Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21


Seriously, does this intro really need to be this long? —Memotype::T 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Other introductions are even longer. Soxwon (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but I think this can still be trimmed down some, it's a very daunting lead. —Memotype::T 04:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It is now three paragraphs - the recommended size. The former fourth paragraph fits in nicely under the philosophy section (with a minor tweak). JLMadrigal (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Great job, the lead now looks much more approachable. Thanks —Memotype::T 23:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Balance in the lead

The lead makes no mention of the criticisms outlined in the article. Perhaps inclusion of the Noam Chomsky quote would be apposite. --MoreThings (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


I previously edited in a link to a Google Books scan, which turned out to probably have an incorrect date. This publication, from 1965, however has the date clearly visible in the scan itself, and mentions "anarcho-capitalist principles", which means that the term originated before 1968 as stated here.

The Spectator, July 2, 1965 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trefork (talkcontribs) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is too big.

It's about as big as the main article on anarchism. Since this is such a small school of thought, I must ask why it has such a massive article. Zazaban (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After a short skim-over, I feel that a great deal of this article should be cut. There is waaaay too much detail. Zazaban (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Though it's slightly longer in prose size than anarchism (51kb vs 41kb, neither egregrious by size guidelines), wiki is WP:NOTPAPER and length of article is not an indicator of importance or anything. This is a featured article, so removing a "great deal" of it would be highly inappropriate, unless we wanted to split it off into sub-articles. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of term & controversy

Someone keeps deleting the fact that the term was coined by Murray Rothbard, and the ambivalence or outright rejection that he and many others expressed about using the term "anarchism" which has always had an anti-capitalist meaning (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article. And please don't try to push some POV about anticapitalism. Anarchism qua anarchism isn't anticapitalist. Leave your Infoshop capitalism-hating at Infoshop, please. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article for 72 hours due to the edit war. Please discuss the substance of the edits here; further reverts may result in blocks.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Murray Rothbard is very important and should be right at the beginning of the article. Also important is the word "arguably", which was added for 2 reasons. First, to express the rejection among traditional anarchists of the relatively new term "anarcho-capitalism" as part of the (always anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. Secondly, because the very person who coined the term, Rothbard HIMSELF admitted that it WASN'T anarchism
"We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." --Murray Rothbard
That these footnoted and uncontroversial facts have, in the space of a day or so, been called "POV" "vandalism" and reverted reflexively without discussion should tell us something about the ideological fanaticism inhabiting these pages. (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That of which you speak is in the article already, and does not need to be at the beginning of the article. The only reason to put it at the beginning is to push the POV that anarchism is anticapitalist. Such a discussion has been done to death on Wikipedia already, and it has been decided to not "kick anyone out of the tree". Please leave your idealogical fanaticism at Infoshop. Thank you.
Further, when you look at the time the article was written, Rothbard had not yet fully embraced the term anarchism. A few years later, he had. So whatever your supposed point is with the quote just doesn't materialize. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Knight, this is simply POV-pushing. Soxwon (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

After the aforementioned hysterical claims of "POV" "vandalism" to describe perfectly reasonable and sourced edits, no one should take the new accusations seriously. We all know that both Soxwon and BAAWA are die-hard right wing-capitalists. So the final decision should rest with someone who doesn't have such a stake on the issue. (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you're POV-pushing. Continuing to POV-push will result in you being reported and possibly banned. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's YOUR POV and false accusations that will get you reported and/or banned. (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

When you edit anarchocommunism, anarchosyndicalism, and all the rest in the lead to say that they are terms coined by whomever, then you can legitimately have your edit. Until then: all you have is a POV. And I made no false accusations, either. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's become clear that is going to continue to push his disruptive edit. The philosophy section of the article already states that Rothbard's idea was the first well-known version. There is also a criticism section and a section on anarchocapitalism and other anarchist schools. No anarcho-whatever article has "anarcho-whatever is a term coined by X" in it. There is simply no reason for's edit. Granted, it is at least sourced. But it just has no place in the article. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC for lede

