of course, there are plenty of other quotes as well, like "In other words, anarchism has at its core a belief in the direct democratic participation of all in the decisions that affect the societies in which they live." on the page before. Etcetc 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither of those comments addresses capitalism. First (btw, talking in the past tense) talks about revolution to overthrow the state, not capitalism, and second talks about direct democracy, so you would need to do some (mistaken) original research to use that one. Also, author you quoted says: In an unlike turn of events many neo-liberals of the 1980s and 1990s turned towards anarchist ideas. These new libertarians argued that the state (in particular the welfare state) needed to be 'rolled back' to allow individuals' greater freedom to exercise their own ambitions and enterprise. Both Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Regan in the USA benefited from this Right-leaning anarchist spirited discourse. So you are clearly adding your own spin to the comments of this author, and maybe to rest of them too, since he is clearly not indicating that anarchism and its ideas are incompatible with capitalism (I imagine that you consider both Thatcher and Regan as ultra-capitalists). -- Vision Thing -- 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they "turned toward anarchist ideas" does not imply that they were anarchists, nor that their political philosophy was compatible with anarchism. Are you actually suggesting that the author was implying that Thatcher and Reagan were anarchists? Obviously capitalists can have some anarchist ideas, so can fascists, that doesn't make either group anarchists themselves.
Your attempts to dismiss this source border on outrageous, are you actually trying to argue that a workers revolution is in any way compatible with capitalism? If you think that reference to direct democracy requires original research in order to consider it incompatible with anarcho-capitalism, then you have an awfully high standard. One that would rule out several of the pro-capitalist sources you continue to champion. After all, some of them only indicate that Murray Rothbard was an individualist anarchist without making any mention of his being an anarcho-capitalist. That would require the great leap of imagination for the reader to like Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism with his attributed individualist anarchism. Yet you seem to think that without a direct statement indicating that anarcho-capitalism is or is not anarchism it is all original research. You need to make a choice, either we include sources that obviously support the text even though they don't simply repeat the same exact statements, or we throw out all instances of interpretation, anaylsis, and deduction on both sides that don't measure up to your suddenly high standards. Its your call, I'm cool with it either way, so long as you cease to apply a double standard. Etcetc 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that workers revolution against state is compatible with capitalism. As for direct democracy, did you read its Wikipedia article? If you didn't it says Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy. And you are arguing that direct democracy and capitalism are incompatible... -- Vision Thing -- 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and Switzerland is a bastion of anarchism. You are trying to compare apples to oranges, though only when it suits you, of course. The text is clearly referring to direct democracy in an anarchist context. And yep, a "workers revolution" that is "like communism" as the text explicitly compares, is in fact incompatible with capitalism. Etcetc 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was Tucker's AtO removed from the list? Jacob Haller 17:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist capitalism. Some sources even classify Tucker as an anarcho-capitalist. -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Because Tucker's socialism is compatible with anarcho-capitalist capitalism according to... Vision Thing? Etcetc 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's debatable. Tucker and Rothbard had different views of land ownership and banking systems. Rothbard often argued that non-Lockean land systems and non-metallic banking systems violated natural rights; however, Tucker and Rothbard proposed similar methods for resolving disputes, which have been extended to allow for multiple land systems and multiple banking systems. But somewhere we have to distinguish between Rothbard's version of anarcho-capitalism and Malatesta's pf anarcho-communism...
In effect, Tucker states that anarchism cannot be capitalist in the ordinary sense of the term (which makes as much sense as saying that classical individualist anarchism was not socialist in the ordinary sense of the term, except that socialism has had two rival ordinary senses since the late 19th century, and capitalism has had one ordinary sense, which confuses markets and privilege). Jacob Haller 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard

I read on the internet that Ron Paul, candidate for president of the U.S., was a close associate of Murray Rothbard. Is this true? Anyone have a solid reference for this? After reading this, I'm recognizing a lot of Rothbard influence in what Paul says. Paul sounds like a near-anarchist. Ansetropen 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note, Ansetropen, like Crashola and so many countless ones before, is yet another banned sockpuppet. Etcetc 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Rothbard helped Paul develope his understanding of economics, but he never converted Paul to an anarchist. Paul is a minarchist. Allixpeeke (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul was definitely a closet Anarchist imho. As for their ties, when Paul ran for president in 1988, Rothbard was his economic adviser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.9.101 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No~o, Ron Paul has some libertarian tendancies but he is far from an anarchist, even closet anarchist. He is a career politician for beeps sake! Lord Metroid (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wolf DeVoon

By all means, ignore The Freeman's Constitution, Laissez Faire Law ISBN 978-1-4303-0836-2, and The Good Walk Alone ISBN 978-1-4303-2859-9 196.40.32.185 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Currency

No where in this article (or any place else ive looked) explains what form of money would be used in anarcho-capitalist society. What types of money would be used?

