Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 27

Misleading and suspect ethnographic information.
Whilst I cannot(and indeed do not have time) to research and correct much of the ethnographic 'information' presented in this article as examples 'similar to Anarcho-capitalism', the sections apparently detailing so called 'primitive' Papuan groups practicing some kind of 'private property' are flagrantly inaccurate. Whilst ideological disputes no doubt occur over the use of terms and the semantics of specific terms, this article contains anthropologically and ethnographically inaccurate and information misrepresentative of ethnographic accounts. Because of this, and because I am sure that correction of these failings is beyond the scope of this article, please somebody take out the supposed 'similar to Anarcho-capitalism' section all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.217.253 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So.....you have admitted that you don't have time to research the "issue". And you have offered nothing other than your say-so. Ok. That's probably not going to work. If you or someone else could provide some substance to your claim, that'd be great. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, having read the ethnography cited(poorly) in the article, that being 'POSPISIL, L. (1965). A Formal Analysis of Substantive Law: Kapauku Papuan Laws of Land Tenure. American Anthropologist. 67, 186-214. ' I find no evidence of 'private property' as would be required for this to be used as evidence of anything 'similar to Anarcho-capitalism'. From an anthropological, or rather economic anthropological perspective, there is no evidence in this ethnography of anything that could be considered 'private property', indeed I highly doubt that Pospisil would have argued that this was the case, particular as such a concept scarcely exists in any 'non-Western' ethnographic examples. What is demonstrated in the ethnography, is various forms of personal ownership(as fundamentally distinct from private ownership), where by individuals possess specific discrete items or objects, a common trait found in other ethnographic examples see(Fred Myers on the Pintupi) alongside what put into Western language can only be called 'common ownership' however based upon the family and kin relationships. Even the examples cited demonstrate that kinship is the building block of concepts of ownership(Fred Myers again provides some information regarding this), and could only be translated into Western language as being akin to the personal possessions held in common by family members. However even this is a massive stretching of definitions since Western society does not have the social structures and kinship relations that are evident in Kapauku society and are form the basis of property ownership in that society. Such stretching of definitions risks the types of essentialising and oversimplification that comes with racism and colonialist ignorance. The Pospisil example cited, does not even provide evidence for private property, merely individual ownership, which cannot be reduced to being the same thing, and certainly not so when claiming some kind of anthropological credibility. The fact of the matter is that if we try to force Kapauku society into the frameworks of Western notions of property(a dubious task for sure) theirs is a society where individual ownership of land and land ownership in general, and resources are derived not through private property rights, but through the physical acts of individuals and indeed in most instances collective labour(see Pospisil) of kinship groups, who then claim ownership in common of the land or resources they have 'developed'.

For further reading of all that's wrong with trying to claim that the Kapauku have 'private property', as well as why this does not make sense in an ethnographic context see The gift-Marcel Mauss Stone age economics-Marshall Sahlins Debt-David Graeber and why'll you're on it read Argonauts of the Western pacific-Malinowski. Coral gardens and their magic-Malinowski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.217.253 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And of course, equally, we only have the "say-so" of the IP editor who only recently added much of this content to the article that, by contrast, it is relevant and appropriate. The main source relied on is a paper by Bruce Benson published by the hardly disinterested Journal of Libertarian Studies which, nonetheless, doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalism in its body. It's not clear that any of the original anthropological source material, some of which is also quoted directly at some length, does either.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the above commentator's claim that Papuans had no concept of private property but rather all personal possessions were owned by the family, I would like to point out Pospisil's quote from the source itself: "Relatives, husbands and wives do not own anything in common." I think Pospisil has gone to great lengths to put across the point that neither land nor movables were communally owned, rather, everything was individually owned. This does count as proto-capitalist. In fact Pospisil himself used the word "private ownership" rather than "personal ownership" to characterize the property system, since personal possessions are usually limited to movables whereas the source specifically mentions private ownership of land as being pervasive in Papuan society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.100.51 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a violation of WP:SYNTH to insert any text based on sources that do not mention anarcho-capitalism. I removed a bunch of violation text just now. It had been added by IP 103.225.100.51. This cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The money quote is from the lead of WP:OR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." In general, don't say something that hasn't been said before in a reliable secondary source. LK (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Further reading section
Following on, but distinct, from the endless "anarchism or not" discussion, this part of the page, which I've only just noticed as I've never got that far down before, has multiple issues. For a start, per the relevant part of the MOS, further reading lists should not be huge and should not be used as a kind of second references section. This one also seems to be being used as a kind of forum for debating the "anarchism" point, purporting to be definitive and overwhelming evidence about it, with divisions and sub-headings for the cited texts depending on which side of the debate they supposedly fall on, based presumably on nothing more than a random editor's interpretation. Not only is this inappropriate in principle, as set up it's utterly misleading anyway: a brief check suggests that very few of the sources cited directly address the specific point in quite such a "yes/no" fashion, nor is it a definitive or representative overview of all the literature. It needs to be culled to reflect only the significant texts and to lose the sub-headings.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. By all means cut it back. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * For future editor reference, here is what the section was before the pruning discussed here - in case anyone feels like any of these items need to be restored. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Coiner
According to Lew Rockwell, the term was coined by Murray N. Rothbard. According to Mark Thornton, the term was coined by Michael Oliver. Charles Johnson suggests that Karl Hess may have been the first to use the term. I have also heard that it was coined by Jarret B. Wollstein. Why is this so hard to pin down? allixpeeke (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Molyneux
I noticed that there were some deletes and reversions concerning Stefan Molyneux's self-published books and blog/podcast site. I recognize that these are relevant things for the page to point to, and can't guess at the IP editor's intentions, but I wonder if their self-published status means that this article should not be linking to them out of concern for WP:PROMO. Should there be some discussion here on the Talk page to see if there is some consensus before more changes are attempted?  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted the IP only because no explanation was given. If you are reasonably convinced that the books should not be listed, then remove them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm satisfied to have them here, but I've grown sensitive to the issue of self-published sources and am still trying to figure out when they're considered okay and when they're not.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  07:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Taxation
I disagree with this edit by Knight of BAAWA. Yes, it's true that taxation as normally understood is compulsory, but paying for essential services such as private defense agencies, police, and courts, etc, in an anarcho-capitalist society could be considered a form of taxation that isn't strictly compulsory. So I think "compulsory" should be restored. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. The notion of "voluntary taxes" is almost, but not quite, an oxymoron. Market transactions, such as paying for private defense, etc must not in any way be considered "taxation". In some sense, you are "required" to either provide for your own defense or pay someone — but that should be considered the same way as being required to either grow your own food or pay someone for it.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  03:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As with the above: taxation is necessarily compulsory. Hell--even the wikipedia article on taxation states as such. To conflate taxation with a purchase is to destroy the very notion of freely-chosen transactions. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of overlinking to Icelandic Commonwealth
You recently removed some links in anarcho-capitalism to the Icelandic Commonwealth with the following note: "Reduce overlinks of Icelandic Commonwealth - one image caption and one in the body should suffice"

