Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Older discussion: /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6

Arguments for and against Anarcho-Capitalism

Given that this entire article contains arguments for anarcho-capitalism, with arguments against being restricted solely to this section, I think it would be less misleading to simply label it "criticisms of anarcho-capitalism". Yes, arguments for anarcho-capitalism are still in this section, but that simply makes it the same as the rest of the article. I'll make this change pending comment. Kev 03:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is misleading. "This entire article" is an exposition of anarcho-capitalism, and thus presents what it is ancaps believe, why, and what their take on various issues is. Calling these "arguments for anarcho-capitalism" makes it seem like a polemical piece when it isn't. Very Verily 05:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds all lovely when you put it that way. Unfortunately, if that were actually the case you wouldn't be spending so much of your valuable personal time removing all attempts to provide exposition on the politics and history surrounding anarcho-capitalism and calling it "overstuffing with criticism". Since when is giving a fair and balanced portrayal of both anarchism at large and anarchist individualism in particular a means of criticising anarcho-capitalism? Oh, right, when doing so happens to present a history that anarcho-capitalists wouldn't want the readers to hear. BTW, I do appreciate so much your return to the discussion page. Kev 09:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

VV, you will discuss this "one issue" you have with this compromise and hash it out, not go on one man crusades to revert entire pages for a few minor issues. Can we clean this page up? It's a little too long here.--Che y Marijuana 10:25, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Clean up vrs. reverts

I'd like to clean up this article, and wouldn't mind help, but I'm not going to be very happy if it all gets reverted due to some POV foolishness. For example, no one editor can express what "individualists" think, esp. not if that involvbes an opposition to something as basic as "rent". Does that also rule out "work" and "bills"? I never knew individualist = bum. ;)

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your bias couldn't be more clear, you won't even allow historically accurate statements to stand. We are not merely talking about "individualists" Sam, we are talking about anarchist individualists. I'm sorry if you think these people are bums for challenging the legitimacy of rent, but that is your own personal POV, and you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to remove their views just because you think they should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't like the history of anarchism, feel free to move onto a page you can more easily stomach. Kev 12:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And if you don't like NPOV and Factual accuracy, feel free to move on to a blog ;) Seriously tho, you can't claim to express individualist anarchist thought as some sort of homgeneous commodity, anarchism is necessarilly diverse. If you have a leg to stand on, cite it. Lets hear your sources. Otherwise I'll continue to think of you as a 'means of production' of hot air ;). Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is as inane as arguing that you can't make any claims about anarcho-capitalism on this page or libertarian socialism on its page. Individualist anarchists have a tradition, they have their own page too if you want to see it, and the evidence that they (tucker, spooner, stirner) oppose property entitlement and thus rent is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES on the very pages of the individuals in question right here on wikipedia. Not only is not my job to educate you when you go off editing subjects you don't have the knowledge required to even understand properly, but you have more than once demonstrated your willful ignorance of the subject matter and your insincerity in editing these articles, so I'm not going to waste a single moment supplying evidence for undoing edits that you supply -no- evidence for having made in the first place. Kev 13:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your refual to supply references is noted. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are the one asserting that individualist anarchists do not oppose rent, yet I am the one who must provide evidence? Back where I come from we have this funny tradition whereby the person making the claim is required to provide the evidence, but apparently you think my refusal to do your work for you will provide a convienent cover for the fact that you have provided no evidence yourself. Kev 13:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My claim is that indivualists are diverse, and that you might do better to cite a particular individual than a broad spectrum. I have no interest in your head games. Please go have a cup of tea. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great! Then please provide evidence for this claim. How about a single anarchist individualist that advocates property as entitlement a la the anarcho-capitalists rather than property as possession a la Proudhon. This should be very easy evidence for you to provide, yes? Kev 14:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have you considered writing a Wikipedia article on possession (anarchism), to help others better understand the disctinction above? - Nat Kraus e 05:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

reclamation

"Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists repudiate all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, aggressive war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights. They reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them on the grounds that they are violations of rights, not necessarily because they are committed by governments."

The last sentence is not really good. Some ancaps are pure economists. They would be thieves as it would be their prefered profession. So it is too pathetic to say: "They reject these forms of coercive control ... by private agents." All they love is their economic view. Or they think private coercive control is better than government, because of economic advantages and responsibility. And I think so because I don't make moral claims to top reality.