That's a question that I'm sure many who are unfamiliar with "hardcore" free market ideas would like to have an answer to. However, I'm not sure that this question belongs in this article, since I feel it is better to deal with the general philosophical aspects, and leave economics to more appropriate articles (Free market, Business cycle, etc.)
Also, it is of course impossible to know what currency would be used in an anarcho-capitalist society, since people are free to do as they wish (anarchy = without rulers), and use whatever method of trade they would deem most beneficial. The same goes for any and all aspects and details of an anarchist society. You simply can not know what it will look like beforehand. One can only watch it evolve.
However, it should also be said that it is today clear that gold is a very logical choice of currency, and almost all anarchist economists (most notably those of the Austrian School) advocate a gold standard. —Per Hedetun (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to divide the topics aming the articles. The basic market anarchist position is to have multiple competing currencies. This means that if one bank/association inflates its own currency, it doesn't inflate the rival currencies. (This also allows gold, silver, land, grain, etc. to compete as backing media, which was important to the older traditions but is less important to ancapism). (If ancaps focus on gold, are there any special objections to competing media?) Rothbard condemned fractional-reserve banking as fraud. Many post-Rothbardians disagree. They argue that if the bank states that it is fractional-reserve, discloses what insurance it has for runs, what conditions it has for limiting/forbidding withdrawals, etc., then it doesn't involve fraud. Jacob Haller 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-Rothbardians? Anyways, the original question of what money will be used cannot be answered directly, there all kind of reasons why some moneys mights outcompete others, that all has to do with transaction costs, convertability, etc. Intangible2.0 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The entire "argument" is based on a lack of understanding of what "money" is. You can't just decide that whatever is going to be money. Money has to arise out of barter by natural means (see Mises' regression theorem). Different monies could arise in different more-or-less-disconnected economies, but the idea of many "competing monies" within an economy is just silly. At the moment, money is government paper. You can't get back to gold, or anything else, without a complete regression to a barter economy. (That's why government paper continues to circulate even (or especially!) after the government in question has ceased to exist, as with the "Swiss dinar" in Iraq, etc. In theory, governments could reverse the "trickery" they used to go from commodity money (gold) to fiat, but that's not going to happen, and you can't do it yourself, unless you can somehow gain control of the government's monetary authority) —Tacitus Prime 13:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? You assume there's some basic difference between barter and currency systems, aside from fiat interference, and that competing currencies act like the former. Well, currencies have competed many times in the past, without fixed exchange rates, and without trouble. Jacob Haller 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's a difference between money and barter - why they have different names, for a start. I don't know why you think I think the difference has anything to do with fiat. When you speak of competing currencies, are you referring to (a) proto-currencies "competing" to become "money" in an economy just beginning to emerge from barter, (b) currencies from different areas in an economy that hasn't yet settled on its own (e.g., the use of a wide array of European coins in various colonies in previous centuries), or (c) a stable, functioning economy that has multiple local currencies (not merely engaging in foreign exchange operations) over a sustained period of time. Only (c) would be "competing currencies" in the way being talked about here; if that's what you mean, please name an example. —Tacitus Prime 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
??? "Money" is what "serves the purpose of the tool, money." Any easily portable high-value good does that, as do high-value notes. The difference between currency systems and barter systems is one of degree.
Categories A and B beg the question - they presuppose that multiple currencies mean an incompletely-developed currency system. Category C is fairly common, especially if we add special-purpose currencies to local currencies, and a fourth category D - a stable, functioning economy that has multiple currencies with substantially-overlapping ranges - is not, to my knowledge, uncommon.
However, I specialize in eras and areas with large states using their taxation power, and sometimes more drastic measures, to support their official currency, and this tips the scales against alternative currencies. Jacob Haller 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
We're using different definitions of "money" - "any portable high-value good" is just any portable high-value good; it's not money. Diamonds are portable high-value goods, but try walking into your local supermarket and paying for your groceries with diamonds! The difference between barter and a money economy is precisely that there is a general medium of exchange (money) in the latter, so that everything can be priced in terms of that; you don't have to have a "price of cows in eggs" and a "price of cows in goats" and so on between every pair of goods, with associated high transaction costs (and it's much more than just "a matter of degree") - there's obviously a (strong) tendency to move in that direction. Having multiple monies is essentially the same thing - the tendency must be to move toward a single money; multiple monies can only exist as a transition state. —Tacitus Prime 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OED