Maybe I'm missing something, but now I don't see any links to Icelandic Commonwealth? Maybe you accidently removed one too many? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like they are still there. The first one is piped in an image caption, so it doesn't show on the rendered page as "Icelandic Commonwealth". (I generally allow for an extra links in infoboxes, tables, and image captions, so I can't just mechanically remove extra links.) The other one appears near the end of the paragraph that starts off with the link to Subrogation.


 * Oh, and thanks for all the work you've been doing.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  20:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. There aren't any links in the section about Medieval Iceland being a historical precedent, but I guess that's fine. Also, I added info about the anarcho-capitalistic characteristics of the Icelandic Commonwealth to Icelandic Commonwealth (I copy-pasted it from anarcho-capitalism with some minor changes). I thought you may be interested. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm persuaded that it would be better to link the second image caption than the first and the instance in the more relevant section than the first mention. Thanks.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * [ moved here from my talk page.]  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  21:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Temp page protection
I requested temp page protection until the coordinated vandalism stops. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thick anarchism
Would it be accurate to say that anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are "thick" anarchism? And if you just say, "Let's abolish the state and let the details take care of themselves," without specifying whether it's ethical for the workers to seize the means of production, that's "thin" anarchism? St. claires fire (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20070927035518/http://www.netnomad.com/crigler.html to http://www.netnomad.com/crigler.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) 22:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

History
This article takes great pains to make anarcho-capitalism look older than it is. It should be mentioned much earlier that the term came into use in the mid-20th century, and should be neutral on the subject of whether anarcho-capitalism is part of a longer tradition. Which means it should not begin its History section by talking about classical liberalism and individualist anarchism, as this is a decidedly non-neutral take on how the ideology came about.

Anarcho-capitalism is a 20th-century invention, and this isn't even debatable. What's debatable is whether it's part of individualist anarchism or simply an extreme form of liberalism. Ligata (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I fail to see any support for your claims in the text of the article. In fact, the lede points out that Rothbard was the first person to use the term, and that in the mid 20th century. That the history section begins with classical liberalism and individualist anarchism is proper, as that is where it does come from. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum; please remember that. Also: you can try to debate whether or not anarcho-capitalism is part of individualist anarchism just as much as you can debate whether or not evolution is a fact. However, it's pretty silly to do either. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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 tag to http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html
 * Added tag to http://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207090656/http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0146.php to http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0146.php

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) 16:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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://archive.is/20130118231506/http://catallaxymedia.com/SharperSecurity to http://catallaxymedia.com/SharperSecurity

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) 14:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

grammar
in the Fiction section, it talks about a book written by thomas sowell but it is spelled thomas sewell. i dont have time to make an account and edit and all that jazz so if somebody else could do that that would be nice. or dont, its not my business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.62.249 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2017‎
 * Sharper Security: A Sovereign Security Company Novel is in fact written by Thomas Sewell, not Sowell. --Cgt (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Greatest Improvement One Could Make To This Page!
Simple! Take it down. "Anarcho"-Capitalism is NOT a thing. And would literally be impossible considering the fact that Capitalism relies on the State in order to exist. There have been plenty of articles, books and documentaries and videos debunking Not-Anarchist Capitalism. Out of respect for the real Anarchists here trying to change the world for the better, for all, please delete this article, or make it not even remotely related to Anarchism, and put the term Anarcho in ""s

Thanks, hope you'll see sense and make a change. Stop morons falling into this trap.

For more information visit www.theanarchistlibrary.org and search for Anarcho-Hucksters, and read the Anarchist FAQ which is on the same site. Individualist Anarchism is not Capitalistic, and Capitalism is not compatible with Anarchism.

