Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism/Archive 4

A third opinion
What a mess is this! As far as I've understood what's happening here, what I see is that there is a lack of a straight definition of the word "anarchy". As I see, some are saying that anarchy implies ant-capitalism, so an-cap is not a kind of anarchy, while other argue that an-cap is an individualist anarchy. Am I right or should I read the whole talk and article again? According to the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Dictionary says about anarchía (= "anarchy"), the word means lack of head = leader, lawlessness, etc. As far as I know, in anarcho-capitalism, there's no head; the economic flux should move the whole thing without the existence of state at least on economic topics, so it should be a kind of anarchy... or not? --Neigel von Teighen 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just as legitimate a form of anarchism as any other, even more so as far as I'm concerned. The collectivists won't admit it because, economically, it goes against what they believe in. I, on the other hand don't believe there's any such thing as communist-anarchism. The notion is ludicrous to me. :) Imagination débridée 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there cannot be a communist-anarchism: communism wants the State to take anything on its hands! No, anarchism is, according to the etymology, any ideology that wants the lack of any head nor leading (an-archía) and anarcho-cap wants that for economical reasons. Then, this article must be rewritten so the differences between left-anarchism and an-cap are clearly and accurately stated; the difference is not in that one is anarchism and the other is not, but the reasons why state should be abolished (anarchism, because considering state as a repressor of social & moral individual liberties and an-cap, because of an exaggeration of Adam Smith's doctrines). --Neigel von Teighen 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * God some of you people talk rubbish. Communism has nothing to do with the state, not even in Marxist doctrine. You really haven't got a clue, do you? Go read Kropotkin, Goldman or Berkman before spouting off. Capitalism requires owners of capital and bosses, who count as leaders, thus it is inconsistent with anarchism - get it? Libertarian communism, the most extreme form of anarchism, has equality of ownership, thus the greatest freedom possible for all, not the elite minority that would have freedom in the oppression that "anarcho"-capitalism would bring about. Donnacha 01:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Communism, whether the state form or that anarcho form, is authority over the individual. Deciding on one's own free will to work as an employee of someone else is not inconsistent with anarchism. Not everyone wants the hassle of running their own business. To oppose the right of contract, which anarcho-communists do oppose, is very anti-freedom.Anarcho-capitalism 02:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two words - voluntary cooperation. Anarchist communists don't oppose contracts, we, living in the real world, recognise that most people would rather be free than someone else's slave. Contracts enforced by private security without any legal or state framework of defence against exploitation is what exists in most of Brazil and it's a brutal, murderous situation. You propose a return to the worst abuses of the early industrial revolution. I propose freedom, freedom to associate voluntarily or chose not to. Freedom to cooperate or to do you own thing. Contracts are control, control backed by force is coercion, "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Donnacha 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Brazil is nothing like anarcho-capitalism. So enough of that. If you propose freedom, then you have to allow contracts and trade, and not expropriate (steal) the product of labor of others.Anarcho-capitalism 02:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * From Communism "Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. " All I can say is ugh, barf, you gotta be kiddin' me and no thanks. Having a dictatorship of any kind doesn't sound like freedom to me. Did it ever occur to you commies that majoritarianism would be a nightmare? Having a bunch of people tell me how I can live my life, what I can say, think, do..where I can work whether I can open a store or have my own small family farm or not, is not freedom but just another form of authoritarianism and oppression? Fuck that. And sorry, but again, Americans don't give a rat's ass what Europeans think about anything. Just the way it is. We don't have the reverance for Europeans that they have for themselves. (Something, btw, that has been going on for a long, long time..that enormous ego that Europeans have and how highly they think of themselves.) No one cares. Imagination débridée 06:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, yeah, and you really need to read American history before you go spouting off. I did read a book by Berkman, a long time ago. He was the  most obnoxious author I have ever read. I hated him. Imagination débridée 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, hello there, wolfster, how very recognizable. Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Thewolfstar sock. Go away.Bishonen | talk 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC).


 * you have to allow contracts and trade, and not expropriate (steal) the product of labor of others. - Wage labour is theft in disguise under the system of money which distorts perceptions of value. Money is a restriction on trade. You want free trade? How about swap everything for nothing? That's free trade. -- infinity  0  14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Money is a restriction on trade." Never taken economics 101 have you? Money facilitates trade. It relieves us of the need to barter. And it doesn't "distort perceptions of value", whatever that means. Value is always in the eye of the beholder. No one's labor is worth one cent more than what someone is willing to pay for it. Apparently you have a Marxist background and hold the mystical "labor theory of value" but it's nonsense.Anarcho-capitalism 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Having a dictatorship of any kind doesn't sound like freedom to me. - Dictatorship of proletariat is not what Marx wanted as an end goal, but what he thought would happen as a result of the situation in his time. What he really wanted as an end goal was this: (from the Communist Manifesto) - "Instead of the old bourgeois society, with its class antagonisms and contradictions, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. -- infinity  0  15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Back onto ideological discussions? First: this is an encyclopedia, not a political forum! The article must be "scientifically" written... I return to the etymology: anarchy is any form of lack of leadership, not necessarily regulation (some one mentioned contracts as a way of control, but these are internal regulations and thus can be internally broken). The question is very simple: what want anarcho-caps? The lack of any state that regulate society because economy will do its work by itself. If this is not an anarchy form, then I don't know what the hell it is. On the other hand, a coherent form of anarcho-communism is contradictory because communism talks about proletarian dictatorship and a popular state authority over capitalists... No, "standard" anarchism wants the elimination of state as it is a form of external repression of individual liberties. But the result of both anarchism and an-cap is the same: no state; the reasons are the difference and this should be the article about! --Neigel von Teighen 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article cannot be scientifically written. All that can be done is to write out what people's opinions are. In the end, there is no "truth" on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism or not. I myself really don't give a shit, it's just a word. When I use anarchism, I implicitly mean anti-social hierarchy, which includes capitalism, but other people will think differently.