I was surprised to find the definition of anarcho-capitalism in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is the entry: "A theory or ideology based on a belief in the freedom to own private property, a rejection of any form of governmental authority or intervention, and the upholding of the competitive free market as the main mechanism for social interaction." Operation Spooner 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Large swaths of original research

I don't even know where to start but there are huge sections of original research in contradiction to WP:NOR, the one I think is a good example is the entire Anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism section which should preferably be changed to give the same info (and a lot of it is good info, if sourced info is possible, or removed though that is not ideal as a large part of what makes this a good article is that information. Cat-five - talk 05:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Only sources I can give you about "Anarcho-capitalism isn't a legitimate form of anarchism" is from User:Lordmetroid/essay_anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_is_an_individualist_anarchism: - Notice: I have not written this essay myself nor any of it's content, I merely copied it because I found it an interesting piece of text. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to the Anarchism Taskforce

In the spirit of anarchist pluralism and inclusivity, anarcho-capitalism, national-anarchism, agorism, green anarchism and sects and offshoots of all varieties have been allowed mention in the Wikipedia articles and template regarding anarchism. So I'd like to continue this panarchist solidarity by inviting you all to join the newly established Anarchism Task Force, an arena for collaborating on improving anarchism articles of all varieties on Wikipedia. Skomorokh incite 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

All links and references are heavily skewed towards anarchy. None that are critical 81.228.195.119 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu? It is an article about an anarchistic idea... What did you expect? If you want to reference the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section, please do. But the article it about an anarchistic idea. This is not an NPOV issue. Lord Metroid (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro needs trimming

It's called the introduction for a reason. You don't have to cram every single point in the article into the intro in summary. Fearwig (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

removal of "orignial research"

I don't see why the section about the labelling of anarcho-capitalism had to be removed. The issue of the name of the ideology is a controversial one amongst anarcho-capitalists. For example, Ian Bernard would commonly say in his radio show that the term "anarcho-capitalism" is misleading and thus would use "free-marketeer" as a substitute to avert such misunderstanding. See here - http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Free_marketeer. I'm sure any frequent listener of his radio show would attest to that. Stefan Molyneux, as another prominent anarcho-capitalist, would call himself a "philosopher" as a more accurate label than "anarcho-capitalist". Francois Tremblay, who recently wrote the book "But Who Will Build The Roads" describes himself as a "market" anarchist, since he believes the word "capitalism" to be misleading. I'm going to add this, since I don't see how it qualifies as baseless "original research". It is a salient controversy in anarcho-capitalist circles.

Instead of critiquing, maybe a wiser course of actions would be to actually study the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists, prior to claiming that such a point is without foundation. Lapafrax (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"a form of market anarchism"

In the first sentence in the introductory paragraph, it suggests that anarcho-capitalism is a form of market anarchism. Even though the sources suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, there is not any reliable sources suggesting that it is a form of market anarchism. Numerous sources suggest that free market anarchism is a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. (e.g. [4] [5] [6]) I found no sources suggesting that anarcho-capitalism is a form of market anarchism. Murray Rothbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist, even used the term free-market anarchism as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism.

In the free-market anarchism article, it mentions that only two groups--agorists and anarcho-capitalists--identify themselves as free-market anarchists. Agorism should be mentioned in this article, because all agorists are also anarcho-capitalists. So why some mistakenly assume that agorists are market anarchists but not anarcho-capitalists? This further supports the conclusion that market anarchism is not a superset of anarcho-capitalism, but it is a synonym.