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anarcho-capitalism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anarcho-capitalism}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

67.166. / Spencer

Please tell me why Spencer is not an individualist in his essay "The Right to Ignore the State" (http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm)

And before is written: "Many anarcho-capitalists were also influenced by individualist critiques of the State and their arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it (as, for example, ..." ?!?!

--Alfrem 18:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence in this article that it is specifically an individualist anarchist one.

What shall mean that? It is by definition an individualist anarchist one. (right to ignore or withdraw from it) What do you need more? Must Spencer claim before: "Heh guys, I am individualist now when I write this!" --Alfrem 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Declaring the right to ignore or withdraw from the state does not an individualist anarchist make. If it did, then all anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, primitivists, and egoists would necessarily be anarcho-individualists. Being an anarcho-individualist means more than simply being against the state, and even more than being against the state because one has a right to withdraw from it. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly anti-state, that much is clear. But its relation to individualist anarchism cannot be determined if we only view this one article without relying on his other works (as you seem to be implying we should).

That is irrelevant because Spencer is not the topic but individualsist anarchsim is it. You disturb yourself at the person of "Mr. Spencer" and not to the point.

Yes, individualist anarchism is the topic, and the source is neither an individualist anarchist nor necessarily giving individualist anarchist arguments, which makes the source you are giving only tangetially relevant to the topic. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In itself, this article gives no evidence on Spencer's position in regards to possession, wage, or usury. Taken together with his collected works, there is good reason to believe that Spencer was not himself an individualist anarchist, and thus that the arguments given in this essay are not appropriately labeled "individualist anarchist" when they do not present themselves as such explicitly.

Yes, that is possible. One can deliberate about it. But that doesn't change anything that Spencer's topic must be an individualist one. I can't help it that just Spencer ist the author. That is not the mistake which you may revert.

It is, futhermore, rather important that Spencer was more than just an individualist anarchist "in [this] essay" if we are to make valid this example as part of general "individualist critiques of the State". Kev 07:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. That is only important on Herbert Spencer and the point here is not "individualist" but "individualistic". --Alfrem 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. The passage is specifically trying to state that anarcho-capitalism is drawing from anarcho-individualist sources. In order to do that you have to actually list anarcho-individualist sources that it has drawn from, not sources which may or may not be anarcho-individualist, not sources which are merely anti-state, not sources which are merely generally individualistic, but sources which are specifically anarcho-individualist. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction?

In the Libertarian Socialism article, Sam Spade led a laughably biased crusade to get the article trashed or severely edited, claiming that the term was a contradiction, citing the modern right-wing American definition of libertarianism.

The vast majority of anarchists consider anarcho-capitalism to be a contradiction, as anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. While I'm not suggesting or implying that the article be scrapped/overhauled, as such a proposition is as stupid and juvenile here as it was in the Libsoc article, would anyone be willing to write a section stating that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, the black sheep of the anarchist tradition, at worst, simply the American right-wing form of libertarianism in disguise, and that most anarchists do not consider such anarchists to be anarchists at all? ~ Bloodsorr0w, Jan 23, 2005

The Sam Spade crusade was like a year ago. Why are you bringing it up now? Anyway, this article currently states: "It would be an understatement to claim that anarcho-capitalism's place within the anarchist tradition is hotly contested (see Anarchism); in fact, it is disowned by most anarchists, who believe that capitalist economic relations constitute a form of social domination, and thus contradict the fundamental anarchist belief in freedom." That seems entirely sufficient. - Nat Kraus e 20:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Sam Spade crusade continues today. He has simply shifted gears from completely wiping out all information on anarchism to portraying it as only being correctly viewed when it is considered chaos and rioting in the streets. He has even said as much on the anarchism discussion page. Kev 17:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh, well, yeah, I guess that's a different crusade. - Nat Kraus e 00:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism a free market?