 * In short, your statement "if this is not an anarchy form, then I don't know what the hell it is" is extremely unscientific, and just your opinion. There is no correct answer to "is ancapism anarchism?" (if you start with capitalist assumptions, you get yes; if you start off with collectivist assumptions, you get no; and the correctness of these assumptions is outside the scope of this article) and we should not portray that there is a correct answer in this article. -- infinity  0  15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the result of both anarchism and an-cap is the same: no state; - this I disagree with. Anarchism is about government, of which the state is only one type of. (see many modern dictionaries as well as etymological def). The result of anarchism is not being governed. Most anarchists, and myself, would say this includes capitalism (private MOP, wage labour, etc etc). -- infinity  0  15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "On the other hand, a coherent form of anarcho-communism is contradictory because communism talks about proletarian dictatorship and a popular state authority over capitalists..." - That's Marxism, not libertarian communism. Jesus, don't talk politics if you don't even understand the concepts. Anarchist communism is based on voluntary cooperation and free association, no dictatorship, no state. Christ, you do realise the origins of political anarchism are in the disagreement between Bakunin and Marx over these very issues. Donnacha 15:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now I understand the concepts a bit better and recognize "state" is not the word; let's leave it on "leadership" (=archía), thus, government. Thank you all!
 * Anyway, my opinion doesn't change very much: anarchy should be any form of ideology that wants the elimination of government and clearly, as infinity says, anarcho-cap is a form of anarchy. About libertarian communism, I've been reading a bit (maybe what I needed to do before) and say that it is a form of anarchy, Donnacha, you were right... Thank you, also! --Neigel von Teighen 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I'm right, but you're still wrong. History and the vast majority of anarchists disagree that anarchism is just anti-government. "Anarcho"-capitalists are a minority sect of libertarian wreckers who are seeking to discredit anarchism by associating it with its opposite (capitalism). Or maybe that's giving them too much credit, perhaps they're just just intellectually the children of the Reagan era where, as Michael Franti put it:
 * "'most people think Central America means Kansas, socialism means unamerican, and apartheid is a new headache remedy'"
 * Donnacha 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand no one is just anti-government, but the abolition of leadership is the nucleus of the anarchist ideology. From what I understand, anarchist believe in a social contract (based in Rousseau) individually accepted to preserve order and that no entity like government should impose order. Anarcho-capitalism states the same, but not through a social contract, but by economic contracts... or what?? --Neigel von Teighen 12:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How does one enforce an economic contract? The social contract is a voluntary one, any individual is free to cooperate or not to - at any point in the process. Economic contracts, particularly when, as in capitalism, the means of production are owned by individuals, is an hierarchical relationship. One person owns the factor and contracts others to work for him. If they breach the contract, what then? "Anarcho"-capitalists support private security and, presumably, enforcement of contracts by them. That's a coercive relationship - do this or else... Thus, it's inconsistent with anarchism, which is fundamentally opposed to coercive authority in nearly all its forms (some exceptions, such as Chomky's example of the parent who uses force to stop their child running into the street). It's also an irrational proposition from the point of view of capitalists - the origins of the bourgeois state are in the realisation of capitalists that providing these services could more effectively be done by a centralised state that charged the workers (through taxation) to pay for them. That's what the police are - defenders of the capitalist system. What capitalists dislike in government is not its existence, it's how social pressures have forced governments to make limited concessions to the people and put limited controls on the freedom of capitalists (environmental controls, labour laws, etc). Donnacha 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, are you confused. You couldn't be further off-base. Wrong. Doctors without suspenders 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For our purposes here, it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong. He has nicely articulated an important strain of anarchist thought about the nature of freedom and authority. Nearly all anarchists agree that "force and fraud" are wrong, but there is a lot of disagreement about what preconditions are necessary for a free, unforced contract. Libertatia 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does matter. The only thing that has been articulated here is a skewed, biased, and misinformed outlook on a laissez-faire economy. It would nice if people didn't say things like "anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron" and then spout a complete lack of understanding of it. That statement was full of propaganda and lies. Let's just try and keep this factual and neutral. Doctors without suspenders 19:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the statement was an argument against an oxymoron by someone grounded in real anarchist theory. "Propaganda" as you call it is anarchist analysis of capitalism that has been consistent for over a century. Lying, of course, is turning up regularly with a new name after being block - so, who are you, Hogeye or thewolfstar? Donnacha 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to your post, Donnacha, what I see is that the problem to see whether something is anarchism is if it defends the abolition of social hierarchy. You say, then, that anarcho-capitalism bases itself on economic contracts and these are always hierarchical (hierarchy is etymologically "the government of those having divine power" > "gov. of the superior"), how do you or anarchism analyze the situation of two successful traders making a business? I'd like to tell you that I'm asking you these things because I want to fully understand what is discussed here before I try to edit the article... Excuse me if I bothered you too much. --Neigel von Teighen 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Anarcho-communists think working for someone else is coercive even if it's voluntary. Go figure.Anarcho-capitalism 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Anarcho-communists know that working for someone with more economic strength than you is an unequal arrangement, thus not a free choice. If you own the factory and I do not, then I have little choice about working for you if I wish to work in the factory. Donnacha 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)The economic contracts part of "anarcho"-capitalism isn't the main problem, it's its support for the ownership of the means of production combined with economic contracts. What you suggest, the situation of two successful traders, is not so much an issue if they are trading that which they made themselves. If, on the other hand, they are trading that which was made in their factory with their tools by people in their pay, then the point is that the hierarchical problem is not between the two, but between each and their workforce - those who they exploited to become successful traders. Fundamentally, the argument is not so much about what system would be in place in an anarchy - every suggestion or theory is guesswork (as most theorists acknowledge) due to the impossibility of knowing what people would decide to if they were truly free. The fundamental problem with "anarcho"-capitalism is that, in defending the continuation of private ownership of the means of production, the result of the removal of the state would be an extreme oligarchy, not anarchy. Anarchy is about the maximisation of freedom for the all, thus it necessitates redistribution because freedom is inconsistent with inequality. How can a person be free when the system demands that they sell their labour to survive? Currently, the state provides a safety net in most developed countries, but take a look at the situation in Brazil or India where slavery continues to exist. "Anarcho"-capitalism would lead to a situation such as that which exists in rural Brazil - you should read about the history of the MST for more details (individual ownership of massive tracts of land, murderous private security firms, widespread poverty and homelessness, etc.). The aim of true anarchism is to tear down everything that prevents true freedom, all hierarchies, all oppressive infrastructure and then allow humanity to develop its own system with that freedom. The prediction is that, in this situation, a new society would be one that would not develop into new hierarchies. The flip-side of this prediction is that the tearing down necessary for anarchy to develop would have to be broadly based and broadly supported by the majority of people, thus creating the base needed for the new society to be truly free and equal. If this did not exist, anarchy can never be created by a minority without mass support. I hope that's clear, feel free to query any bits that are not. Donnacha 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I sympathize with what you're saying, there is a basic flaw in all of this theorizing. It leaves out the question of what happens when groups spring up, who through greed, conspire to take power. Human nature being what it is, in all it's complexity, there will inevitably be those who will want more and will do just this. In the end, the same thing that happened thousands of years ago, would easily happen again. Radiant hedgehog 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a flaw, its a potential danger. What stops that happening now? Nothing more nor less than the current oppressors. I'm more confident in an evolutionary anarchism rather than a revolutionary one as I history tends to show that something born of violence dies in violence. What will stop someone taking over? Well, if you dismantle armies and police and every other armed force of oppression, they'll be lacking the machinery to impose their will. Thus, if people have created an anarchy and believe in an anarchy, they will fight tooth and nail to maintain it, as they have done elsewhere. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, but that's the danger with any attempt to change society. Donnacha 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Freedom is inconsistent with inequality." The "anarcho"-communist position is absurd. Freedom enables inequality. Inequality is the natural result of liberty. As Benjamin Tucker said, ""If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living." Murray Rothbard was right when he said that at the root of "anarcho"-communism, "lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity." The individualist anarchist Max Stirner would also agree.Anarcho-capitalism 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Freedom and equality are not synonomous. A mistake made by many. That was well put. Radiant hedgehog 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who said they were? Congratulations on reading through something without actually paying attention to what it says. A precondition is not a synonym. Freedom for all is impossible with the extremes of economic inequality presented by private ownership of the means of production. To argue that inequality is the natural result of liberty when referring to economic relations is the height of elitism. No man can create wealth on his own, it can only be created through exploitation of one form or another. This is why anarcho-communists argue for a non-monetary system, as the monetarisation of everything is a barrier to freedom. Donnacha 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom requires equality and equality requires freedom. // Liftarn

"Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift" - Noam Chomsky.

Anarcho-communists think working for someone else is coercive even if it's voluntary. - No. Arguments against capitalism is that wage labour is NOT voluntary, but subtly coerced due to economic inequality between the worker and the boss. The worker needs the job more than the boss needs the worker. That is, the money paid is worth more to the worker than to the boss, exposing a huge flaw in the supposed standard of "value" that we call money. -- infinity  0  15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The job is worth to the worker whatever he is willing to pay for that job. If you are hungry, you are willing to pay more for a hamburger than when you're not hungry. That doesn't mean that when you purchase a hamburger when you're hungry that the payment is involuntary. It just means your value judgement changed. Your purchase of a hamburger is voluntary whether you're hungry or not.Anarcho-capitalism 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The job is worth to the worker whatever he is willing to pay for that job. - This is false in two ways.
 * There is a wide range of values which someone is willing to pay for anything; we all look for the best deal we can get. If we think we got a good deal, most of us will keep quiet.
 * His situation affects his value-judgement of the job. Something external to the job can somehow affects his value-judgement of it? How possibly can that be? No, the reality must be that what he is willing to pay is not the value of the job, but the value of the job (in a neutral situation) PLUS the value of his situation.
 * In short, the assumption that "money paid == judgement of value of item traded" is utterly illogical, and highly flawed. In your hamburger scenario, what the hungery person pays for is not only the hamburger, but the hamburger and the satisfying of his hunger. It this LAST HIDDEN FACTOR which is exploited.


 * One question you have not asked yourself is, what is the hamburger worth to the seller, who sells it at different prices to different people, who each have their own value-judgements of it? The correct answer, which you will come to if you think about it for a few seconds, is that the value of the hamburger is undefined to the seller, (or if it is defined, it is irrelevant).


 * The seller wishes to exploit the situations of the buyers in order to create as much new value for himself. When he sells hamburgers at different prices to different buyers, that is only because the different buyers are willing to pay different prices. So what is the value of the hamburger to the seller? Who knows? What can be measured is the value of the hamburger plus the value of the situation of the buyers. In short, the seller makes profit not from the product itself, but from the inequalities and inconsistencies in human society. -- infinity  0  21:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not being "exploited" when you're sold a hamburger. You're being helped. Would you rather go out and kill the cow yourself? No one owes you anything.Anarcho-capitalism 23:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What you just said has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that "money paid for X" does not equal "subject's judgement of value for X". As for your "free choice" argument, I respond to it below. -- infinity  0  15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a value judgement. When you purchase something, you're making a value judgement. But, you're right that money paid for X does not equal the subject's value judgement for X. X is actually valued more than the money paid. You value what you're purchasing more than you value them money that you're giving the other party in exchange. The object you're purchasing is valued by you as being worth more than the money. If you thought the object was worth the same or less than the money, you would keep the money. What is the value (usefulness) of money itself? The value is that prevents the need to look for someone to barter with. If you want bread, you don't have find a baker that wants a material object that you have. You just pay him with money, and he can use that money to pay for something that he actually wants. Money is simply an object (such as gold, shells (as ancient chinese used), salt, or tobacco (as in the early U.S)), that saves us from the need to engage in laborious bartering. Like any other object, you trade your labor with someone else in order to receive it, because you value it - you find it useful. And you, yourself, have to admit that you find it useful because you are not able to purchase things you want from the shops without it. You value money. You want money. Others don't want to trouble themselves by bartering with you. They prefer money in exchange so they don't have to barter. And money itself is the product of labor, like every other object we use that is not free (even in the case of shells because it takes labor to find them). Anarcho-capitalism 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

''Money facilitates trade. It relieves us of the need to barter.'' - This is what you have been indoctrinated with. Look at what you have been taught, and see through the contradictions. Money poses as a standard of value. BUT value is subjective. (Again, see point above about money being worth different amounts to different people.) This creates distortions in perceptions of value and causes people to judge things differently than they would otherwise, because now they are pressurised to considering "money" as something with "value". Now, unlike everything else in the world which has "value", money is just a concept, so it can be increased whenever people (usu. those who control the money) feel like it, resulting new value being created out of nothing, which can be used, paradoxically, to obtain something.