Furthermore, I suggest redirecting the article free-market anarchism with this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and two highly overlapping articles should be merged. There are, and will be, no sources that differentiates between anarcho-capitalism and free-market anarchism. We therefore should assume that these two are actually equivalent articles, according to WP:OR. They are not even "highly overlapping."

It is unmanageable to create maintain another version of this article. Benjamin Tucker, an market anarchist, is also mentioned here; even though he did not explicitly identify himself as an anarcho-capitalist. The term anarcho-capitalism was coined much later by Murray Rothbard, which may be a reason why Tucker did not identify himself as such. This may also be the case of similar historic figures such as Gustave de Molinari and Lysander Spooner, who are also embedded in this article.

The term anarcho-capitalism is used much more commonly than the other term. Visit the discussion page of the other article for an elaboration. The redirect proposal has been suggested for quite some time, so now it is about the time to actually redirect. I don't think anyone would mind if the other article was redirected, as there has been no activity on the redirect proposal. This article contains everything that is included in the other article, and you can also copy the contents of anarcho-capitalism to free-market anarchism, so just blank that page and write a redirect.

Thank you for your time.71.175.31.106 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding free-market anarchism

The term free-market anarchism is used commonly as a synonym of anarcho-capitalism than a superset of it. According to the WP:NPOV policy, we should include the significant view, no matter what is correct, no matter if it is proven or not. The term free-market anarchism is used much more commonly as a synonym than a superset. (see discussion above) Therefore, we should include the synonym, to respect the NPOV policy.

71.175.31.106 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Avrich as source

OK so I have now found the section of Anarchist Voices that is being cited as considering a-c a form of anarchism, thanks for the help. But I see that it is footnote explaining an interviewees use of the term "Rothbardian" and reads almost in full "Followers of Murray N Rothbard, American economist, historian and individualist anarchist. He edited Left & Right during the 1960s his books include...."

So we're talking about 3 lines in footnote to a 700-page book! I think the status of this as an "aside" needs to be made clear in the reference, given Avrich's authoritative status as a historian of anarchism. I'm guessing that'd best be done by including it's footnote status in the WP ref. I'll be doing that later on, (once I work out the formatting :) ) Chaikney (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the reference doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism, I have removed it. Good work, Skomorokh 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If Rothbard coined the term anarcho-capitalism for his philosophy and he's an individualist anarchist, then anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchism. This is common sense. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If Lucy coined the term anti-corporatism for her philosophy, and she's a vegetarian, then anti-corporatism is a vegetarianism. This is common sense. Skomorokh 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes if she calls her philosophy anti-corporatism and a source says that philosophy is vegetarian, then her philosophy, anti-corporatism, is vegetarian. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that would not imply that the source says Lucy is vegetarian. That would be original synthesis. I like what you have done with the Avrich source, by the way. Regards, Skomorokh 22:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism

I have added the following note in the section of criticism: "The Anarchist International, see [7] holds that anarcho-capitalism is economical plutarchy, and thus not anarchism, see [8]." (Anna Quist (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

As it is not reliably sourced, I have removed it. Please stop adding poorly referenced material to the encyclopaedia. Sincerely, Skomorokh 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Torts filed against corporations for liabilities arising non-contractually

Was this really original research? It seems consistent with anarcho-capitalist principles. I just can't remember if I've read it anywhere else. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I felt the posting was self-evident when I originally made it, but to resolve the issue, I've added a quote from Rothbard which supports the original point.194.205.140.225 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bulk-deletion of ancap != anarchism sources

I have reverted the deletion of half of the sources in "Sources which say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism". They were alleged to be unreliable and/or misinterpreted. I want to hear exactly what the objections to them all are. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Iain McKay, Anarchist FAQ

  • AFAQ is the most comprehensive source on this side of the dispute.
  • the author is the editor of Black Flag, the UK's 2nd longest running anarchist periodical
  • it is about to be published in book form by AK Press

I can see no good reason for seeing this as either unreliable or misinterpreted. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that everything that is in the online version is in the published version? There may be some things that the publisher didn't accept. Has the book actually been printed yet? Richard Blatant (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's being typeset, Current plan is for a launch event in September in Glasgow; only changes to the online version were for length reasons as far as I know. It's already had 10 years of fact-checking. Chaikney (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have much a problem using this until I just saw the policy. Apparently, this can't be used regardless according the policy things "that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" are not to be used as sources. The FAQ makes it clear that they are promotional in nature. Richard Blatant (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Chaz Bufe article

