Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 11

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 05 and June 05.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive12. Thank you. Saswann 21:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchists
"where workers retain the full value of their production"

99.9% of the readers will not know what this means. This needs to be rephrased or explained.


 * I changed it to something about "cost-value", etc. This line was either unintelligble, or blatant POV, or both. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"These individualists also advocated "free banking" where any individual or group of individuals would be allowed to lend money for interest and enter into competition with each other, following a mutualist model."

I moved this up two paragraphs to the general description of ind-anarchists. It was in a paragraph contrasting ancaps and indAs, which made it misleading (since ancaps are also for free banking.)


 * This sentence was not merely moved, content was removed from it. A day ago it read that individualists advocate interest free banking, now it just reads that they advocate free banking along with anarcho-capitalists.  But the "free banking" that anarcho-capitalists advocate would not be considered free by most individualists, in no small part because of the institutions used to enforce the interest loans being made by AC banks.  Kev 02:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * A-C's have no objection to interest-free loans. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * lol, no, but some anarcho-individualists did have objections to interest-bearing loans. Come on, you must know that is the point.  Are you being purposefully obtuse?  Kev 18:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Only a little. The claim that individualist anarchism opposes interest appears to be inconsistent with my (so-far rather cursory) examination of Spooner's Poverty, but I will take your word for it for the time being. However, if the point is that individualists would prohibit nonzero interest rates, the article should say that, rather than saying that they supported interest-free banking, which is also true of ACs. - Nat Krause 10:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because any traditional anarchist worth a damn, individualist or not, would not "prohibit" interest rates, they would simply take direct action against any harm they saw done by them when and if they occured. Does this imply that the ACs agree with the socialists, because neither is creating a law against free loans?  No, of course not.  But one can reject something, indeed oppose it whenever it arises, without "prohibiting" it or resorting to legal institutions to enforce a restriction.  Most individualists did advocate interest free banking, most also believed that a certain amount of interest bearing loans would still exist in the world, this does not put them in agreement with anarcho-capitalists anymore than my belief that there will still be sporatic capital based relations in a large-scale anarchists society means that I endorse or agree with the anarcho-capitalist dogma that capitalism equals freedom equals anarchism.  Kev 19:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trying to address Kev's point, added: Also, while both philosophies favor individual private property, anarcho-capitalism expands the right of private property beyond what individualist anarchists would have found acceptable. However, a single pithy citation that illustrates the contrast would be helpful Saswann 12:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good luck. I would satisfied with a solid Wikipedia article describing the difference at length. - Nat Krause 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO here's the difference in Lysander-lingo: To anarcho-socialists, profiting from capital is a crime; to individualist anarchists, it's a vice; to anarcho-capitalists, it's a virtue.  --Hogeye 00:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added some explanation to this paragraph: "Thus individualist anarchists opposed titles to unused land, and many opposed the charging of rent and interest. This core tenet of individualism, which they shared with collectivist anarchists, that the fruit of a labor should be under the control of the laborers, was a point of divergence from anarcho-capitalism.  However, unlike the collectivist anarchists, individualists considered collecting such "usury" to be a vice rather than a crime; instead of attempting to outlaw or expropriate capital, the individualists proposed outcompeting established capital with mutuals.  Thus their position on property was neither fully socialist nor capitalist."

It's beginning to look like the third paragraph in this section might be moved to the criticism section? Saswann 14:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Allow me to throw some fat on the fire...

--Hogeye 03:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RJ11, I think the stuff you added about IA's and mutual banks is informative and accurate. However, I'm not so sure it is appropriate in the ancap article. It seems to me that pointing out the similarities and differences between IA and ancap is good, but adding gratuitous descriptions of IA programs (like mutualism) is getting off the track. Couldn't you skip that stuff and just link to the Individualist Anarchism article? The user can learn all he wants about mutualism there. It seems to me that IA is already over-emphasized, and we'd do better beefing up the Liberalism and Austrian Econ sections. --Hogeye 04:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put a copy of the Individual Anarchism section in the Anarchism (anti-state) article. --Hogeye 16:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kev, in bullet point one you added, "However, individuals emphasized that interest should be kept as low as possible, either at cost or slightly above, to protect the rights of laborers." This is redundent since the opposition to interest is covered in point 4 about usury.

In point two, you change, "Anarcho-capitalists view all voluntary contractual arrangements as permissable," to "Anarcho-capitalists do not view contractual arrangements that allow the employer to profit from the labor of the employee to be exploitative." In addition to being wordy and negative, it is redundent. You already point out why IA's think labor profit is exploitive earlier in the paragraph.

In point three about PDAs, you add, "though they disagree on some aspects of their jurisdiction." This is esoteric, pretty useless without explanation. Explanation that would probably belong in another more appropriate article.