Dispute over wording of the opening statement. Soxwon (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not me who is pushing a disruptive edit. The fact that the term "anarcho-capitalism" was coined by Murray Rothbard is very important and should be right at the beginning of the article. Also important is the word "arguably", which was added for 2 reasons. First, to express the rejection among traditional anarchists of the relatively new term "anarcho-capitalism" as part of the (always anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. Secondly, because the very person who coined the term, Rothbard HIMSELF admitted that it WASN'T anarchism
"We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." --Murray Rothbard
Since traditional and historical anarchism has always been anti-hierarchical and against both, capitalism and the state (as shown by the literature and the coiner of the term "anarcho-capitalism" himself) the explanations in the lead should grant as much importance to the anarchist critique of "anarcho"-capitalism, as it would to a movement that labeled itself "anarcho"-statist i.e. a movement that shared some critiques of capitalism with traditional anarchists, but which emphasized as its goal, the creation all around the planet of, say, "voluntary nation-states". So the question, as was obvious from the beginning, is not whether or not these facts are mentioned somewhere in the article, but whether or not their importance means they should be in the lead. (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No anarcho- page mentions in the lead who "coined" the "term" being discussed, so why this edit is so important as to be the first one to do so must be demonstrated. Frankly, it is pure POV-pushing being disguised as a legitimate edit in order to marginalize anarchocapitalism. Recall: it has been decided to not kick anyone out of the tree here on Wikipedia as far as the whole anarchist "dispute". The article in fact mentions that there is a "dispute" over anarchocapitalism and the rest of the "anarchists". It does not belong in the lead--not unless now wishes to do the same for each and every anarcho- article on Wikipedia. The fact that has only done this for anarchocapitalism speaks to the fact that it is POV-pushing and should not stand.
And that has consistently misrepresented the truth (e.g. saying that there was a discussion on the talk page when the timestamps showed that there wasn't, saying on his talk page that he didn't perform 3 reverts in 24 hours when the timestamps show him performing 3 reverts in just under 19 hours) speaks to the fact that he is not doing these edits in good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My thinking on this is guided by two important considerations: First, this is an article about a concept and associated works/movements. It is not an article about the word. Second, we should make some effort to follow the focus of secondary sources about what issues are prominent. Who coined the word is not a prominent issue in most literature I've read on the subject. So on the basis of those two factors, I see no reason for who coined the word to be something that is discussed in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Slight factual error

The text below the image in section 1.5 states that Murray Rothbard believed the American Revolution was United States' only just war. This is not quite correct. He believed the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence were the only just wars. See:

Not sure how to fit it into the context but if anyone feels like fixing it, there you go :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpx86 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but he didn't consider the U.S. part of the "War for Southern Independence" to be justified.--bjwebb (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

victimless crimes

I don't think it is a consesus among the anarcho-capitalists that the so called victimless crimes would be rendered moot. David Friedman argues that some cities or local communities could actually pass private laws banning drugs or even, if the enforcement of such laws was efficient from the perspective of the consumers. The outcome he predicts would be that in a stateless society some liberal cities (e.g. New York) would allow for hardcore drugs such as heroine whereas traditional communities would even ban liquor consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonfiction and further reading

The further reading is completely redundant of the earlier nonfiction section. Anything relevant, like links, from the former should be moved to the latter, and the further reading section deleted. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't quite fit with the wiki style guide. The literature section serves a navigational purpose, it is a sort of summary for another article. On the other hand, the further reading section serves to supplement this main article (e.g. anarcho-capitalism, not the "list" sub-article entitled Anarcho-capitalist literature). Preserving article hierarchy helps with both readability and the article's usefulness as a quick reference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Global perspective?

I'm not sure why that tag was added, as nothing has been put in the talk page about it. The article mentions, to my knowledge, all the important figures in anarcho-capitalism, including American and European thinkers, and historical instances such as Iceland. The concept is universal in application, so I'm not sure what could be added in that regard. Are there Asian or African angles to the concept that are missing, and if so, what are they? I'm honestly perplexed as to what could be added. This is a featured article, which means it has been rigorously examined and been found to be of the highest quality. This just seems like a random tagging. Thoughts? Torchiest talk/contribs 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Random tagging is what it looks like from here. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, if no one objects, I'm going to remove it. LK (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I see it's back and same problems remain so removing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Where to put Molinari and fans?