The current article reads: (in the sense of a market where all economic decisions and actions by individuals regarding transfer of goods and services are voluntary)

This is not absolutely truth, it is truth according to the anarcho-capitalists who believe that institutions such as interest and rent can be voluntary. As such, it needs to be indicated that this is their view, or the process needs to be described without resort to the word voluntary, whose interpretation is heavily contested in this context. Kev 14:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists explicitly advocate a "free market." The use the common modern definition of capitalism that says it is a system of trade based on a free market. A traditional anarchist doesn't use this definition or is not aware of it. RJII 18:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The definition of free market in www.m-w.com is, an economic market operating by free competition. It is thus completely within the perview of individualists to object that the market advocated by capitalists does not allow for free competition. Merely defining your opposition out of existence is neither convincing nor sincere, but then again neither is relying on highly selective and particular dictionary definitions to define dynamic and multi-dimensional political theories. Or are you now going to accept the common definition that anarchists are those who use violent means to overthrow an established order and abandon the whole anarcho-capitalist title altogether? Kev 18:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, The definition of capitalism at m-w.com is: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." Whatever a "free market" is, capitalism is a system of trade occuring in a free market. So the answer to the question in the heading of this section "Capitalism a free market?" .. is clearly "yes." RJII 18:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Have you seen me remove all referance to capitalism as free market from this article? Nope. What you have seen me do is question whether or not a particular viewpoint based on one particular definition should be the only one presented in regards to this subject. Given that there is a very relevant objection from a very relevant group of people on this very issue, NPOV would at the very least require that this be listed as a viewpoint, rather than simply stated as a fact. Kev 19:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the use of the term "voluntary" here, why don't you have a problem with it being used in the intro paragraph of anarchism, since you're so into "NPOV"? RJII 20:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because that sentence begins with, " These philosophies use anarchy to mean..." making it very clear that the wiki article is explicating a point of view, not advocating it. The sentence in question here gives no indication that this is merely the point of view of capitalists, only that they are promoting it. In fact, in the absence of any qualifier, it implies that what they are promoting is in fact voluntary according to wikipedia itself. Kev 20:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It says that Anarcho-capitalists/free-market anarchists believe in a free-market by definition, then relays the basic definition of a free market. I don't see any advocacy in that. RJII 02:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't see -any- advocacy in having wikipedia declare that what is a free market according to capitalists is voluntary? You don't see that as, you know, sorta giving away the entire controversy to the anarcho-capitalists by definitively stating that institutions such a usury and rent are voluntary in nature? Give me a break here, this is -one- friggin qualifier to bring this into NPOV, why are you resisting it so much? Kev 02:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalist by definition advocate a "free-market." It's explicit in the definition of anarcho-capitalism. It's also explicit in the definition of a free market that it's one based on "voluntary" interaction. There is nothing POV about providing a quick definition of it that both sides agree on ..that it's "voluntary." If someone disagrees that what anarcho-capitalists advocate is accurately described by the moniker "free market" then that's another issue. I'd guess it would be a difficult claim to substantiate. RJII 03:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you really insist on being so pedantic as to define away the positions of those who disagree you will only find your foundations slipping away beneath you. If "free market" must be "voluntary" (something I agree with), then of course capitalism is not considered to be advocating of a free market to many people. Can you justify why this fact should not be reflected by the text? Kev 03:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone arguing that as a criticism in the text. But it would be a criticism of whether anarcho-capitalists advocacy of a free market is truly a advocacy of a what is defined as a free market, rather then whether a free market is a market of voluntary interaction. RJII 05:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what it would be a criticism of, the text should not be left without a qualifier to indicate that the anarcho-capitalist claim is just that, a claim. Kev 05:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well if you modify it to say that they "claim" to be in favor of a free market, then are you also willing to allow the traditional anarchism article to be modified to say that the anarchists "claim" to be in favor of "the elimination of hierarchy and imposed authority" and "claim" to be in favor of "voluntary cooperation"? RJII 05:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very confused RJ. Why do you think the very first sentence of the article begins with, "anarchism is a generic term describing...". Perhaps because people just like the phrase "generic term describing" and stuck it in at random? Because nobody thought to say, "anarchists are the folks who do X?" No... because by indicating the philosophy rather than the supporters, and explicitly refering to the title as generic, it rules out any particular group of people from -necessarily- claiming the title. In other words, it is descriptive of a phenomena, not proscriptive of a belief system. Wikipedia is not in the instance indicating what is, but rather what is described. And it is beyond argument to state that anarchism is at times used to describe social movements that advocate elimination of hierarchy, this is a fact regardless of whether or not the description is true.