In point four, you add some esoteric stuff about what would happen if the State suddenly vanished. The usury contrast is already clear without the philosophizing. (Besides, it seems to me that Tucker justified any redistribution on past statist monopolies, with an entitlement theory like the anarcho-capitalists, and quite in contrast to the socialist schools who are more concerned with end-state distributions. --Hogeye 22:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the point about interest is relevant to the point of free banking in particular, as it is an area where they diverge. More importantly, the 4th bullet point rightly states that individualists "tended" to reject interest (not all of them did), whereas the part you are challenging informs the reader that all individualists sought to keep interest as low as possible, and all of them did.


 * You can try another wording if you like, one that is shorter and less redudant than my attempt. I changed it because I find the use of the words "voluntary" and "permissable" in this context to be a little heavy handed in the POV direction, so something without those would work for me.


 * Well make up your mind, I can either explain things there or I can give a brief statement refering to the fact that they differ. What I can't do is allow the statement of comparison to stand without giving some indication that they do differ on this point.  After all, that is precisely what this section is about.


 * I disagree that this is esoteric, the question of what to do with vast accumulated capital in the absence of the state seems extremely relevant to both the article and specifically the comparison between the two philosophies. It might be true that individualists are not at all concerned with end-states (though given the quote by Tucker I supplied on this page I doubt it, in fact I doubt that anarcho-capitalists are truly unconcerned with end-states despite occasional claims to the contrary), but it is also true that this is a big point of departure between an individualist and the anarcho-capitalists.  Anarcho-capitalists believe that anarchism exists, by definition, in the absence of the state.  This part about Tucker indicates that this individualist, for one, did not agree that absence of the state is sufficient for anarchism.  How that would not be highly relevant to the anarcho-capitalist claims to belong to the individualist tradition, and thus the section detailing the merits of those claims, I don't know.  Kev 06:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sectionifying the NPOV Tag
As far as I have been able to tell, the NPOV issues we've been discussing are all in the spots where the article mentions other forms of Anarchisim. I don't think its fair to tar the whole article with NPOV for an argument centered almost completely on two sections. I was tempted to label the criticism section too, but it seems the only argument is that it's too thin. And FWIW, most of the now-missing content was simply an extension of the "It is like Individualist Anarchisim"/"No it isn't" debate. Saswann 12:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Through these attempts to remove the "bloat" from the article it now appears that there is not a single sentence in the entire thing pointing out that anarcho-capitalism is rejected by all other forms of anarchism as a misrepresentation of their philosophy. This deserves, at the very least, a single sentence in the criticism section.  Further, the individualist anarchist section says nothing of the fact that the anarcho-capitalist claims to belong to the individualists tradition are controversial.  Again, this deserves mention.  Kev 07:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with this point. Both of those subjects deserve at least one sentence. - Nat Krause 09:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kev, I honestly don't get this. It seems to me the whole Anarchisim and Capitalisim section, a major peice of the article, is making this point.  Perhaps it's not doing it as strongly as you'd like-- but if this needs to be stronger, I'd like to hear what kind of language you'd like to see. (Anyway, that's the section where I think this point needs to be made) Saswann 14:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- ok, I added this:
 * They also view anarcho-capitalism as a serious misrepresentation of the core principles of anarchism, and disagree on definitions as basic as what constitutes a "voluntary" action and what constitutes "private property."
 * To the section, which I think is making your point. Saswann 14:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It is, that is a satisfactory solution. Kev

I trimmed down the diatribe about Kropotkin's (mis)understanding of anarchism. Pointing out the disagreement is one thing - going into a commie screed is another. I put in a link to anarcho-socialism for people who want more info.


 * I untrimmed part of it, the whole quote might have been overcompensation, but dropping it wholesale was overcompensating for the overcompensation. The fact that there are points of severe disagreement between anarcho-capitalism and socialist-anarchists is in fact one of the major defining elements of anarcho-capitalism-- an element that is impossible to accurately describe unless there's some description of what the disagreements actually are. Saswann 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further problem
Currently much of the article, in particular the sections on "The Contractual Society", and "Systems of Justice", stack the deck toward an anarcho-capitalist conception of human relations by stating on multiple occasions that they only support voluntary agreements between individuals. While this is in fact what the anarcho-capitalists believe, and as such should be mentioned, it is also relevant that this is a major point of contention between them and several other philosophies (like traditional anarchism and state socialism). The need to qualify these statements when they were first made and give a brief statement concerning their source in AC worldview was not so important when the criticism section actually dealt with this critique directly. However, that critique has now been removed (or minimized to scare quotes), and the article it has been removed to is about as heavily POV as a thing can get, probably facing VfD soon. As such, these statements now need to be qualified or that critique needs to be put back in the criticism section. This is important to NPOV, because currently the voice of wikipedia is being used to state that anarcho-capitalists support only voluntary agreements, and such a statement is not a fact but a POV. Kev 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked in the history for the old section in the critique on 'what is voluntary', but I couldn't find it. So I added the following to the Critiques - Moral section:

"Anarcho-capitalists consider a choice or action to be voluntary so long as there are no human-imposed constraints. Some critics reject this view, saying that natural constraints on action, such as the need for food and shelter, should also be considered involuntary."