First I've added the sorely lacking synonyms to anarcho-capitalism and the fact that it is a libertarian philosophy.

Re: Gustave de Molinari, not sure where to put info about him since he both had similar early ideas and has modern fans influence by the other modern anarcho-capitalists. There's a quote in his article where Rothbard calls him first AC. Ideas? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


I cleaned up a few obvious problems today. But article in generally overly wordy and sometimes redundant and self-contradictory, sometimes poorly referenced, and with strange POVs here and there. But not something I'm likely to clean up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Somalia as Modern Example

Somalia is a textbook example of an anarcho-capitalist society.Leahcim506 (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[citation needed] --LK (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect/merge Free-market anarchism here?

Someone wants to do that at Talk:Free-market_anarchism#Redirect_to_anarcho-capitalism. I think this article belongs as subsection of Free-Market anarchism. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

I feel as a reader the 3rd paragraph in the introduction is hard to read. I can't place it, but it just doesn't seem to 'flow' very well Jinothius (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Literature Addition

Viception ( is a fictional anarcho-capitalist book. I tried adding it before, but was overruled. Will someone add it? Ravulio --(talk), 17 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism... why the association between the two theories? I'm not saying that anarcho-capitalism is invalid or non-existant. I just find it odd that many anarchists have paid dearly for fighting capitalism as an authoritarian institution over the years only for some right-libertarians to come along and corrupt the term. Anarchy means no authority, yet employers and landlords hold authoritarian positions inseparable from capitalism. Furthermore, because the two theories oppose each other, associating them only serves to confuse to the detriment of both theories. How about removing the association and just listing individualist anarchism as an influence? KLP (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

On wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I haven't disagreed with or contradicted any reliable sources in clarifying the distinction between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists. Let's avoid confusing readers. KLP (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not even clear what you are proposing or for what article, so one must assume you want to delete this article and move it under individualist anarchism, which would be very much vs. the many WP:RS that support this. I should have just asked you to clarify your unclear proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a couple of proposals for this article:
  • Change comparisons between anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists to comparisons between anarcho-capitalists and most anarchists. Individualist anarchists also oppose capitalism.
  • Move the capitalism category box above the anarchism box. Capitalism is the primary constituent of anarcho-capitalism and deserves foremost placement.
KLP (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, this discussion has been done to death. Ad nauseum. Ad infinitum. It's in the archives for the talk page several times in different forms. Anarchy means no rulers, not no authority. Historically speaking (which is what you're trying), only catholics can be termed christians. Why do I bring that up? Because you're trying some historical argument that all anarchists were opposed to capitalism, blah blah blah, and now some libertarians are trying to "corrupt" (your word) anarchism. Just as the protestants "corrupted" christianity. IOW: that won't fly. Learn to live with the fact that capitalism and anarchism are compatible. Or don't. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that you stop trying to push a POV which has been dealt with already.
Anarchism is the "primary component", as you term it. There's already an article about anarcho-capitalism and its place in anarchism--which is linked to. I think that should take care of your suggestions. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Relax. I had to get everyone's attention somehow. My suggestions will simply put this article in compliance with Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and improve coherence in general. KLP (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously someone has been busy with that article, but the issue isn't compliance with article but policy and what is put in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

@Original poster. By your opinion the same can be said for anacho communism/socialism with a person being at the authority of the collective but that is not what anarchy means. Anarchy means stateless and government-less, it does not mean without authority. Dunnbrian9 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What opinion? KLP (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dunnbrian9 That's not true. There is a huge difference between an authority that a person has because of his knowledge and an authority because of his luck, coincidence, help by others, position in the byrocratic system. Anarchy means without rulers. If someone is giving you orders than he is a ruler, so you can't say that's anarchy. BTW Anarchy and anarchism is different. Anarchy is a state and anarchism is a philosophy. In the anarchist philosophy there is no space for authority that comes from above and is not spontanious (earned by knowledge and not abused afterwards). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion regarding a sentence in the intro

"Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms,[15] and vice versa."