Your second example is equally lacking. I've already indicated to you that the sentence begins with the words, "These philosophies use anarchy to mean..." Now why do you suppose people decided on that wording instead of, say, "Anarchy means..." or, "These philosophies adhere to anarchism which means...". Because once again, and not purely by chance, wiki editors are being -very- careful to ensure that the voice of wikipedia does not bias the reader toward a particular interpretation of the text. Once again, it is a fact that these philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary cooperation. This does -not- necessitate that the society they advocate is based on voluntary cooperation, nor that anarchy does in fact mean a society based on voluntary cooperation. All it necessitates is that group X uses the word to mean Y, and again, we have in this case reached an undeniable fact.

This is in marked distinction from a passage which reads, "Anarcho-capitalists promote individual property rights and free markets", which gives the distinct impression that there is a particular group of people called anarcho-capitalists who do in fact promote free markets. BOTH of the statements you indicated are already qualified in the way you have required, so I take that as a go ahead to qualify the anarcho-capitalism article in a like manner. Do you object? Kev 06:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do what you want. I just want to point out in the article what a free market is, and that that definition of free market is what capitalists refer to when they say they advocate a free market. RJII 07:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJ's latest edit: (what they consider a free market is the generally accepted definition of one --a market where all economic decisions by individuals are voluntary)

Are you -trying- to be antagonistic? Do you even realise who originally put in that tagline to explain free market? Why the heck is it required when you are already linking directly to the article from the text? Kev 04:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to put in a quick definition of a "free market"...a defintion you already said you agreed with. It saves time for the reader; if he wants more explanation, he can click on the link. The fact that you dont want it there is highly suspect. I thought you were all about "NPOV." RJII 05:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saves time for the reader my ass. You are trying to give the impression, using the voice of wikipedia, that the markets capitalists support are in fact voluntary. I played nice, I tried to discuss this before even editing it, I tried out several different edits to compromise, and you've done nothing but push this BS propaganda. I've had enough of that and will simply revert now if you continue. Kev 08:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a true statement. I'm guessing the reason you don't want it there is you want to give the impression that anarcho-capitalists don't support a free market as defined ..one based on voluntary interaction. Feel free to revert. I'll do the same. I see no reasons to delete a true statement. RJII 18:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is the same as free-market anarchism

Someone is linking the Free-market anarchism article to "individualist anarchism" article when it should be linked here. Some on anarchism talk page are arguing that free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism aren't same thing, asserting that capitalism is anthethical to a free-market. RJII 18:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article should not be redirected to either page, but if it is going to be redirected to one of the two it should most definately be individualist anarchism as that movement pre-existed anarcho-capitalism and is accepted as legitimate by other anarchists. And again, it -does not matter- whether or not you agree with the argument that capitalism is antithetical to a free-market. All that matters is that such an argument exists and is not blatantly self-contradictory, and that this argument was given long before anarcho-capitalism even existed. NPOV requires that this fact be reflected in the text, and thus those who put that argument forward have far more legitimacy to claim the title free-market anarchists as they were the first to do so and very much defined what the term came to mean. Kev 18:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, who then? Who was the first to call himself a "free-market anarchist"? RJII 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lets see, I've told you twice on the anarchism talk page, I gave you the exact book in which the collection of essays can be found, and I've refered you back to that evidence at least two more times since then. Heck, I even 'linked to an online version of it in case you were to lazy to find it yourself', and now you are asking me again? This is the third and last time... In the collection of essays 'Individual Liberty' Benjamin Tucker explicitly refers to what he advocates as a form of free-market anarchism, and explicitly rejects capitalism. Honestly, if you aren't even aware of Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, or the other individualists and their position in regards to the market, I think you should seriously reconsider your current crusade to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism. Kev 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see them referring to "free-market anarchism." RJII 19:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJ, this is ridiculous. Are you aware that amongst most anarcho-communists the word anarcho-communist and anarchist are sometimes used interchangably? Are you aware that in doing so the libertarian socialists are conflating their own personal take on anarchism with anarchism as a whole? Do you think it would therefore be appropriate to refer to anarcho-communism as simply anarchism in wikipedia, and to redirect the page "anarchism" to anarcho-communism? No, of course not. Not only because there are other groups claiming the title, not only because anarcho-communists are not the only people advocating anarchism, but also because it would be a disingenuous attempt to redefine the terminology used by anarchists in such a way as to rule out even the very dialogue necessary to distinguish anarchism from anarcho-communism. Now... if this is inappropriate for anarcho-communism, why is it appropriate for anarcho-capitalism? Kev 19:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)