I also added a sentence about the disagreement among ancaps about IP. --Hogeye 23:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Sidebar
Most of the dispute about the POV of this article hinges on very technical (and in some cases, arbitrary) definitions of terms. The fact is that Anarcho-capitalists and Socialist anarchists are using different dictionaries that have particularly nuanced points of view (the definition of voluntary comes to mind) which means that both sides, in some cases, are reading a different article with the same text. With that in mind, I added a sidebar that gives the anarcho-capitalist definition of terms that might be unclear or contentious. Saswann 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good job! I tweaked the defs a little. --Hogeye 19:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Aggression" vs. "Coercion"
Probably we should settle on which term to use, just to keep the terminolgy consistent throughout the article. I vote for "aggression" since we are using the term "non-aggression axiom." "Coercion" is usually more broad than "aggression," and normally means 'use of force' rather than 'initiation of force.' --Hogeye 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree coercion is better, and you're right that there can be initiatory or defensive coercion. Ancaps are not against coercion, unless it's proactive. RJII 03:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section
Certain individuals continue to change the content of a certain criticism in the criticism section to make it sound like a different criticism altogether. The "individual as lowest denominator" foundational belief of capitalists is not shared by all people, thus their attitude that their active restriction of natural resources qualifies as "non-human factors" is considered ridiculous amongst many political philosophies. The point is that anarcho-capitalists property relations are not considered voluntary or even defensive amongst many non-propertarians, but this keeps being changed to an issue of whether or not non-human factors can make a situation relevantly involuntary. But non-human factors are not the issue here, as capitalist propertarians are in fact humans and are in fact engaging in forceful restriction of necessary resources. Allowing this criticism to remain on this page should not be a difficult thing to do for anyone who has any integrity in their belief in AC. I'm not going to continue to reinsert this criticism everytime it is purposefully altered to misrepresent it, I will simply reinsert the NPOV dispute tag until partisans can calm themselves. Kev 19:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * An NPOV tag just gives editors free reign to say whatever they want. Go ahead. RJII 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Kev, that's a good point. I had assumed the reason for the 'involuntary' claim was the one most people give -natural constraints. I understand what you are saying (I think) about constraints due to property relationships. What do you think of the following (which I added already): "Other critics argue that employment is involuntary because the unfair distributions of wealth that make it necessary are supported by private property systems. This is a deeper arguement relating to distributive justice. These critics appeal to an end-state theory of justice, while anarcho-capitalists (and propertarians in general) appeal to an entitlement theory." --Hogeye 21:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "anarcho-capitalists (and propertarians in general) appeal to an entitlement theory." <- what does that mean? RJII 06:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you click on the distributive justice link, you'll find out. But obviously I'd better put a direct link.  Thanks.  --Hogeye 19:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graph showing different ideologies
I think that the graph with three US political parties should be removed. It has no relevence outside the USA.
 * Are you saying you think the whole graph should be removed, or just the plots for the three US parties? --Hogeye 04:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * well either one. But without some reference to something, it is not as useful.  Thus either it should be removed or be replaced with something more like this or this (both from http://politicalcompass.org/.  This way it is more obvious to an international audience what is going on.

--AFA 01:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The political compass seems rather obscure about the horizontal axis. The first one has main labels Left - Right, which is abiguous to me. Do you mean the for or against the 'ancien regime'? Do you mean socialist vs capitalist? Do you mean civil liberties vs regulated morality? The X-axis has secondary labels (Collectivism - Libertarian) which is really silly because the Y-axis is already labled "Libertarian." Then they even have a third labeling - Communism vs Neo-Liberalism, the former too restrictive and the latter too broad.

To me, the label on the other graph "Socialism - Capitalism" narrows it down to the apparent type of property system - something observable in legal systems and customary practice. Socialism favors collective ownership, provided by entities ranging from free communes to totalitarian States in authority. Capitalism favors private ownership, provided by entities ranging from competing firms to totalitarian States. Socialist states prefer nationalization; Capitalist states prefer regulation and cartelization. No matter how much de facto control they have, je jure ownership is left in private hands. Of course, these are the extremes. Real states generally use both regulation and nationalization in varying degrees.