Now, the more amount of money there is, the greater these distortions are. But what is money? Nothing. It's a concept. Humans invented it as a concept, but they never sat down to think of its consequences. All human progress has come about through human activity - that is, labour. Not through the spread and growth of an abstract idea.

I emphasis again that money restricts trade. Why? Simply because of these distortions. Because money is an absolute system used to represent a relative concept, it interferes with the process of trade and creates value out of nothing and destroys value to nothing.

Apparently you have a Marxist background and hold the mystical "labor theory of value" but it's nonsense. - In fact, I agree that value is subjective, if you took the time to read my user page. I'm a philosophical relativist. -- infinity  0  15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Money has tremendous value. It has value in simplifying trade. Without money, you have to find people will goods that you want that simultaneously want goods that you have. The value of money is its ability to facilitate trade by eliminating the need to barter. It's laugable that you say "money restricts trade." Without money, trade would be severely reduced. Why do you think people use money? Even the most primitive societies in the jungle use money, whether it's shells or something else. Very few people barter, because barter is much more difficult. On the labor theory of value, you say you don't have a labor theory of value, but obviously you have some kind of objective theory of value if you think that someone can receive a lower wage than he "should" be receiving. If you thought value was subjective then you would be fine with a person working for peanuts, because you would be in no position to judge whether his wage was proper.Anarcho-capitalism 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have not read any of my points, instead repeating exactly what they teach you in economic classes. If you look throughout history, in fact many societies even in the 17th century, before being invaded by colonial powers, were moneyless. You say, "Without money, trade would be severely reduced." - this may be true for today's society. However, this does not have to be true. If people gave and received without thinking of getting/giving something in exchange, trade would flourish. When we work, we all naturally produce a surplus, more than we need or want.


 * If you thought value was subjective then you would be fine with a person working for peanuts, because you would be in no position to judge whether his wage was proper. - Free will is a funny thing. Given a better wage-rate, would he chose that? Of course he would. But that choice is not available to him. That choice has been restricted by his boss. -- infinity  0  21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is totally incoherent: "If people gave and received without thinking of getting/giving something in exchange, trade would flourish." I've got news for you. Trade is exchange. Gift giving is not trade. What you're referring to as "trade" is not trade. Anarcho-communists, which apparently you are one, advocating the abolition of trade, to be substituted with "giving" according to the needs of others. About wage, sure he would choose a higher wage but the person's free will who is paying him also has to be taken into account. He is not "being restricted by his boss." The boss doesn't owe him a thing. He has no obligation to even offer him a job at all.Anarcho-capitalism 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Trade is exchange and distribution. It is irrelevant whether this exchange is done formally, as in "A for B", or unconditionally, as in "everyone {I make A. What I don't have a use for, I give to others.}"
 * You seem to suggest that because he made the agreement, he had equal control over the agreement as the other parties. This is not true. The person with more economic power has more control over economic agreements, more power to oppress the freedoms of others.
 * You also seem to think that because he made the agreement, he is happy with it. This is also clearly not always true.
 * You seem to think that "consent" makes everything OK. Well, everything everyone does in the world is with consent, obtained either by coercion or without, so this way of looking at this is useless, unless you want to imagine that the world is a utopia. Consent does not mean the subject is not being exploited. Exploitation means taking advantage of somebody's situation. Paying someone peanuts for hard work, because they have no other way of getting money, and is doing ridiculous things to obtain this money, is clearly exploitation. In fact, exploitation DEPENDS on consent to work. If the person does not consent to it, he would not be exploited.
 * You also seem to think that "free will" is everything. A person has "free will" to choose between choices he is able to make. In the case of the poorly-paid worker, he has no choice to work at a better rate. He has free will, but he does not have free choice. The two are distinct concepts. Of course his boss restricts the worker's choice. It's irrelevant whether he has no obligation to offer him higher wages; not offering higher wages is logically equivalent to restricting the possible choices of higher wages. -- infinity  0  15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, I think I now understand what is the anarcho-communist critic against anarcho-capitalism; I have reduced it as the following: freedom = equality and thus, if there's is an economic hierarchy (=capitalism), there is no equality between workers and boss (even if voluntary because money is coercitive) so there is no freedom and that's against anarchism.

My main conflicts with you are two: freedom as equality and the idea that the economy seems to you reduced to the relation between boss and worker. Anyway, my conflict with any kind of anarchism is that human kind is forced to create some hierarchies to protect its own freedom... --Neigel von Teighen 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not just money itself, but the relations it creates. A person with more money has power over a person with less money, and has more coercive potential to force his will over the other's, whether by subtle or aggressive means. Eg. forcing a smaller company out of business by taking all its clients. After this, the smaller company goes bankrupt and is stripped of its freedom to run. -- infinity  0  21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Laugh* A company "stripped of its freedom to run"??? As in a right to run? If I take your clients by producing a better product at a lower price, then it serves you right. If you can't become more efficient then you should shut down or produce something else. There is no such right to keep customers if you charge them high prices. You don't want others to be able to take your customers by outcometing you. You want them to pay unnecessarily high prices, and I bet you would use the state to prohibit competition. Now that is true exploitation. Anarcho-capitalism 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Freedom means "action without restriction". If you make the situation so that I am unable to do something, you have restricted my freedom. It's part of the definition; your counter-argument merely states "it serves you right that I am restricting your freedom". -- infinity  0  15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * laugh* Wow. You have a really warped definition of fredom. Freedom to you is about entitlement. You expect others to provide for you and make sure that you continue to exist. That's not freedom at all. Your "freedom" is actually an assumption of authority over others. Again, no one owes you a thing.Anarcho-capitalism 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by hierarchies? Banding together to protect against an invador is not a hierarchy, even if people with strategic skills are granted a level of authority by the group. So, the doctor is given authority in the hospital, the military expert may be granted some authority in the field (a la Nester Makhno). The problem is when these temporary hierarchies become permanent against the will of the people. Donnacha 21:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hierarchy" is the "government of the superior (archaic: those with power from divinity, as priests and kings)" this is, somebody considered superior ruling over somebody considered inferior; that's clear to me. Obviously, hierarchies can lead to corruption if they don't have external and internal regulation systems. In what I disagree with you is that economy is not per se a hierarchy; when you sell your house, the one who wants to buy it and has the money will buy it; but first the client must want to buy it. Anarcho-cap, from what I see, claims that this movement of goods can make a state work without the existence of a political hierarchy. And here comes the old linguistic problem of partial or total negation (and that I forgot to use in my anarchy definitions): 'an-' can be used for privation rather than for a complete negation (partial negation), i.e. the lack of something but not just the total opposite of it. Anarcho-capitalism could use a partial negation (lack of a economic hierarchy) and anarcho-communism a total negation (against hierarchy). I will try to illustrate this soon (if you want) with some examples, but I must compile them first! --Neigel von Teighen 00:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam
A-c, why do you keep reverting my attempts to clean up the article? The list of 20 sources is not necessary. -- infinity  0  15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A-c, you say "claims that are heavily constested by POV wikipedians need ample sources to show that the claim is true." - That the claim is true is YOUR OPINION. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View policy. You do not hold a monopoly over the truth; please do NOT claim your opinion to be the truth. Even if you think it is, the article is NOT an appropriate place to express it.