Is this statement meant to say that anarcho-capitalists consider all anti-capitalist anarchists that came before them not to be anarchists? I think we should remove "and vice versa" and advance the clarity of what is being said-- That anarcho-capitalists generally do not consider anarchists before Murray Rothbard anarchists, or that they consider their positions to be contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talkcontribs) 08:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

@Original poster. No... The statement says that what I explained in the above post. Read it. Capitalism + anarchism can't go together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

By vice versa, it is implied that anarcho-capitalists view socialist anarchy as a contradiction in terms. Someone or some body of people must control the distribution of resources and the means of production within a socialist society. Those people represent an authoritative body which acts in the same way any State would act. They have the ability to take property (resources) from some and give to others without the consent of the individual; which is the primary objection of anarcho-capitalists to statism. It is impossible to have a system of entirely voluntary interactions if individuals are not allowed to retain private property rights over the assets they have produced with their own labor. Humans will naturally defend that which they have produced as their own. Any attempt by an external body to appropriate the product of a man's labor without his consent inherently results in violence and is non-voluntary. (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@talk That body is not an authoritative body. It's just a body that has an evidention of the income and outcome and they don't have power over others. So If questioned, the people inside the body can rotate on some mandat so the horizontal structure is preserved. And "They have the ability to take property (resources) from some and give to others without the consent of the individual; " is not true, because the individual freedom is as important as the collective freedom, so everything is free in an socialist anarchist society as long as the people agree on that. And of course, for the next sentence, the creation of a system in which everyone exactly geets what he deserves is more than hard to create (but will always be the best) because of the human factor and the thing that everyone will thinks that he deserves more than he is given. But that system, of course, is part of the social anarchist movement and it is called collectivism and you can't disquallify the social anarchist movement with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists view a separation of individual and collective "freedom" as also being oxymoronic in nature. An individual can necessarily not be free if the product of their labor is being expropriated by others against their consent.Michael.suede (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

On "Early Pennsylvania" (Section 3.3)

That entire section seems to be completely irrelevant. I suspect that literal anarchy is a complete misdefinition of the situation referred to, and thus using that situation as an example of anarcho-capitalism severely hinders the logic and credibility of the entire article. Also, the section is way too short and gives virtually no explanation or background. I considered just deleting it, personally, but I didn't want to take such a drastic step without obtaining feedback first.Gniob (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the source article. Section 3.3 is relevant, but still way too short, etc. Is there such a term as "stub section"?Gniob (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism = Tea Party movement

In essence, what the Tea Party movement and people like Peter Schiff are shouting, isn't that not just simply Anarcho-capitalism what they want? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an anarcho capitalist, but no. (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

David Friedman

I was wondering if it would be beneficial to provide additional information on David Friedman's theories of the business model and interaction of private law agencies; elaborating on his ideas could provide a more thorough and comprehensive exposition of the differing views especially considering that his expertise is legal theory and economics. rob777 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think so.--MeUser42 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I cannot believe David Friedman is not mentioned in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buntje (talkcontribs) 09:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. David Friedman ranks with Rothbard as one of the fathers of modern anarcho-capitalism. He should be in the intro and there should be a more in-depth section of his works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured article?

This article has had numerous revisions since the last review of its featured article status and looks very different from when it passed that review ( I propose that we consider reviewing its status again. KLP (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Market anarchism