I took the US political parties off the graph. Besides being provincial, as you pointed out, it was controversial. Everybody has an opinion about where parties and current politicians should be plotted. Adding more would make it even more controversial. Perhaps less controversial are long-dead guys like Proudhon and Bakunin. --Hogeye 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that it is controversial if you have different parties or people on a graph. The reason I suggested the two politicalcompass ones was to show how many people they had.  I am happy with the parties being removed.--AFA 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting Proudhon and Tucker in the center is clearly POV, and all attempts to label the graph as expressing the anarcho-capitalist POV have been reverted. Those two either need to be removed, or the graph has to be labeled as the anarcho-capitalist perspective, or it remains a POV violation.  Kev 04:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Didn't you help with that table which showed the IA position to be somewhere between socialism and capitalism, disagreeing on some points with both? See the Anarchist Schools table in this article. --Hogeye 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okies, individualism cannot be somewhere between socialism and capitalism, as some individualists are socialists, so this is a false dichotomy. It can and does have points of agreement and disagreement with both, but it is entirely arbitrary to stick it right in the middle.  Some would put it all the way on the socialist side (like Tucker), some would put most of the way to the capitalist side (like I suspect McElroy), and others we really don't know one way or the other (like Spooner).  It may be a nice compromise, given all these contrary positions, to put it in the middle.  However, that doesn't make it any more accurate or correct.  IMHO the chart shouldn't even be there, but if it is going to be there it needs to be labeled as the POV that it is.


 * And no, I'm not going to consider a table you created in an article you created as evidence in support of your position, that would be rather circular. I've read that article, it is nothing more than an attempt to push your own personal POV by cloning a previous article and reinterpreting it, and really it should be up for speedy VfD.  In fact, you should be the one putting it up for VfD.  Kev 21:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

source requested for Kev's edit
" Later, as the monopoly economy expanded, Tucker argued that vast concentrations of wealth which arose from monopoly could eventually sustain usury even in the absence of the state." Kev, please provide a source. I know you said State Socialism and Anarchism by Tucker, but could you provide a sentence or at least a paragraph that concurs, because I don't see that in there. RJII 14:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * SSA.38 Today the way is not so clear. The four monopolies, unhindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust, and the trust is now a monster which I fear, even the freest banking, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy. As long as the Standard Oil group controlled only fifty millions of dollars, the institution of free competition would have crippled it hopelessly; it needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth. Now that it controls, directly and indirectly, perhaps ten thousand millions, it sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer a necessity. It can do without it. Were all restrictions upon banking to be removed, concentrated capital could meet successfully the new situation by setting aside annually for sacrifice a sum that would remove every competitor from the field. Kev 17:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article say this about individualist anarchists: "They believed that usury was only made possible by a government-backed monopolies on banking, currency, and land (protection of unused land)." The quote does not deny this fact - even in the case cited, usury was originally made possible by statist monopoly. So the additional information is gratuitous and overly detailed. Why is the IA section here more detailed than the IA article? Why is there more about mutualism and mutual banking here than in the IA article? I think most of the esoteric garbage here about IA should be moved to the IA article. This ancap article should just have short comparisons, not a whole sub-article about IA. --Hogeye 18:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This information is intimately relevant to the comparisons being made. And the quote does indeed deny that usury is "only" made possible by government backed monopolies.  It clearly states that in the absence of government-backed monopolies previously existing concentrations of wealth would still be able to maintain usury, this is a big departure from anarcho-capitalism.  As to why this isn't present in the IA article, I'm still working on that.  Wikipedia is a work in progress you know.  I agree that the comparisons should be short, I also believe that they should not be overly simplistic to the point of misrepresenting the subject they are attempting to illuminate.  Kev 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The four monopolies, unhindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust." --Hogeye 18:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes... Kev 20:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asthetics of portraits
The portraits looks better when the subjects are facing toward the middle of the page. --Hogeye 18:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A sentence I removed that you can now freak out about
However, anarcho-capitalists do not oppose mutualism and would allow mutualist businesses to exist, since, like the individualists, they oppose coercively intervening in contractual arrangements of others.