As it stands atm, the 20 sources are all overwhelming in favour of one POV. Not only that, but it is VERY bloated. Therefore it is best to remove most of them. You'll notice I did not remove the statements, nor did I remove all of the sources. -- infinity  0  15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got it backwards. The article is weighted in favor of the extreme minority POV that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. On Wikipedia, claims that are heavily contested by POV Wikipedians need ample sources to show that they are true. Anarcho-capitalism is considered a form of anarchism by almost all scholars of history, anarchism, political science, etc.Anarcho-capitalism 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong, "anarcho"-capitalism isn't considered at all by the vast majority of scholars of history, anarchism, political science or anything else you can come up with. Donnacha 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of POV claims like that, we need a lot of sources.Anarcho-capitalism 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not POV, that's a statement of clear fact. There are thousands of books about politics that make no mention of "anarcho"-capitalism. Most make little or no mention of anarchism either. It doesn't matter how many sources you collect, they'll still be a drop in the ocean of books on these topics. I read many a book on anarchism and I've rarely encountered mentions of you oxymorons. Donnacha 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchisms and now eco-anarchisms. These varieties are not particularly well characterized. They are by no means mutually exclusive. So far even a satisfactory classification is lacking. Usually something of a ragbag is offered. Textbooks single out a few varieties for scrutiny, invariably leaving out others that are as important." Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
 * I repeat: "It doesn't matter how many sources you collect, they'll still be a drop in the ocean of books on these topics. " Donnacha 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The sources provided in this article saying anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism are just a drop in the bucket out of all the sources out there that say it is.Anarcho-capitalism 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you deliberately dense or just plain stupid? I've had enough. Donnacha 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the above.Anarcho-capitalism 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A-c. You know very well that "The article is weighted in favor of the extreme minority POV that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism." is false. If you don't, you should. Maybe the only academics you have met are extreme right-wing americans, but there are other types of people out there. And I haven't look over the article in detail, but from a quick scan, I don't think it is very heavily weighted at all towards that POV. It is clearly noted that this is a dispute. Anyhow, spamming 20 sources saying one POV isn't the way to address NPOV issues. Which bits in particular do you think is POV? (Apart from the title, that's a separate issue.) -- infinity  0  21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Donnacha, that comment you made to Anarcho-capitalism was really uncalled for. You should learn to talk respectfully to people. It's also against Wikipedia policy to insult people personally. At least 3/4 of the comments you make to people who disagrere with you are insulting and degrading. Please learn to speak civilly to others. Thank you. Radiant hedgehog 23:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What this article should talk about are the differences between both doctrines, their critics against each other no matter if we are anarcho-caps or anarcho-communists (I'm only a romanticist, so I'm quite neutral here!... just kidding)... both things exist and an encyclopedia is about things that exist, without caring if we think they are named unaccurately or not ("anarcho-cap is not anarchism")... Anarcho-caps think they are anarchists, so the article should place their reasons why they think they are, and the same for anarcho-communists. This is not a political forum! I recognize I have been driven into highly interesting discussions, but let's try to write an encyclopedia article... --Neigel von Teighen 00:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC has been raised against
A conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "Anarchism and individualist anarchism" or "Social anarchism and Individualist anarchism"
Want to rename this to "Anarchism and individualist anarchism" or "Social anarchism and Individualist anarchism"? It's too weird as it is now, because a lot of the objections from other "anarchists" don't just apply to anarcho-capitalism but to individualist anarchism as a whole. It makes for a really awkard article. It singles out anarcho-capitalism as if it's the only one that supports private property, the only one that allows employment and wages, the only one that allows private defense, etc. Even anarcho-capitalist David Friedman, who is one of the two most famous anarcho-capitalists, says he prefers a system without wage labor, so criticisms from social anarchists don't really make sense. Opinions vary from individualist to individualist in regard to the system they prefer. If there is an article comparing anarchisms I would think it would be between the two major branches, individualist anarchism and social anarchism. What does everyone think? (And, oh yeah, comment in the above RFC if you hate me).Anarcho-capitalism 07:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the divide is not between social anarchists and individualists, and that is clear. We already have plenty of material in the other articles differentiating social and individual forms. Libertatia 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by that. The two most broad categories of anarchism are individual anarchism and social anarchism. As far as disputes between two schools, that's the most significant and has been going on throughout the history of anarchism in no matter what form individualist anarchism has taken. Disputes over whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism is very minor. There's few references to it in sources. That dispute pretty much only take place on the internet among non-notable people, like us Wikipedia editors. It's well established the anarcho-capitalism is anarchism by a multitude of source. But then apparenly, the focus of this article is not supposed to be about such a dispute but about "anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" and "the similarities and differences between anarcho-capitalism and other types of anarchism." An article discussing that between social and individualist anarchism would be much more informative. I guess if no one wants to rename this one, then I could start one. Then, this one could be deleted with some content moved over to that broader article.Anarcho-capitalism 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll give you points for pursuing an agenda with boldness. But it is not, in fact, true that there are few references to the conflict "in sources." There is a rather overwhelming mass of primary sources that couldn't simply be swept away by a paucity of secondary sources. As it stands, there are plenty of references to the conflict in the secondary sources as well. Within actual anarchist circles, there are few conflicts of any greater heat, if not always sense. We do our part to prove that every day. As for "non-notable" people, there are no shortage of published authors (including yours truly) who have weighed in on various sides of the debates. Libertatia 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're accusing me of POV pushing. I'm not pursuing any agenda in Wikipedia articles. If I do anything POV, it would be restricted to my userpage. And, no there are not many primary sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Where are they? There is the anarcho-communist Meltzer claiming, in his book, that it's not anarchism because of private defense, but he also claims Tucker isn't an anarchist for the same reason.Anarcho-capitalism 20:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am noting the fact that you have pursued a very consistent agenda in the articles, entirely consistent you blatant POV-pushing on the Talk pages. And apparently you're still uncertain about the nature of primary sources? Libertatia 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No rule against having a POV on a Talk page. I don't see any reason to hide it when I don't have to. I'm human. I have POV. God forbid. And, not I'm not uncertain what primary source is. But, it looks like you are.Anarcho-capitalism 18:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Every day, the body of primary-source material on the anarchism vs. an-cap debate gets larger, if not necessarily richer. If you want to argue that the thousands of contributions to the debate are not "notable" or "quotable" on Wikipedia, then you need to make your case. While the Wikipedia standards obviously skew the range of "notable" events toward those that have been already noted in secondary, academic writings, it is an abuse of those standards to simply attempt to erase a major controversy. Libertatia 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand that it doesn't matter whether the rabble are arguing over whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism or not, in regard to whether it actually is? Because you or I argue in a forum, that does not constitute a legitimate source, according to Wikipedia (and according to all common sense). It doesn't matter how many self-styled "anarchists" are arguing over the subject; the debate is irrelevant because the people arguing over it are irrelevant. They're not notable people and their opinions on are not notable. Wikipedia is not some populist forum.Anarcho-capitalism 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch above where you said I have been POV pushing in articles. That's not true and you know it's not true. YOu have evidence for that claim?Anarcho-capitalism 19:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? You thinking about going to court? You've pretty sensitive about my talk-page POV, for a guy who sermonizes nearly every post. Libertatia 19:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you're accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy - a policy I deeply respect. NPOV is a good rule and I abide strictly to it.Anarcho-capitalism 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say. Personally, I think NPOV is a nonsensical rule, almost completely unenforceable in any useful way—just one more instance of Wikipedia's perverse subversion of ordinary scholarly practice. But we muddle along as best we can, don't we. Feel free to be offended or not, as it pleases you. I'm really just here to fight about history. Libertatia 19:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For me to POV push in an article would be to state that anarcho-capitalism is better than other forms, or that it's the only form of anarchism. I believe those things but I'm not going to say them in an article. My opinion doesn't count for anything as far as the actual articles go. None of our opinions should. To POV push is for the editor to state his value judgement in an article. NPOV is not a nonsensical rule at all.Anarcho-capitalism
 * But again, this article is not supposed to one big article about a dispute. It's supposed to be a comparison and contrast between anarcho-capitalism and other forms of anarchism. The dispute whether it's anarchism should be confined to one section. If the article were between individualist and social anarchist forms, it would be much more fruitful and coherent.Anarcho-capitalism 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article isn't supposed to be about anything other than what is has been about. It recently survived an call for deletion, with its current rationale. You can certainly make a proposal for a reorganization. Libertatia 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre Article
This article is bizarre and incoherent. The entire thing reads like the product of original research. I placed a tag on top of the page. Elodoth 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that.Anarcho-capitalism 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the whole article should be deleted. All it seems to represent is the collective opinions of a bunch of Wikipedia editors, with no citations to back up their dogma. Elodoth 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Best it be contained here, rather then let it spill back on to the Anarchist, Anarcho Capitalism pages. This article is needed however, it's obviously a very vibrant and alive debate, and as such wiki should make note of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoweLeif (talk • contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