"These "Libertarians" not only glorify capitalism, the mechanism that denies both equal freedom and positive freedom to the vast majority, but they also wish to retain the coercive apparatus of the state while eliminating its social welfare functions"”hence widening the rift between rich and poor, and increasing the freedom of the rich by diminishing that of the poor (while keeping the boot of the state on their necks)."...No room for misinterpretation here. As for its reliability: it's a published source that pithily summarises the common social anarchist view of capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Bufe basically says that whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism or not depends on definition of anarchism. Under one definition it is form of anarchism, under other is not. Because of that he can't be used as a source that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
He actually gives HIS definition: He says "This is what it is: In its narrowest sense, anarchism is simply the rejection of the state, the rejection of coercive government. Under this extremely narrow definition, even such apparent absurdities as "anarcho-capitalism" and "religious anarchism" are possible." One could even use this as a source for anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism. I haven't because there are plenty of other sources that where there is no lack of clarity over what they're saying. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabatini

This was published in an anarchist journal (AJODA) and deals directly with the issue. It's referred to when this comes up in forum discussions. Chaikney (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This and Anarchist FAQ are what WP:V calls questionable sources. Questionable sources are defined as publications: "that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." and they "should only be used as sources about themselves." -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Justify that statement, Vision Thing. AAJODA is a respected journal, and AAFAQ is praised by notable scholars, widely read, has been published by AK Press, a reputable publisher (see An Anarchist FAQ. P.S. Your input would be most welcome at WP:ANCITE, where we hope to settle questions like this definitively in future. Regards, Skomorokh 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is really a journal? I would say it's a magazine. I can get it at the local bookstore in the magazine section. It appears they simply print letters or articles people send in to the magazine. Richard Blatant (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want sources on what anarchists think, you need to go to anarchist periodicals. It has never been properly featured in academic journals, the classic texts were all issued as pamphlet or newspaper ("journal") form. AAJODA has been published for around 20 years. Branding it a magazine as if it were equivalent to TV Weekly is deeply misleading. It's about as notable an anarchist source as you could find. Chaikney (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This is how AK Press describes themselves: "AK Press is a worker-run collective that publishes and distributes radical books, visual and audio media, and other mind-altering material. [...] AK Press works hard to destroy and move beyond capitalism, toward a non-exploitative, sustainable, and just economy. [...] We’re proud to call ourselves propagandists and hope that the materials we provide both agitate and provoke." [9] If that is not a description of an extremist, questionable source (per Wikipedia's definition) I don't know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake. Now the most prominent publisher of anarchist books is going to be ruled inadmissable?! As a source for an article linked from the Anarchism portal!? Then we need to get rid of all the libertarian think tanks and academics, also. They fit the same criteria. This is getting silly. Chaikney (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you'll notice, none of the sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism are from anarcho-capitalists or from anarcho-capitalist publishers or even professed libertarian publishers. Richard Blatant (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Published by capitalist enterprises, though; by capitalist economists? In what way does complete detachment from a subject make you reliable rather than, say, prone to repeat contentious claims at face value? Echo chamber effect. Capitalist enterprises aren't keen on publishing anti-capitlist literature, you know. So we could condemn all anarchist sources as unreliable and have an article that bears no relation to reality. Chaikney (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
AK press gets paid too. They're as capitalist as anyone else, regardless of how they organize their private ownership of the means of production. Richard Blatant (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you're being serious or contrarian. Are you about to suggest that AK Press are anarcho-capitalist? They are a workers co-op. No hierarchy, no boss. No selling labour in return for time. The society they exist in is capitalist. They are not capitalist in any meaningful sense. This illustrates how far anarcho-capitalist ideas about capitalism are from anarchist ideas about capitalism. Chaikney (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's still private ownership of the means of production. That's the basic definition of capitalism. They are engaging in private ownership of the means of production and making money from it. Capitalism allows people to arrange their means of production however they want to arrange it. That's the essence of private property. The owners control it, as opposed to society at large, as in anarcho-communism, or a government controlling it. Capitalism doesn't require a "boss." Anyone that owns their own business, a sole proprietorship, is engaging in capitalism too. Richard Blatant (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)