This is, according to the anarcho-capitalists, true. Then again, it is also true, according to the anarcho-capitalists, that they do not oppose any form of economics ostensibly arranged voluntarily between two parties, be it mutualism or socialism or communism or whateverism. All of this is already both indicated explicitly and implied in above sections, it is redundant to the individualist section and only being used to add another point of agreement, which is not very relevant given that it isn't a point of departure for any anarchist theory. In other words, it isn't -specifically- a form of agreement between individualism and anarcho-capitalism, but rather one of those few areas in which anarcho-capitalists actually agree with anarchists in general about something. Kev 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I deleted most of the detail about mutualism. Take it to the IA article, please.
 * You are removing relevant content. This part about Tucker is essential to understanding the differences between anarcho-capitalism and individualism, as it reveals that the main concern of individualists is not merely the absence of the state, since Tucker objected to vast concentrations of wealth even in the absence of the state.  Stop trying to censor this.  Kev 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the following sentence: "They depart from Tucker in that they do not believe that vast concentrations of wealth would need to be removed in order to allow for the free functioning of the market."  This is false.  Many/most anarcho-capitalists believe that concentrations of wealth need to be "removed."  Particularly, government land and the airwaves should be auctioned off, or otherwise privatized, and past largesse given to corporate cronies should be remedied and, where possible, returned to those who got plundered.  Now, before you rephrase it will all the necessary qualifications and such, why don't you consider doing your esoteric analysis of the IndAnarchists in the correct article.  This is not an article about AIs; it is not an article about the theory of mutualism; it is an article about anarcho-capitalism.  The section is about how the IndAs influenced anarcho-capitalism.  Most of your comments are right on and quite erudite - but they simply don't belong in an ancap article. --Hogeye 21:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove the section comparing anarcho-capitalists to individualist anarchist, then you are correct that my comments do not belong. However, I think the section is necessary and so long as the article compares the two, these specific comparisons are necessary to make that section balanced and accurate.  As for anarcho-capitalists believing that vast concentrations of wealth do in fact need to be removed, perhaps we just need to be more clear.  I'm under the impression that anarcho-capitalists would -not- favor non-market redistribution of wealth from companies like standard oil who at one point or another monopolized the market.  Are you saying that they would favor such non-market measures?  If so, it appears that parts of this article are currently not describing their beliefs properly, that anarcho-capitalism favors limited expropriation despite its many claims to the contrary.  If not, then this is a point of divergence between, if not anarcho-capitalists and individualists, then anarcho-capitalists and some individualists, like Tucker.  Kev 21:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "non-market redistribution of wealth"? Expropriation of their wealth by force? If so, which individualist anarchists do you claim advocate this, and when? Tucker, at the most, gave qualified support for it in 1926 (in the postscript to "Anarchism and State Socialism"), but that as a regrettable second-best preliminary, and as reversal of the position that he had held almost all of his life. Is there anyone else in particular that you have in mind here? Could you cite some sources? I ask because I'm not sure what you're referring to, not because I think the position puts them at odds with the anarcho-capitalists (Rothbard supported revolutionary land redistribution in Latin America; Karl Hess urged 'the revolutionary treatment of stolen "private" and "public" property in libertarian, radical, and revolutionary terms', including "Land ownership and/or usage in a situation of declining state power" and "Worker, share-owner, community roles or rights in productive facilities.... What, for example, should happen to General Motors in a liberated society?" qtd. by Kevin Carson). Other anarcho-capitalists are more hesitant than Rothbard or Hess were in the 1960s (and Bob LeFevre rejected the notion entirely, since he was a thoroughgoing pacifist), but it seems to me on the face of it that this at least as much a matter of debate among the 20th century anarcho-capitalists as it was among among 19th century individualists. My impression of the i-a's is that they were generally actually far more hesitant to advocate these kind of measures than some a-c's have been. Radgeek 22:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well crap Rad, why don't you put all that in the article? As for my evidence, it is exactly that postscript you refered to, that I posted above on this talk page.  That it is "a second-best preliminary" doesn't phase me as concerns its relevance.  That it is a reversal of his earlier position, (actually I would consider it a modifaction thereof, but whatever), should not phase you.  After all, many people consider anarcho-capitalism itself to be a reversal of previously held anarchist values, yet the anarcho-capitalists still maintain claims to the tradition and to the relevancy of the title, so why should we turn around and say that when (and indeed if) Tucker reversed his position it suddenly stopped being an individualist one (especially when we can't say for certain that this position is essentially an individualist one in the first place).  I think it would be far more relevant to note that he considered such a solution to not be an anarchist one, I mean he said so right there in the other postscript, if you didn't notice.  However, I still think this is an incredibly important position on his part to point out for two reasons.  1) We still have Tucker, as an individualist (unless we are claiming he wasn't one at this point, some people do anyway), declaring that market forces in themselves are not enough in those circumstances to destroy the economic inequalities created by state monopoly.  2) This gives clear evidence that contrary to many anarcho-capitalist claims the individualist anarchists did not merely believe that anarchism was the absence of the state, since in said circumstances, even in the absence of state backing, Tucker did not believe that an anarchist market was possible (much less present).  I can understand why this would unhinge some anarcho-capitalists, but given that it is a fact, and it is a relevant one, that it would disturb the anarcho-capitalist worldview only makes me think that, yes, it -really- does belong.  Kev 22:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Kev> "I'm under the impression that anarcho-capitalists would -not- favor non-market redistribution of wealth from companies like standard oil who at one point or another monopolized the market."
 * That a complex statement, so I need to break it down. Anarcho-capitalists support returning stolen goods to their rightful owners. Ancaps are also for dispossessing thieves of stolen goods.  Whether you consider restitution to the rightful owner as "non-market redistribution," I don't know.  Whether Standard Oil used aggression to any significant degree is debatable. I don't think so - I think Standard Oil's competitors used aggression, however, when they used the State to harass their competitor, and got the clearly invasive Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed.  I don't think Standard Oil ever had a coercive monopoly.
 * Well heck, anarcho-communists only believe in expropriation to rightful owners, they simply disagreed on who those rightful owners were, if we are going to cover all our words in sweet nothings. Your opinions on standard oil are interesting, but I'm not sure if they are relevant and this might not be the best place to discuss them.  I think it is Tucker's opinion that is relevant here.  Kev 22:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Kev> "Well heck, anarcho-communists only believe in expropriation to rightful owners, they simply disagreed on who those rightful owners were."