Tom the Anarchist. 2A02:C7D:801A:5600:496F:DD6B:1B20:ED5 (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

→ Political disagreement with the subject of an article isn't generally considered a reason to remove an article. You may want to familiarize yourself more with the purpose of Wikipedia. --216.9.184.69 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism suggestions
I do not know much about this topic, which is why I am putting it up for discussion, but an example of a historical anarcho-capitalism like system may be pre-monarchical Israel as described in the book of Judges. They (according to the Bible) had a set of laws that maintained property rights, but appeared to not have any definitive state to execute it other than the priests. Electro blob (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Got reliable sources? Is it a fringe view or a mainstream view? // Liftarn (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
I notice that my edit has been reverted. I feel that the now current wording of "from other professed anarchists who nevertheless seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of property and the flow of capital." is unacceptably POV. For one, the use of "professed" and "nevertheless" implies that left-anarchists are not "real" anarchists - an interesting role reversal, but still POV. And for another, the idea that left-anarchists seek to "regulate" anything is antithetical to the ideas of anarchism. While anarcho-capitalists may believe that the view of property espoused by left-anarchists amounts to "prohibiting or regulating", this is also not a NPOV viewpoint. If I were to edit the left anarchist page to talk about "other professed anarchists who nevertheless seek to perpetuate capitalist hierarchy", that would also be an unacceptably POV statement. Thank you, Eeidt (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Eeidt here. "professed" and "nevertheless" present the clear implication that non ancap anarchists take a view of private property that is in opposition or contradiction to anarchism generally, and thus are anarchists in name only. It's very clear POV and should be modified. I also feel that it would be helpful for "the accumulation of property" to be changed to "the accumulation of private property" to clearly distinguish between capital goods/private property versus collective property or collective ownership. In sum I'd like to propose changing the wording to "from other anarchists who seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of private property and the flow of capital." I'll leave reasonable time for discussion, then proceed with these edits. Thanks, Plesiosaur~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert
@User:99.56.205.172, User:61.192.29.11: You have made this revert (and for the second IP this edit, I don't know whether it has something concretely to do with he content), re-adding the Libertatis Æquilibritas to the article. When I Google "libertatis æquilibritas OR aequilibritas", I get only 5.470 results. The first one claims "It is not a symbol of capitalism in the general leftist sense [...]". The third one is an article from the Esperanto Wikipedia, which claims it to be an anarcho-capitalist symbol. The source is the private website of someone (although it claims the article to have been originally published on anti-state.com, which also does not seem very relevant), who seems to have invented it by himself. In difference to this article, none of the this two pages claim it to be a symbol of the Austrian School, but only of anarcho-capitalism. There seems no important place where the symbol is used. Also, the claim of this article that the Austrian School is "the school of economics of anarcho-capitalism" is wrong, as, for example, David D. Friedman and Bryan Caplan are anarcho-capitalists without being adherents of the Austrian School, and Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are adherents of the Austrian School without being anarcho-capitalists.

The first IP also made this revert. But the symbol does not have much to do with "any metaphysical or psychological system that assigns to the will (Latin: voluntas) a more predominant role than that attributed to the intellect" or "the doctrine that will is the basic factor, both in the universe and in human conduct", much more with what is described in voluntaryism. Voluntarism (philosophy) does also have a section about political voluntaryism, but the link wasn't even directed on this section. --Zupanto (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
, you are making many edits to this article without discussion. Multiple editors - myself and - have objected to them. I do not believe that your edits are in accord with WP:NPOV, and you are behaving wrongly by restoring them without seeking consensus on the talk page first. You simply cannot continue to revert multiple other editors who disagree with you, with no attempt to resolve disagreements by discussion. If you keep up this pattern of editing, I will report you for edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Victim-Based
victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies, which tend to become corrupt in proportion to their monopolization.[3]

What does it mean by victim based? Mslayer122 (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
The article currently contains the following sentence:
 * Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (in sum, all relationships that are not caused by threats or violence, including exchanges of money, consumer goods, land and capital goods) in order to minimize conflict while maximizing individual liberty and prosperity.

It seems to me that the highlighted part seems to unequivocally state that the relationships mentioned (exchange of money, consumer goods, land etc.) are not caused by threats or violence, while this is just a belief held by anarchocapitalists and some right libertarians. Moreover this is precisely explained further down in the article in the Criticism section. I tried to remedy this situation twice by simply rewording the sentence and specifying that it's "all relationships that they believe are not caused by violence", however Knight of BAAWA keeps making unjustified reverts of this. When I've confronted them about it, they said that I need sources (???) and that I'm attempting to marginalize (???). It seems to me crystal clear that we cannot make statements on Wikipedia as if it were true, when they are merely a belief held by a group, hence attributing the belief to the group is a small yet needed improvement in the article. The same user seems to also revert some of my other changes attempting to properly attribute beliefs to anarcho-capitalists, consequently violating WP:NPOV. Out of respect I have not yet reintroduced the initial edit until a further discussion is concluded including other editors, however I will not let Knight of BAAWA revert other improvements and necessary attributions, as those changes are necessary to improve the neutrality of the article. At the same time I recommend to read WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the latter being the aspect of our policy they are violating. BeŻet (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm violating nothing. I justified the reverts. Please remember to assume good faith, which you clearly aren't doing. And also remember: you do need sources/citations/references for what you put in. Otherwise, it will just get tagged with {citation needed}, because that's how Wikipedia works. If you're unfamiliar with that: you need a refresher. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not making a lot of sense: why do I need a source to claim that it is a belief held by anarchocapitalists? Isn't that absolutely clear given the sources that describe ANARCHOCAPITALISM? Please readdress this issue. BeŻet (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It makes complete sense, as I'm talking about you needing to provide sources for what you add. This is Wikipedia 101, nothing more. Please remember to assume good faith. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What does need to be sourced? That anarchocapitalists believe that exchange of money etc. is devoid of violence? What are you talking about, you are not being clear enough. We are merely stating that this is what they believe. Are you saying that I need to provide a source that those transactions may in fact be caused by violence? If so, there are tens of thousands of books explaining that, but that's besides the point, because we are not stating here whether they may be caused by violence, but what anarchocapitalists believe. This is Wikipedia 101. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