relative popularity of scholarly positions
Unless we have some sort of study of opinions among scholars, we're stuck with bland language like "some" or "a number of scholars." The "majority perspective" stuff is pure opinion. Libertatia 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "majority perspective stuff" is not pure opinion. Anti-anarcho-capitalists have long been searching in vain for claims from published scholars that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, but hav only been able to come up with 2 or 3 from anarcho-communists. On the other hand, sources from published scholars saying it is a form of anarchism are easily found. There's hundreds of them. A significan sampling of them are provided in this article. To say that "some" implies that it's a minority position that it's a type of anarchism. I don't see any reason to object to the words "several scholars." There are several scholars cited. There are so many cited that I think it can be stated point blank that anarcho-capitalism IS a form of anarchism. However, I'm comprising my allowing it to say "several" or "many." The minute few that say it is not a form of anarchism, naturally, happen to be anarcho-communists. By "wide variety," it's meant that they come from a wide variety of political pursasions, including more objective anarcho-communists.Anarcho-capitalism 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. It is probably the case that most accounts of anarchism do not even address anarcho-capitalism, and this is at least as telling as explicit repudiation. Most anarchist scholars simply don't care enough about market anarchism, let alone the an-cap position, to bother to be "anti-anarcho-capitalists." Libertatia 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That and the base claim that "many" scholars support their position is relative and unsupportable. Aufheben 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's unsupportable? There are MANY sources listed.Anarcho-capitalism 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no census done on academics relevant to the field to prove what they do or not support, nor has any legitimate secondary content analysis been presented that I've seen cited. Aufheben 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many sources are listed. See them listed in the article.Anarcho-capitalism 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Many" is a term relative to the population size. Since you don't have a field analysis cited to actually back up that claim, you can't justify it. Aufheben 14:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "many" is relative to population size. There may be 100 millions of television sets in the world but if I have 50 of them in my house then I would have "many" television sets. If the number of television sets in the world were increased to 100 billion wouldn't mean I no longer had "many" television sets in my home. Anarcho-capitalism 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To not care about or discuss anarcho-capitalism is not the same thing as holding that it's not a form of anarchism. "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchisms and now eco-anarchisms. These varieties are not particularly well characterized. They are by no means mutually exclusive. So far even a satisfactory classification is lacking. Usually something of a ragbag is offered. Textbooks single out a few varieties for scrutiny, invariably leaving out others that are as important." Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodwin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231Anarcho-capitalism 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm not one of the people much concerned with the "true anarchism" debates, but every time you trot these awful tertiary sources out as if they were conclusive, I feel at least a twinge of that old "anti-" feeling. Libertatia 23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Tertiary and secondary sources are preferably to original sources. Sylvan is even a social anarchist. Do you really think Murray Rothbard's is a good source for anarcho-capitalism being anarchism?Anarcho-capitalism 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yada yada. I didn't say a thing about secondary sources. In this instance, secondary sources an undoubtedly the most useful. There are, however, no secondary sources that make the claims you want to make, as there are no useful surveys of scholarship on the question. That leaves a choice between vague language and OR. The argument that tertiary sources are preferable is another one that I'll be happy to challenge you on. We've already seen, on numerous occasions, how the political encyclopedias and the like simply repeat, without expertise or knowledge of context, the same quasi-facts. Tertiary sources are practically defined by their relative lack of accuracy. In any event, what Sylvan actually says is that while various sorts of anarchism are "recognized," the literature is essentially in its infancy. Academic writers have hardly scratched the surface when it comes to anarchism. In this, of course, Sylvan is absolutely right. Fortunately, that seems to be changing. I had the pleasant experience of sitting in the microforms room at the university here the other day, scanning old freethought papers for anarchist material, while a colleague from another department worked with an assistant on German anarchist papers. Two big anarchist history projects side by side at one university is cause for hope. Libertatia 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yada yada yourself. Tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. Anyway, Sylvan is a secondary source - not a tertiary source. You still don't understand Wikipedia. This is the place for merely presenting sourced information with as little of our own interpretation of sources as possible. If you want to play pretend-scholar, Wikipedia is definitely not the place. It doesn't matter if your or I think a source is wrong or right. That's not our call to make.Anarcho-capitalism 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my position here: if you can substantiate that concern with accuracy is "disruptive" editing, then perhaps I'll stop concerning myself with it, or Wikipedia. Lacking that substantiation, it will continue to matter that the best sources show another source to be right or wrong. Oh, and sticks and stones... How silly. Libertatia 01:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Concern with accuracy is fine, as long as you don't push your POV. That is, as long as you don't keep a sources out of an article because you disagree with them or delete information based on those sources. If you think the sources that say anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism are wrong, that's not a legitimate basis for deleting the sources or deleting information supported by those sources. You might disagree with what the sources say but the fact remains that the sources say what they say.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I have never made any attempt to remove anarcho-capitalism from these articles, and am on record as saying that, at least in the U.S., it needs to be accounted for within the context of the anarchist tradition, you seem to be battling some problem that doesn't exist, eh? It is equally POV to claim that inadequate sources are somehow definitive on questions they are simply not set up to answer. Libertatia 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, what Sylvan says, and why I provided that quote, is that just because a writer leaves out anarcho-capitalism in a discussion of anarchism it doesn't mean it's not a recognized form of anarchism or that it's not as important as the other types. That was in response to your claim that some authors writing about anarchism leave out anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And a very strange response it is, as I don't believe it responds to any point that I have actually made. You have made the claim that of people who acknowledge anarcho-capitalism in studies of the field of anarchism, "a wide variety" consider that it must at least be considered among the forms of anarchism, which is not a very surprising or strong claim. Libertatia 01:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my claim is simply that "many" scholars from a variety of political persuasions consider anarcho-capitalism to be a type of anarchism. There are many sources listed, and the sources are credible by Wikipedia standards. You have no argument to contradict that.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the sources as per Talk:Anarchism for bias and spam, which are against wikipedia standards. -- infinity  0  17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