There are multiple market anarchist ideologies one of the more popular being Mutualism(Which differs greatly from Anarcho-Capitalism). I think the part that says "also referred to as Market Anarchism" should be removed. It implies that Market Anarchism is a synonym for Anarcho-Capitalism, which is heavily biased to say the least. --Sharangir (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

also referred to as Market Anarchism -> sometimes referred to as Market Anarchism --MeUser42 (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Does not solve the issue of it implying that Anarcho-Capitalism is the one and only market anarchist ideology. When in fact there are older and more popular market anarchist ideologies that are even anti-capitalist. --Sharangir (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this can be solved by rewriting it to something like "Often referred to as market anarchism by capitalists, despite there being other older anarchist market ideologies". But then without my bias. Something that makes it clear capitalists refer to it as market anarchism, but others do not think "anarcho-capitalism" when they hear the terms "market anarchism". --Sharangir (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And why does "market anarchy" redirect to this page? The mainstream of market anarchism has always been socialist, eg 'mutualism,' 'economic democracy.' That's the anarchism mainstream since inception and it's staunchly anti-capitalist. Finx (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually just had a market anarchist friend of mine point this out to me as well. I asked him for sources and he recommended "Markets not Anarchy" along with mentioning the name "Charles Johnson" and the proliferation of the term on C4SS and Radgeek. I wonder if it might be worth creating an article on Market Anarchism and removing the redirect. Zell Faze (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchist?

It seems to me questionable that "individualist anarchist" is included as a description of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought. While it is true that prominent founders of the philosophy, such as Rothbard, were heavily influenced by earlier Individualists such as Benjamin Tucker, it is the case that, by and large, the Individualists rejected outright most of the key components of capitalism. All throughout the publication of Liberty Tucker derided usury: profit, interest, and rent, and clearly rejected the general notion of capitalistic absolute property rights in favor instead of possession and use. Tucker also was painstakingly clear that his philosophy belonged to the general socialist tradition and the thought of other Individualists such as Warren and Spooner clearly belonged to the socialist camp as well - even if they didn't explicitly say so. Here is a good summary of Tucker's socialist thought from his own writing:

Walkthejosh (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkthejosh (talkcontribs) 04:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is ancap is not necessarily individualist because there are individualists who are not ancap? How does that invalidate the notion that ancap is necessarily individualist? Byelf2007 (talk) 4 August 2012
That's not quite the nuance I was going for. I certainly agree that ancap has drawn from the Individualists, but I don't think that makes ancap Individualist. For instance, much of the social anarchist thought on and criticism of capitalism mirrors Karl Marx, but it would be incorrect to classify social anarchists as Marxists. I see ancap as a philosophy that picked up some key points of agreement with the Individualists and then went in its own direction, often time forwarding conclusions that the Individualists would be uncomfortable with to say the least. The section on this page entitled "Nineteenth century individualist anarchism in the United States" delves briefly into some of the key disagreements ancap and Individualist philosophy have with one another. It seems to me that general Individualist thought (Tucker for specific example) on profit, interest, rent, and private property is distinctly not capitalist (some would argue anti-capitalist). At its core, Individualist Anarchism is not capitalistic. As a result, I don't think it correct to classify anarcho-capitalism as a form of Individualist Anarchism. Walkthejosh (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Well, yeah, I guess you're right--ancap isn't necessarily individualistic. One could justify ancap on collectivist grounds, because collectivism is emphasis of the group over the individual--its basically an ethical stance and not a political one (by the same token, one could be an individualist socialist). I'm gonna go ahead and take the "individualist" bit out of the lede, although I suppose there's probably a plausible case for ancap being necessarily individualistic. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 August 2012
I don't believe there is any collectivist justification for AnCap. AnCap is based on self-ownership (of the individual). If such a collectivist justification exits, it should be in the article. Dude6935 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
A utilitarian collectivist could come to the conclusion that capitalism is the system through which wealth is most efficiently used, thereby furthering the wellbeing of society at large. I've met at least a couple of AnCaps on Reddit who claim to have arrived there through such a utilitarian/collectivist path. I'm unaware of any publications that meet Wiki's sourcing guidelines that affirm this, but this has been my experience. Lwsimon (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You have merely described how AnCap could be utilitarian. While the word collectivist is in your response, you do not discuss the concept's application to capitalism. The only possible collectivization in AnCap is through an individual's choice to join a collective. This clearly makes AnCap individualist since all people are presupposed to be individuals before any man chooses to join a collective. Dude6935 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


I'm sure this has been brought up before, but this article reads like it's been written by an-caps, which is fine if NPOV can be retained, but it hasn't been. This article could use the attention of someone who's familiar with the subject matter, but who isn't an anarchist or an ancap.