‎Historical precedents
Examples of "‎historical precedents" that are not clearly described as "anarchocapitalist" by sources should be removed, otherwise they would be considered as original research and synthesis of published material. BeŻet (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first three examples should be removed (sources don't explicitly claim those societies were anarcho-capitalist). BeŻet (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

quote in strange context?
Why put a Noam Chomsky quote about the impracticality and potential consequences of anarcho-capitalism in a section about rights? Either the section should have a different title and idfferent content introducing the quote, maybe "practical possibility and implications", or just drop the quote, which is pretty vague and lacking any real information? The sentence before the quote is "Some critics, including Noam Chomsky, reject the distinction between positive and negative rights." This would lead the reader to expect a quote where Chomsky either discusses the irrelevance of the distinction between positive and negative rights, or the invalidity of the ancap case that only negative rights count. Instead, he just basically says he thinks ancap is stupid and will never be implemented and would cause a disaster if it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.23 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"Law merchant, admiralty law and early common law"
This section seems to be WP:OR as none of the quotes referenced mention anarcho-capitalism; furthermore, some sources placed there that I've checked don't either. I've tagged it with a template for now, but might need to remove the section if it's not improved. BeŻet (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, I've removed all content in Somalia's section that doesn't reference anarcho-capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism
What's the point in stating in the lead that anarcho-capitalism is a "modern school of anarchist thought" when there's a note that literally states "The wider anarchist movement rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, see Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools"? It should just states "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory". There're Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism that can discuss that with more informations and better clarifications; we don't need to put anarcho-capitalism and anarchism everywhere, especially when "[t]he wider anarchist movement rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism", which reliable sources generally agree/support. Anyway, this article still has multiple issues, maybe you can do something about it?--Davide King (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019
The following referral does not lead to dispute resolution organizations, but instead to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#Views

Top of this URL then reads:

"Stefan Molyneux From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Dispute resolution organizations)"

CHANGE dispute resolution organizations TO dispute resolution organizations Lolileinchen (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, the Dispute resolution organizations redirect makes no sense and so I will arrange for it to be deleted. Thanks, Fish +Karate  12:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
Hello,

I propose the addition of some words in the opening frase of the article:

Please change: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates..."

to: "Anarcho-capitalism is one of the neoliberal schools of thought that as political philosophy and economic theory advocates..."

I believe it whould make the article more acurate since the terms "libertarianism"-"anarchocapitalism" are both invented and promoted by the austrian school. Such the "austrian school" as "libertarianism" are already part of the "neoliberalism" article in wikipedia. And that's correct since the main carachteristic of neoliberalism as described in wikipedia is practically the main principal of "libertarianism" (pro free market and private initiative against state control and market regulations)