sections
Deleted sections was content written by banned user User:Anarcho-capitalism which is extremely unneutral and heavily unbalances the article. Me and User:Etcetc have tried to improve the article, please list disagreements with them instead of removing them just because the article doesn't conform to your own personal views. -- infinity  0  12:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. That content was here before User:Anarcho-capitalism started to edit this article. If you think that that content is biasing the article please explain how, or add content that balances those views to which you object. Censoring views with which you personal don't agree with is not a solution. -- Vision Thing -- 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. POV content was added by banned POV-troll User:RJII and was expanded by User:Anarcho-capitalism which are most likely the same user. Also, removing biased content is a better solution than adding bloated content. To be blunt, the content is crap and unencyclopedic. -- infinity  0  11:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies which gives you the right to delete content just because it was added by now banned users. The content you removed is, contrary to your claims, unbiasing the article and without it this article is nothing more than a bunch of POV. -- Vision Thing -- 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and reasons given are plenty. See the various talk pages of many of the other articles you have been mass-reverting for no reason, for further expansion of these reasons. The content is extremely heavily POV, and has been admitted to be so by the user(s) who originally added it. -- infinity  0  19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can disagree as much as you will, but giving one sentence explanation (It's biased) for deletion of the half of the article and its sourced content is not enough. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not enough? This sounds very much like you are gaming the system. You know I am on revert parole; are you expecting me to write an essay to justify my decision? I have written more than enough in the above; and other editors agree. I can't think of a single edit I've made to a politics-related article in the past year that you've not reverted. -- infinity  0  19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I expect from anyone to write an essay on the talk page when he decides to delete half of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 11:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sufficient reasons have been given. You give no replies except "these reasons are not enough". -- infinity  0  12:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, can you clarify to which sufficient reasons are you referring to? -- Vision Thing -- 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole of this section. :) Feel free to re-read it at your leisure. -- infinity  0  12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no "sufficient" reasons reasons here. -- Vision Thing -- 13:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to explain why? Your previous statement is exactly what I am describing; all you are doing is say "no, the reasons I give are not good enough." -- infinity  0  14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever given it a thought that perhaps what was written seems biased because it just flat out goes against your biased viewpoint? If there are good arguments for the validity of anarcho-capitalism, then perhaps you should be scientific and understand why these point rub you the wrong way. Perhaps you should think about investigating what these ancaps call "capitalism" and ask yourself why they prefer it. After all, being in a state of anarchy is absolute freedom. Being in a situation where one has not contracted with a protection agency and is therefore left absolutely to his freedom and his own devices can indeed exist in anarcho-capitalism. The confusion comes into place when individuals start interacting with one another.