When this article was featured, it felt much more even handed.Gigacannon (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It has not been brought up before, and the article is still featured. Please specify where you feel NPOV has been violated. JLMadrigal (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The trouble is only a-caps seem to be interested in teh article. Although there is a criticism bit. Maybe expand that?(Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Merger proposal

Proposal that the page Free-market anarchism be merged into Anarcho-capitalism due to duplicate terms in the opening definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiWildWildPedia (talkcontribs) 00:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose for reasons mentioned above by editor Sharangi: "in fact there are older and more popular market anarchist ideologies that are even anti-capitalist" but will support merger with either main Anarchism article or Anarchist Economics article. Note that this is not the first time someone has wanted to redirect this article, and that the last two attempts ended with abuse by ancap editors, which escalated to the noticedboards and several times required suspension from Wikipedia. Finx (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose.
    • Oppose because there is a reasonable difference between different types of free-market anarchism.
    • Weak because, although there certainly is a difference between different types of free-market anarchism, the difference is not nearly as extreme as it is often made out to appear. The problem ultimately stems from the name anarcho-"capitalism," which disguises the fact that anarcho-"capitalism" actually rejects much of traditional capitalism. The real difference between the different approaches to free-market anarchism is not that some support capitalism and others do not—none really support traditional capitalism. The difference is merely to what extent the various approaches to free-market anarchism accept or reject absentee ownership, and the question is not cut-and-dry. We can't simply say that mutualists reject all absentee ownership, since most mutualists would agree that a family should not lose its home and all of its belongings simply because it decided to go on a one-week vacation. Nor can we simply say that anarcho-"capitalists" support all property claims; Rothbard made it clear in For a New Liberty that there are unjust property claims that should not be respected, and even defended workers seizing the means of production in certain contexts in his essay "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle."
    • In summation, while there is definitely a real difference between the different types of free-market anarchism, and while I oppose the proposed merger, I nevertheless believe it is worth noting that the difference is more nuanced than the terminology may lead one to believe. allixpeeke (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support These concepts may not be exactly the same, but they're close enough that a merge makes sense. The lede of this article even says anarcho-capitalism is also referred to as free-market anarchism. Neither article really explains a difference, making me think the difference boils down to academic and political bickering. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose: Both are different ideologies. In general discourse, market anarchists oppose capitalism. They define capitalism as entangled with state. For example, corporate lobbying, corporate bailouts etc. They "capitalism" and "state" at the same time. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - with reservations. The "free-market anarchism" article is defective. Free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are identical. Both ideologies oppose collectivism and support free markets (the free flow of capital). Collectivization of property requires a state, so it is incompatible with free-market anarchism. Merge the articles and remove hegelian propaganda. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not the same thing and to think that they are identical is to confuse capitalsim with the free market. The difference is pretty simple, free market anarchists want a free market but are fundamentally opposed to capitalist property relations. Free market anarchists are socialists in favour of co-operatives, anarcho-capitalists clearly are not. Free market anarchists still want to end capitalism and see it as fundamentally exploitative and unavoidably hierarchical. With respect to this, they have far more in common with anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists. Anarcho-capitalism clashes enough with traditional anarchist ideas to warrant it being defined separately, not to do so would be confusing at best.Levelledout (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: to those interested they can go check the new state of the "market anarchism" article. In it it is clarified that market anarchism is not reducible to anarcho-capitalism but that there exists an old current of anti-capitalist market anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


The Amish are pretty well fitted into the a-caps model (or close enough, like Iceland). It needs some mention here (and probably there(. Here are some links (not all notable, but a starting point): [1][2] ([3]*)[4][5][6][7] (possibly synthesis()[8](Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Unless you can find self identifications of those people under "anarchocapitalism" clearly that should not go here.--Eduen (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Stefan Molyneux

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Stefan Molyneux - The RfC question is "Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?" -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)