Borodin bonobo (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Given the controversial topic of this article, I would also want to see consensus supporting this change before implementing it via an edit request. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Responding to the updated request, you still haven't pointed to reliable sources that use this description. I recommend starting a discussion of sources here below. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content
Since it has been a year since the templates went up, and there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in backing up the original claims inserted in this article (and it's not the job of other editors to try and figure out where specific claims have originated from), I will be soon removing paragraphs that are missing sources. I think it will be better for the article to be shorter but with more sourced material, rather than longer with a lot of unverified information. In general, I'd like to remove: If anyone would like to "rescue" this content, now is the time to add sources. Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Economics subsection that has no citations bar one primary source for one sentence, which talks about Rothbard and his opinion on Cold Warriors.
 * Sentences that use the Don Stacy "source" (which is a review of the book), as nearly all of them, if not all of them, failed verification. If the editor who added this source was trying to reference the book itself, a full citation is needed.
 * Unsourced content in the Common Property section, including the content that failed verification.
 * Unsourced content in the Contractual Society section
 * Unsourced content in the History section, including the paragraph that failed verification.
 * The two unsourced claims in Medieval Iceland
 * The non sequitur statement in the Criticism section (which is also unsourced)
 * The whole of the literature section - there are no sources nor criteria explaining why any of the books there belong in this article. The fiction section is lacking citations.
 * The Literature section is fundamentally a MOS:FURTHER reading section, and doesn't strictly require citations (like other External links) especially where its just a simple list of works. If further commentary is made, such as in the Literature>Fiction section, then of course citations are needed. I'd really prefer also if we could focus efforts on one section at a time. There is WP:NODEADLINE and I get the feeling that we're going to have too many hands in the pot trying to make a lot of changes at once. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to remove everything in one go, but rather do it over the course of a week or more. In terms of the literature section, it still required justification – for instance, who decides whether a 1885 text or a 1935 book has anything to do with anarchocapitalism, considering it was "invented" in the 50s or 60s? Any text that is not clearly and unequivocally about anarchocapitalism should include a justification/citation. BeŻet (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of those early books are listed because of their strong influence on the development of AnCap and because they express similar sentiments (without calling themselves the precisely same name as was later developed). I certainly think prose is better than a simple list, but I don't think its an urgent priority. -- Netoholic @ 13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, who says so? Does the body of the article talk about it? I don't see that. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the opposing view is The deadline is now. Misinformation can spread quickly. BeŻet (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, since the questioned parts are tagged with cn or failed verification, the problem of misinformation being spread is minimized because readers are alerted. Some of those tags are very new and we need to give time for the problems to be addressed. -- Netoholic @ 13:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The main tag complaining about unsourced information has been here for nearly a year. The individual inline tags may have been introduced later, but that doesn't change the fact that this information has been unsourced for quite some time without anyone willing to provide the missing citations for the original claims. We should slowly start removing the content now. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How about improving the content? It could be that the original citations or link between citation and text has been lost due to prior mass removals. It could also be that simple searches could be found to cite content. Now I know you're next reply is going to say "the WP:BURDEN is on those wanting to include disputed content", but that's a bit narrow thinking. I think if people see a large number of blanket removals by editors not likewise putting in effort to improve where possible, that would be seen as counterproductive. And yes, if inline tags were recently added, then those should be given enough time to be remedied. The main tag is not license to remove specific content which was only recently challenged. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not other editors' responsibility to try to locate the source of specific claims. I am in fact trying to improve the content, but I am not going to spend hours researching and searching for a source that fits a specific sentence. If a quick google search doesn't return anything, it's justified to remove the content instead. Finally, the content wasn't "only recently challenged": all content on Wikipedia needs citations. When the main template went up, it was challenging all unsourced content. Feel free to update the content that is planned to be removed, like you did with common property (appreciated). BeŻet (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're proving what I said about the undesirable effects of too-rapid removal of content. It becomes a confusing frenzy of back-and-forth, not affording people a chance to fix and respond. Let's chill out a bit and focus on one section at a time - you seem to have some disagreements over my rewrite of "Common property", so let's hash that out before moving forward. Why exactly do you think that section needs attribution, when Holcombe is not putting forward novel ideas, but rather summarizing the ideas put forward by AnCap writers?  -- Netoholic @ 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, the WP:STYLE of the text is not encyclopedic: things like "the question then becomes" and "the solution might be" are not acceptable. Secondly, you are saying yourself that Holcombe is summarizing ideas put forward by ancaps. That's why the easiest way to solve this is by attributing this pondering to anarcho-capitalists. I am not sure why you reverted my changes that were trying to remedy the situation? Finally, the "solution" presented is not self-explanatory - it is suggested that ownership could be transferred into private hands, but there is no mentioning of what does that achieve. It can be deduced that ancaps simply think that "private is better", but without attributing these thoughts to ancaps it comes across as something that should be obvious to the reader, while it's not. BeŻet (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Holcombe in his paper is doing the work of attributing lines of thought to specific other writers. We are citing Holcombe as a summary of AnCap thought on the subject of common property. We don't need to attribute (to specific writers or to unnamed "anarchocapitalists") these ideas, only summarize them. If there are more works on common property & anarcho-capitalism, we can incorporate them. Direct attribution is only done when a primary source is being used, but Holcombe is secondary. It sounds like you feel, though, that Holcombe's work isn't explaining the details you're looking for, and that's irrelevant. We present the source as it is, not how we want it to be. I took the content and summarized it for our purposes, but if you have a better summary of Holcombe's paper, then put it forward. -- Netoholic @ 14:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So how do you propose we address the WP:STYLE issues of that fragment? BeŻet (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering what happened, I believe always more it should be rewritten. I do not mean this literally; I mean that we should act like this is a new article and start from the scratch by searching what reliable sources, especially academic ones, say. Because even if we find sources for those uncited claims and other issues, they may be undue or not really discussed. On the other hand, we may find new information that is actually due but it is not in the main body. Only after we have done this, only after we have actually searched on the topic and sources, making a list and discuss them, can we see whether the article needs to be totally rewritten, almost or very little, or whether we just need to add the refs and avoid edit wars. That is why I still hope and  can help us in doing exactly this.