 * Hey, we agree on something! Yes, what one deems "aggression" depends on the property system one holds.  --Hogeye 23:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You hang out at anti-state.com, right? I had an unfinished essay of mine, which I wrote about 4 years ago, posted to that forum a couple of years back.  The essay asserted that anarcho-capitalist emphasis of the non-aggression principle is misplaced.  The argument was that while anarcho-capitalists do in fact believe that they are against aggression (in most cases), the fact of whether or not they are relies on their fundamental assumptions about property.  As such, people who hold different assumptions would disagree.  The problem arises in that a large majority of political philosophies (with a few notable exceptions) do not advocate aggression according to their own standards of justified coercion.  In other words, that anarcho-capitalist, despite its claims to the contrary, is nothing special in this regard.  The same, of course, can be said for any anarchist philosophy (excepting perhaps strict pacifists or select types of non-propertarians), however, no other anarchist philosophy wears the non-aggression principle on its sleeve.  Kev 00:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try to look up that essay. It sounds like we agree entirely about the term "aggression" - how its meaning is relative to a specific property system. Did you get a chance to read the thing I wrote trying to reconcile the different notions of aggression?  "Meta-aggression."


 * Probably the reason ancaps emphasize non-aggression is that the NAP is not just one of many values to trade off, but the primary principle, taking lexicographic importance over other considerations. Many/most socialists openly support other principles such as egalitarianism, which allegedly justify redistributive aggression.  Take a look at distributive justice for more on this.  --Hogeye 00:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You probably shouldn't bother with the article, it was unfinished and as such I wasn't the one who posted it. In particular, its conclusion had just been thrown together and I've since cut drastically back on its claims.  I do vaguely recall glancing over an article on that subject at anti-state, but just in case I would appreciate a link.  BTW - I would contend that whether or not "redistributive aggression" is in fact "aggression" depends again on your property claims.  For example, some believe that the property being redistributed was itself aggression, thus the resdistribution, while coercive, is not aggressive.  Others, as another example, might argue that the intial property claims are not necessarily aggressive, but that neither is violating them, all depending on the circumstances.  Anywho, this isn't the place for this discussion.  Kev 01:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Meta-Aggression --Hogeye 01:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I didn't see it at anti-state.com, I saw it on that page ;) Anyway.  What about non-propertarians?  I understand that some propertarians don't accept the existence of non-propertarians, arguing that all human action requires property claims, defining property as mere use.  Nonetheless, there are people out there who believe that all propertied systems, be they capitalist or socialist, are unjustified (or at least inevitably genearte unjustified results and are thus not worthy of actualy support).  Whether or not these individual's claims to rejecting all forms of property are accurate, they at least believe them, have some internal consistency in those beliefs, and their use of the term property seems to be closer to the norm than that of those who deny their ability to exist.  Anyway, they seem to generate an odd result for your new term.  Namely, while they could potentially be meta-aggressed against, they would never be meta-aggressors themselves.  Indeed, it would appear that anyone making any claim to property would, from the POV of the non-propertarians, be potential aggressors just from the fact of having made the claim.  This isn't to say, of course, that a non-propertarian couldn't be a standard aggressor, but I think it challenges the usefullness of the new term to consider that this group of people don't fit into the same potentially harmonious meta-society that all the others will. Kev 01:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Is anyone other than a contented lackey really an apropertarian? You'd have to have someone who doesn't think they own their own body.  Those who favor possession property (aka usufruct) want more than simple possession.  They want recognition that they are entitled.  They want more the the fact - they want right.  Every sweat shop is possessed by the workers for often more than eight hours a day, but syndicalists don't claim victory.  The social recognition that it's theirs (so that, at a minimum they don't get run off or shot by the bosses) is more what they have in mind.  Not just possession, but ownership.  A type of ownership that has different transfer rules and abandonment rules than neo-Lockean (sticky) property, but ownership nevertheless.