Call it Market Anarchy
What if we just called Anarco-Capitalism, Market Anarchy (as the head title for this and A-C)? I realize Rothbard termed the coin anarcho-capitalism but it's really just more of an inside joke for AnCaps, and does nothing but offend left anarchists and create hysteria, for them it's like combing christ and the devil.

If we changed it to Market Anarchy, this debate might just be a little more ordered. Effectively, instead of being able to focus on whether individuals acting freely trading with each other (market anarchy) is anarchy, we are forced to argue about definitions of capitalism, which completely side tracks the entire debate to begin with. Im aware that this may be in the wrong place, but it ties into both the Anarcho-Capitalism article as well as this one. And since there is such a strong difference of interpretation of the word capitalism, we only cause misunderstanding and hostility among anti-capitalists. Marx coined the word capitalism. Why do we bother to use it? To do so, we have to modify the term, as they clearly didn't see the distinction of markets influenced by the state versus completely free markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoweLeif (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an idea embraced by many pro-market anarchists, notably Anti-State.com which calls itself "market anarchism online", but this does not really have any place in an encyclopedia; we just reflect the most commonly used terminology. A google search will verify that "anarcho-capitalism" is much more common than "market anarchism". Anti-capitalist anarchists in particular rarely use synonyms, preferring the (to them) oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalism". Wikipedia is not here to make the world a better or less acrimonious place, just to report the consensus reality of the matter. I sympathize with your ideas though, you might check out the Zaxlebax section of the issues in anarchism article where Roderick T. Long has some interesting thoughts on the matter. Best, Skomorokh  18:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to check them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.12.103 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

except, of course, that confuses individualist anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism... Few anarchists have an issue with individualist anarchism, most reject "anarcho"-capitalism precisely because of what it stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.107.51 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Private property? Trade? —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The former. Proudhon and Bakunin (for example; this would really apply to most non-communist anarchists) both would have tolerated trade at the least, but both were fervently opposed to capital. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺  ☒ )  05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd ask how you can prevent "capital" without preventing trade (which presumes private property), but this is not the place. —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You confuse the Anarchist idea of "private property" with what we call "personal property". By private property, we mean "private ownership of the means of production".

198.84.162.153 (talk)

Pananarchism
Anarcho-Capitalists support the existence of central powers and authoritarian institutions, such as Corporations. Therefore, they are pananarchists, not anarchists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many libertarians, probably including most ACs who have considered the matter, oppose limited liability corporations as creations of the state and inconsistent with the principle of responsibility. Of course it's nonsense to call corporations "central powers", since many of them can coexist in the same territory, none governing their neighbors.  What other "authoritarian institutions" have you in mind?  And what does "pananarchist" mean (if not 'advocate of universal anarchy')? —Tamfang (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

'visit'

 * Opponents take into account other forms of coercion, such as economic coercion, arguing that an environment of property domination coerces individuals into accepting trades that are not optimal to them because their choices are being actively restricted by others. Anarcho-capitalists maintain that such restrictions tend not to be intrusive, but rather ensures order between visitors.

Visitors? Huh? —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine it means those residents of a property who do not have an ownership stake in it. Skomorokh,  barbarian  00:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it calls for some explaining then, because without propertarian "restrictions" everyone is a "visitor" (or no one is). —Tamfang (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Philosopher" Brad Spangler should be removed
http://c4ss.org/content/35256 http://christophercantwell.com/2015/01/23/brad-spangler-lefty-kid-toucher/ https://www.facebook.com/BradSpanglerMemes http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/01/23/brad-spangler-statement-by-thomas-knapp/ http://www.classicalite.com/articles/15493/20150123/kansas-city-libertarian-activist-confesses-child-molestation-according-facebook-post.htm http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=20441 http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2015/01/shame-kansas-city-area-cop-block-dude.html 66.87.75.189 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As Thomas Knapp wrote this morning, "The content he wrote ... either had value or it didn't. If it did have value, it still does .... If it doesn't have value, it never did ...." —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you keep this guy quoted in your article then: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UbyZH-H79GE His ideas are obviously brilliant, and he suffers no IQ deficit whatsoever. Keep playing the Chris Hansen game; stay classy. 66.87.73.187 (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Above and beyond what I'm quoted as saying on the matter above (not in reference to Wikipedia), I find the whole notion pretty bizarre. I just went to check, and the Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton is still there, even though he was accused of some pretty creepy stuff. The notability of Brad Spangler and the cited material in this article are not dependent on whether or not he may have committed a crime. He and his work are either notable or they are not notable. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly, his work is not notable. He didn't only molest his own daughter, to his own admission. The children in the home he was staying in are his most recent accusers. I'll investigate the history of article and determine whether he added his own references. 72.214.170.197 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thomas Knapp — your logic is faulty and your analogy is severely wanting. Bill Clinton was not an active child sex offender, or else his wikipedia page would obviously admit as much. Or are you saying that since Brad is quoted here he needs a Wikipedia page of his own to document him as a child molester and treasured anarcho-capitalist theorist? 66.87.73.187 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that either Spangler (and/or the quoted content) is notable or it isn't, and that whether or not it's notable has absolutely, positively, nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he's a child molester. If you find out tomorrow that Albert Einstein was a child molester, will you be over at the Wikipedia article on physics urging the removal of the Special Theory of Relativity? Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the removal of Brad Spangler's comments. Regardless of his legal troubles, they have no bearing on whether he is a reliable source for a particular viewpoint. If you wish to dispute whether Spangler is a reliable source, then do so here or at WP:RSN basing arguments in how he does not fill the criteria at WP:SPS. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216204331/http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html
 * Added tag to http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker30.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628212759/http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF1.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5v8wrbTrn?url=http://www.mutualist.org/id112.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id112.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401220255/http://freeweb.supereva.com/super.freeweb/eurolibertarians/anarcho.htm to http://freeweb.supereva.com/super.freeweb/eurolibertarians/anarcho.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119045205/http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secG1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)