--Davide King (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that ample time has been given for the sourced to be added to the article, and it is not unreasonable to remove unsourced content. Reverting such changes back to unsourced versions is not a valid thing to do. There are no rules regarding how quickly unsourced content can stay in the article, and such content can be removed at any time. Unsourced content is often marked and left in the article if there is a chance that someone will come back and add appropriate references. But since this hasn't happened for a long time, it seems unlikely now. I tried to behave fairly and give a final warning on the discussion page before removing the content (and keep the deletion pace at a reasonable rate), but having said that, there really isn't any valid reason to revert removal of unsourced content. As explained in WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source - the rules are pretty clear. BeŻet (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to hold off on editing the article. The points made above re: burden of verifiability and the state of the article are valid. There are some sections that can be improved/rewritten and there are others that are based solely on affiliated sources that need TNT. The points I made last week about lack of independent, secondary source analysis and over-reliance on primary sources still stand. As for other/new sources, I need to keep digging, but I know I at least have some passages from Radicals for Capitalism I can use. Pretty amazing it's not already in the article, but also a sign of how much work remains to be done. czar  07:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Another argument for paring it down is that it's so leviathan and messy that I'm sitting here with multiple sources and there's nowhere to even begin. The article starts with Ethics but ends up being mainly about Rothbard without explaining why we're hearing so much from him, but it's really more a tour through a series of primary sources. It reads like an essay when this overview should be about what secondary sources summarize about anarcho-capitalist thought. The long block quotes are jarring/overkill, as are the separate sections on History/Historical precedents: Again, why are we citing Rothbard's claims about the historical precedent for his thought? If Rothbard's self-analysis was vetted, an independent, secondary source would analyze it without the conflict of interest. There's just a whole lot to be excised before the real work can even begin. If you'd prefer to go section by section, we can do that, but realize that a lot of what is here is unusable. czar  21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the major sources of bloat in this article is from editors adding an WP:UNDUE amount of content related to the historical anarchist viewpoint on how anarcho-capitalism is "not real anarchy". This is a fairly minor point of debate overall and comes down to definition of terms. AnCaps use the strict definition of the term "anarchy" (ie "no rulers") and believe that only thru coercion can you stop the free market, anarchists use it to mean "no hierarchy" and believe that the free market is coercion. This point need not be covered all over the place as it is currently (the lead, and Philosophy, "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism", History, and Criticism sections, etc). The Criticism section should be eliminated per WP:STRUCTURE.  The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" is massively WP:UNDUE as we wouldn't dedicate sections to the views of other -isms (note that an article on this topic at Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism was a massive failure). Rothbard's analysis to the topic is just as valid as Einstein's analysis of General relativity - there is no conflict of interest as Czar calls it - but of course if secondary sources quote Rothbard, as they often do, then we should also. But it need not be a requirement where Rothbard himself is giving the secondary analysis, like in the "Historical precedents" section. -- Netoholic @ 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how the discussion of what anarchists think of anracho-capitalists is undue if anarchocapitalists literally decided to use "anarcho" as part of their name. I disagree that ancaps understand anarchism as "no rulers", since they support wage labour and private property. But I digress; your opinions about the matter are not important here, because we have to follow what the sources say, not what you personally believe. The existence of the Criticism section is completely justified, and such sections are present all around Wikipedia: Capitalism, Fascism, Socialism, Anarchism and so on. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is very due because it discusses why anarcho-capitalism includes "anarcho" in its name despite being rejected by anarchists, a quite significant talking point. I think it's farcical to compare Rothbard's lofty ideas to Eistein's general relativity - we are after all talking here about Rothbard's ideas, and that's why a secondary source is useful to talk about them (and that's something that we, nota bene, also do in the article about general relativity). Also it's worth noting that general relativity is a scientific theory while anarcho-capitalism is a political idea: the former attempts to describe physical reality, while the latter talks about someone's opinions about how the world should look like. Finally, I am not sure you understand the need for WP:SECONDARY sources: once again, we are talking about Rothbard's ideas, opinions and thoughts - that's not "secondary analysis" as you put it, that's a WP:PRIMARY source. This is exactly why we don't base biographies on autobiographical texts, but rather secondary sources that have at least vetted the statements to some extent. Likewise when we are talking about Rothbard's ideas, if we only base the text on primary sources, we perform our own interpretation of what he is saying (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR)- this is why we need secondary sources that we can refer to, so that such interpretation can be attributed to someone via citation. BeŻet (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a helpful example might be Democratic People's Republic of Korea - despite its name, we don't go ahead and state that it's a democratic country, despite it holding elections; we don't dismiss any discussions about it as a debate over definition of terms. BeŻet (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I laughed when you said "I disagree that ancaps understand anarchism as "no rulers", since they support wage labour and private property.", but then in the very next sentence said "your opinions about the matter are not important here, because we have to follow what the sources say, not what you personally believe". Your refusal to accept that many people can correctly use "anarchy/anarchism" in the simple primary meaning of no rulers/no government shows that you are unable to hold multiple views and definitions in your thoughts, revealing your own bias. That bias I think prevents you from being an objective participant in this re-write. The rest of your claims related to UNDUE weight of outside anarchist views is likewise biased in favor for that ideology, not based on relative weight in sources that discuss anarcho-capitalism, where its often, at most, a minor aside. -- Netoholic @ 14:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion about anarchism and anarchocapitalism also doesn't matter when it comes to the content of the article. I said that, if we consider anarchism to mean "no rulers", then anarchocapitalism isn't anarchism, because it supports private property and wage labour (thus, land owners & rulers and the employer/employee power structure). I said that I don't think anarchocapitalists use this definition, because afaik they say anarchism is "lack of coercion", which is what the sources seem to say. (Also, as a sidenote, the link to the definition you shared also states Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority, which again is incompatible with anarchocapitalism because of the aforementioned reasons) But neither your or my interpretation of anarchism matters in this case (although I should point out that I never disagreed with "no rulers", which could be one way of putting it). I am not sure what you mean by implying that criticism of anarchocapitalism or denying that anarchocapitalism is anarchism is a minor aside when we have empirical evidence that's not the case. I also don't understand what is the general point you are trying to make. Several editors have pointed out issues with the article, the main one being lack of sources and/or relying on primary sources too much, and this is what we are trying to fix. BeŻet (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You still aren't able empathize with the differing viewpoint because you are using one rigid definition of terms, and that taints your view and causing you to state things as fact using phrases like "incompatible" - it is not incompatible if you use an alternate definition. AnCaps base the root "anarcho-" on the meaning of "no rulers" as in "no government" (which is the primary meaning given in "anarchy/anarchism" dictionary definitions). Again, it comes to definition of terms and the problem is that anarchists of your ilk have long forced your "no hierarchy"/"employers are rulers" meaning as a way to interpret anarcho-capitalism, but that is not a majority view within the wider breadth of anarcho-capitalist coverage. In fact, your definition of "anarchy", as resulting in an "incompatibility" with land ownership and employer/employee relationships, is basically absent from dictionaries. An explanation of this difference in term usage between AnCaps and "anarchists" is certainly worthy of inclusion, but it is WP:UNDUE to soak this article in the anarchist view as it is now. I've already had to remove as WP:OR "anarchist" sources used to make those arguments because they failed to even mention anarcho-capitalism - and there are more to remove, including these two you recently added that, while briefly mention anarcho-capitalism, do not clearly support the statement they precede. This WP:OR use of anarchist sources has been a constant problem in this article's history. -- Netoholic @ 03:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can empathize with the "alternative viewpoint" that having a boss or "owning" land is "anarchism", but it's a WP:FRINGE belief. If you're arguing that the discussion about whether anarchocapitalists are anarchists should be trimmed, editors can entertain the idea. If you're arguing that we should assume in the article that anarchocapitalists are anarchists, that's unacceptable. BeŻet (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What an astoundingly misinformed invocation of FRINGE. Your entire reply here (especially stamping your foot down on what is "unacceptable") proves why you are not objective and flexible enough to work on this article. -- Netoholic @ 11:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a blip in the article compared to the amount of primary source material, which I've now twice established as the main issue. I think the single section in question can be pared down too, but this is a straw man. Count the number of primary source citations of Einstein in that article. Compare it with this one. Rothbard should only be cited under conditions as a source writing about oneself; i.e., such citations should be kept to a minimum and fill in vital supporting detail. There is enough coverage of this subject that we should be able to paraphrase from secondary, independent sources.