 * At any rate, even if true apropertarians exist (as I admit they might in super-hard-core primitivists), that doesn't seem to detract from the usefulness of the meta-aggression concept, just as the existence of pacifists doesn't detract from the concept of aggression.  One can (as you did) actually use the idea to say something meaningful.  E.g. There is no way to aggress (or be aggressed) against an apropertarian (by apropertarian standards) since they deny that one is entitled to one's own life, liberty, or property.  The schmoo from Lil Abner?   --Hogeye 03:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, its disappointing but we really are off an a tangent of a tangent here. This is where it would get good for me, cause I would be able to shock or disappoint you by claiming that, in fact, I don't claim to own my body.  And what is more, a large number of traditional anarchists deny the claim to self-ownership, along with, big shocker, even a handful of anarcho-capitalists I've met.  But we can't go into detail here.  I'd like to give you my email but, you know, I think that is a bad idea given the audience.  If you would like to continue this conversation, please feel welcomed to take it over to my wiki homepage.  At least there we wouldn't be interupting an article talk page.  Kev 06:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, I could use a slave. RJII 13:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the threat, I'll note it for future referance. Kev 18:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood RJ. As I see it, he wasn't threatening you, just pointing out the logical consequence of you claiming you don't own yourself. As self-ownership is defined, when you claim you don't own yourself, you either don't understand the definition or are dropping moral objections to being enslaved. 63.98.86.134 21:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Only according to a propertarian model or a highly specialized definition of property. Not even all anarcho-capitalists believe in claims to self-ownership (which are incoherent imho), so please don't give me the crap about opening oneself up to slavery.  Kev 01:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, according to the definition of self-ownership. To own something in a moral sense means to have the moral right to determine its usage. If you deny self-ownership, you deny that individuals should determine how their bodies are used. This is how proponents of self-ownership use the term. If you want to refute self-ownership proponents' claims, it would be irrelevant to bring up other definitions of the term, just as it would be irrelevant to dismiss "anarchism" since you "don't support chaos". I'm sorry if you feel I'm giving you crap.  That was not my intent. 63.98.86.134 01:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So if you don't have a "moral right" to determine the usage of something, that entails that you shouldn't use it? I would tend to disagree.  In fact, I don't think that rights are necessary to determine the legitimacy of use, nor do I see the necessity of morality.  But this is a big tangle of issues and I've been through it all with many anarcho-capitalists before.  If you'd like to discuss it, I'll have to invite you to my talk page like I did Hogeye, because it is inappropriate to continue this discussion here.  (technically its inappropriate to continue it on wikipedia, but we'll be sneaky) Kev 06:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Kev> So if you don't have a "moral right" to determine the usage of something, that entails that you shouldn't use it? I would tend to disagree. In fact, I don't think that rights are necessary to determine the legitimacy of use, nor do I see the necessity of morality.


 * ??? Morality is the study of whether actions are right or wrong. Obviously you believe in this, or you would not be promoting a political philosophy, any one of which advocates a set of principles to determine which actions are right or wrong. If you believe people should not exploit one another, you believe in morality. If you believe capitalism should not exist, you believe in morality. And so on. Rights (in the moral sense) _are_ delineations of legitimacy of use; of course they're necessary. I'd like to know what definitions you're using.


 * Kev> But this is a big tangle of issues and I've been through it all with many anarcho-capitalists before.


 * Based on how you're responding, it doesn't appear you've debated this, or really even considered it.


 * Kev> If you'd like to discuss it, I'll have to invite you to my talk page like I did Hogeye, because it is inappropriate to continue this discussion here.