I recommend that above participants focus their efforts on drafting/rewriting rather than debating here, which has only resulted in stalling the rewrite.

On the subject of rewrite, there are a few sources I've found helpful. First, there are a number of related encyclopedia articles (search Google Books), a chapter in Marshall's Demanding the Impossible, a passage on Rothbard in Radicals for Capitalism, and I've yet to really comb through Sciabarra's multi-chapter treatment of Rothbard in Total Freedom, but there is a subsection on ancap starting on page 322. I've found some other sources, including an interesting French source cited in Marshall, but not worth mentioning yet. czar 02:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That there are too many primary source usages does not mean that the anarchist viewpoint problem can't be discussed also. The article is currently protected, so all we can do is discuss because we can't re-write. I think its important also to address the POV bias issues I think are present in Bezet's work here because I don't think he can objectively tackle this topic while holding such rigid anarchist viewpoints as unquestioned fact.
 * The only issue with the quotes is whether they are being used in lieu of summarization, or if they are oft-quoted by others and so are important for us to also quote. As to Rothbard's analysis - applying one's views to analyze other subjects (such as the historical precedents or the flaws in other ideologies) is not ABOUTSELF - it is in fact the core of what we look for in secondary sources - we want people to analyze subjects from their perspective. I've got a copy of Radicals for Capitalism on the way, as I agree it looks to be a good base source for the article. I also have to raise concern that you are looking for "passage on Rothbard"/"multi-chapter treatment of Rothbard" rather than about anarcho-capitalism - the topics are not one-in-the-same... Rothbard is a major figure, but he is not the whole of it. Just want to make that point clear. -- Netoholic @ 03:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly stated that my beliefs mean nothing here, and we should go with what the sources say. Anarchists rejecting anarchocapitalism is a verified fact with multiple sources confirming it. I'd recommend adressing things I say rather than attacking me. Czar has raised excellent points and suggested ways to improve the article, and we should focus the discussion on them. BeŻet (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite correct - it is the things you say (seen in sections just above) which are evidence that you hold a strongly-biased view and cannot write in a balanced way. -- Netoholic @ 11:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the article is locked until July 2nd, how about you take a WP:BREAK too cool down and come back when you're ready to discuss the issues in this article. BeŻet (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

,, , there was this discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents also involving. Apart from wanting to retrieve this discussion, I think it is relevant since it caused a protection of this page due to edit warring which slowed down discussion about improving the article and stopped edits. Here, Czar added more well-sourced content about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism which I believe it seems to confirm BeŻet's point.--Davide King (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It also seems that Netoholic has been tbanned in 2018 while arguing about ideaological bias on Wikipedia. I think they need to establish a more careful approach when contributing to Wikipedia, avoid personal attacks and stick to sources rather than personal opinions sold as WP:BLUESKY. I think Czar's additions are excellent and well sourced, and we could also use them to improve this article. BeŻet (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we fixing this?
It seems to have been a while since this article was first tagged as in need of improvement, is anyone actively working on it? SwiftestCat (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit: apologies, I'm new to Wikipedia and thought that the top part of the page was the newest posts. 2 days ago was the last time the article's talk page was updated, so it's safe to assume it's being worked on. Thanks folks. SwiftestCat (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently the page is locked due to an edit-war, but we are already discussing improvements that could be made to the page. It will reopen in the next few days. BeŻet (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

An example of issues when relying on primary sources
I wanted to show an example of what makes editing this article difficult, and how reliance on primary sources makes it harder. The article has the following sentence: Some libertarians propose a restitution system of justice in which the right to restitution created by the violation of the victims' property could be homesteaded by bounty hunters that would bring criminals to justice, thus creating the incentive for people to work defending the rights of victims that otherwise would not be able to pay for the service. - this is supported by a primary source pointing at an article written by a Matthew O’Keeffe. Because this comes deep from the mind of an anarcho-capitalist, this poses several issues: This problem permeates through the article. Articles on Wikipedia should be written for everyone, and not just for supporters of the ideology in question. This is why secondary sources help, because they often achieve a more neutral approach where certain things are not taken for granted. BeŻet (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is completely unclear how the "right to restitution is created by the violation of the victims' property" – perhaps it makes sense to other anarcho-capitalists, but if a secondary source was used, it would be more likely that some context would be given. In other words, because it's based on so many layers of ancap beliefs, it is simply not clear to someone reading about the ideology for the first time. (I'll be honest, I've read the article, and it is still unclear to me what would force the killer of a homeless person to pay money, and what decides the due amount)
 * A phrase like "homestead the right to restitution" is not self-explanatory - how does one homestead the right to something?
 * The sentence itself is an attempt at a summary of what is being said in the article, and thus is an interpretation of whomever added that sentence. It would be better to use a secondary source so that interpretation can be attributed to someone.
 * The significance of the opinion and/or the author is unclear.