 * It's entirely appropriate and relevant if non-propertarians can even exist. If your basis for denying anarcho-capitalism equal status with the other types of anarchism is its support for private property rights, and in fact, other schools of "legit" anarchism promote private property rights, your position is much weaker. JohnSharp 02:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to write in a little bitty column. RJII 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure why it is so hard for certain new arrivals to understand that this is not the place for a political discussion. Mr. Sharp, I would be happy to have a discussion with you on this topic, please transplant your responses to the discussion part of my wikipedia page and we can talk all you would like, but it is disruptive to continue here.  My personal position is not relevant to the status of this page, nor would I base the content of a wikipedia article on my personal feelings about the matter.  Please review the neutrality policy if you are confused. Kev 06:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure why it is so hard for certain individuals to understand the relevance of my point. Like I just said, if you're going to base the exclusion of ancap views on their support of property rights and in fact, and in fact, all "legit" anarchists support property rights, of course it's relevant to the discussion of what should be included in the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. And I understand the NPOV policy, thank you very much. If you still want to boss me around though, I'd be happy to continue this discussion on your discussion page. JohnSharp 16:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ancap views are not being excluded in this article, this is an article about ancap views. As for the basis of this exclusion being private property rights, this is certainly not the only basis (many arguments have been offered), and beyond personal possession forms of property there has never been a group of anarchists that advocated private property.  As for me bossing you around, lol, I'm not forcing you to do anything.  You can continue to go off on debating tangents all you want if violating wiki policy doesn't matter to you.  Kev 18:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "...beyond personal possession forms of property there has never been a group of anarchists that advocated private property." What??? Personal possession *IS* private property. Collective possession is collective property. Both traditional individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists support private property. RJII 20:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, when you define anarchism as the opposition to the state, capitalism and private property. . . then, any so-called anarachist that advocates private property isn't really an anarchist now, are they?  Saswann 20:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bring this branch back so that people with smaller screens can more easily read it.
 * Kev>Ancap views are not being excluded in this article, this is an article about ancap views.
 * I was referring to its exclusion from the anarchism article and the anarchism series box.
 * Kev>As for the basis of this exclusion being private property rights, this is certainly not the only basis (many arguments have been offered) and beyond personal possession forms of property there has never been a group of anarchists that advocated private property.
 * "No true Scotsman..." In any case, that's false.  Anarchists have advocated markets, which necessarily involve people making claims to things they're not personally using.
 * Kev> As for me bossing you around, lol, I'm not forcing you to do anything. You can continue to go off on debating tangents all you want if violating wiki policy doesn't matter to you.
 * A little irony-impaired, are we? You're the one who thinks agreeing to a set of rules is necessarily oppressive. Sorry if I didn't make the sarcasm more clear. JohnSharp 23:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism
I beefed up the Liberalism section. Read it over and see what you think. Hopefully, no one will demand a bullet list of every point where anarcho-capitalists disagree with John Locke.

Kev
Kev, you are using the following as evidence that the individualists would employ coercion to end capitalism... "''If this be true, then monopoly, which can be controlled permanently only for economic forces, has passed for the moment beyond their reach, and must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary. Until measures of forcible confiscation, through the State or in defiance of it, shall have abolished the concentrations that monopoly has created, the economic solution proposed by Anarchism and outlined in the forgoing pages &#8211; and there is no other solution &#8211; will remain a thing to be taught to the rising generation, that conditions may be favorable to its application after the great leveling. But education is a slow process, and may not come too quickly. Anarchists who endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad mistake indeed. They help to so force the march of events that the people will not have time to find out, by the study of their experience, that their troubles have been due to the rejection of competition. If this lesson shall not be learned in a season, the past will be repeated in the future, in which case we shall have to turn for consolation to the doctrine of Nietzsche that this is bound to happen anyhow, or to the reflection of Renan that, from the point of view of Sirius, all these matters are of little moment.''

He's saying that government or revolutionary forces might abolish the monopoly, but he's also saying that an Anarchist does not take this route. If you think he's saying government SHOULD do this you're mistaken. If you think he's saying that revolutionary forces should do this, you're mistaken as well. He says that to either join with State Socialism or revolution to accomplish the goal would be a mistake. RJII 22:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Where have I said that individualists would employ coercion to end capitalism? That isn't my claim.  Kev 01:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Me, "rv to RJII. Unjustified removal of noteable content. It is true that the individualists would not coercively intervene in capitalism"
 * You, "I put a quote on the talk page that suggests otherwise, and the passage already mentions that they did not favor expropriation, which is true"
 * Well, the quote does not suggest otherwise. It's well known that individualists opposed coercively intervening in a capitalist system. SO, the sentence can go back in. RJII 03:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The quote above suggests that this particular individualist believes that until there are forcible measures of confiscation anarchist methods will not be successful. Clearly he isn't saying that anarchists should be the ones taking such measures, but clearly he is saying that such measures are necessary for anarchism to work.  Now either he is supporting such measures to be taken by non-anarchists or he is not.  If he is, then he is an individualist who does not entirely oppose expropriation, contrary to the statement in the article.  If he is not, then he is suggesting that anarchism is impossible due to these conditions, but again this would demonstrate an individualist who believes that market mechanisms alone are not necessarily sufficient to control monopoly.  Its totally ambiguous from the quote which is the case, regardless of your attempts to over-simplify things.  However, from his other writings around that time I would venture a guess that it is the latter, that he had begun to believe that anarchism may no longer be plausible.  Regardless, this individualist who to my knowledge did not repudiate individualism is saying that forcible measures are required for anarchism to flourish due to state monopolies being in control for so long.  As such, you can qualify your statement properly or continue this silly revert war with me.  I'm really sorry if this information goes against your dogma, but I can't change what he said to fit your preconceptions.  Kev 05:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)