Yesim Yilmaz source (Private Regulation)
The Yesim Yilmaz source used in the lead does not make any reference to anarcho-capitalism whatsoever (or even libertarianism). I propose it gets removed, and content marked as in need of a source, as it seems unjustified to use this source for this topic (unless a secondary source explaining this association is produced). BeŻet (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried looking for some sources talking about anarcho-capitalism and business regulations, but could not find anything that wasn't a niche blog post. I propose that fragment simply gets removed until a source is found which can be used to discuss this topic. BeŻet (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've now removed that fragment as I could not find any valid source for that information. Please feel free to reintroduce that content once a valid source is found. BeŻet (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've already raised concerns about the source you used - it doesn't mention anarchocapitalism, so I'm not sure if it's adequate. BeŻet (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism again
, you reverted me, claiming WP:POV. Sentence reads as if anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. Which they are which could be argued to be pushing a POV the other way around. As I noted here, I was merely making the lead conform to the main body (the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body). The main body does not support your rationale for your second revert (WP:POV. And we can't marginalize people. And, since anarchocapitalists are anarchists, we must use the word "other"). It is not supported by given references. The relevant section, titled Anarchism and capitalism, also does not support your view and then it merely quotes Rothbard at large first claiming that anarcho-captalism is the only true anarchism and then that they are not anarchist but nonarchist. Furthermore, neither Anarchism nor History of anarchism, both of which are good articles, make mention of anarcho-capitalism or other disputed schools like national-anarchism. Anyway, in my first revert I actually removed the comma. The phrase and from anarchists who support personal property and oppose private ownership of the means of production [...] is perfectly fine because it says that anarcho-capitalism is distinguished from anarchists who oppose the private ownership of the means of production which is undoubtedly true, so there is no need for the other qualifier which may imply that anarcho-capitalism is anarchist when there is no consensus that it is as you wrote. Contrary to your claim, without the comma, it does not imply that it is distinguished from all anarchists, yet you reverted me again with the same misleading rationale, so I suggest that you self-revert.--Davide King (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It does read as if anarchocapitalists aren't anarchists. And we have sources which show they are, in fact, anarchists. As you should be aware: SOURCES MATTER. Verifiability matters. And the sources verify that anarchocapitalists are anarchists. So please: abide by the spirit of Wikipedia. Abide by the sources. Thank you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, without the comma, it does not; and it also goes the other way around, like anarcho-capitalists are undoubedtly anarchists when this is not a fact. Merely talking about sources does not mean much; please show us.
 * Some argue that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, although this has been contested or rejected,  including an individualist–socialist divide. Many others deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all,: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.";  "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders. [...] [S]o what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the "anarchy" of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud.";  "The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."; : "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."; : "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all". or that capitalism is compatible with anarchism, seeing it as a form of New Right libertarianism.


 * Anarcho-capitalists as part of anarchism seems to be the minority and remains a controversial and contested view, so we cannot objectively call them that given the contentious nature of them using that label as argued by .--Davide King (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite
I ping you again because I believe this article really needs improvement and rewrite; and I believe that, since you worked at Anarchism and other anarchist-related articles which became Good articles, you can probably do a good job, maybe not to make it a Good article at once but at least to better explain what anarcho-capitalism is because I do not think is clear. Is it simply anarchism and free markets? Or is it radical neoliberalism? Because there may well be individuals, who use or have used the anarcho-capitalist label, who may well be closer to mutualism or to anarchism without adjectives or pan-anarchism and thus may well be anarchists and anarcho-capitalism in this sense would be part of anarchism, but in my understanding that is not what the anarcho-capitalist movement is about. Some anarcho-capitalist may see it simply as voluntarism and accepting all other anarchist schools, but anarchism is not voluntarism; it is about free association which is different from voluntarism (see Voluntary slavery). In other words, the anarcho-capitalist movement seems to want to abolish the welfare state, any regulation and privatise everything, i.e. radical neoliberalism.

Furthermore, there are clear issues or differences on economics and property between anarcho-capitalism and the wider anarchist movement which makes communists and individualists closer to each other than anarcho-capitalists are to the individualists (admittedly, the individualists are often conflated, in my opinion wrongly, with the anarcho-capitalists). Anarchists oppose capitalism, including interest, profit, rent, usury and wage slavery (which is different from some form of wage labour that anarchists may support; those who do, they support the worker receiving the full value of their labour which again is different from profit), anarcho-capitalism does not seem to have issue with at least one of that. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to capitalist and landowners as long as property was justly acquired which puts it at odd with the wider anarchist movement.

One thing to consider is that anarcho-capitalism seems to be mainly and largely an American phenomenon and that it did not developed or came out from the anarchist movement but rather from the Old Right and 19th-century liberal tradition. Whatever influence anarchists such as Tucker or Spooner may have had on anarcho-capitalism and people like Rothbard, their normative claims and related socialist doctrines were rejected. Like national-anarchism is considered to be a far-right trojan horse, anarcho-capitalism seems to be more related to neoliberalism than anarchism, with its emphasis on privatisation, hence radical neoliberalism that wants to privatise everything, including the state. While it may not be as easy to discount as with national-anarchism, I do not believe it is just as easy to take it at face value that anarcho-capitalism is part of anarchism. Unlike both anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, another controversial anarchist school, did developed and came out of the anarchist movement, even as an anarchist critique of anarchism, as part of the post-left anarchy development, hence why I would consider it part of anarchism and the wider anarchist movement.

The fact that anarcho-capitalists seem to use capitalism for free markets, which is at odds with the wider anarchist movement usage which is that of the actually existing class system, seems to further confirm that anarcho-capitalism may have some general overlaps with anarchism but that it did not developed out of the movement or came out from it. Several conservatives may also label themselves anarchists based on their opposition to the state, but they still support unnatural, man-made or otherwise coercive hierarchies, hence why they may be called akratists rather than anarchists and the same may apply to anarcho-capitalists. I hope and  can share their thoughts, feel free to correct me and hopefully do an analysis of sources to improve the article and better explain what anarcho-capitalism is.--Davide King (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think where you are getting tripped up is in the idea that you are interpreting this topic in relation to the "wider anarchist movement" (you use that phrase a lot) and want to define it using a word salad of other -isms, which themselves can have muddy definitions. Treat the topic as a thing unto itself. This article does not need a radical rewrite. It does not need more commentary about what it isn't. -- Netoholic @ 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those templates, which I have not put and go back to July 2019, respectful disagree.--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the templates from your post as those are for articles and don't need to be literally seen here. BeŻet added those, but has since done some editing, so we'll have to ask him whether he thinks some/all of those issues have since been addressed. -- Netoholic @ 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that and thanks for removing that, I should have shown a diff. which is what I did now. Anyway, pretty much wrote below what is wrong with the article and why the templates are still valid.--Davide King (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are not objectively anarchists. They might consider themselves anarchists, but we cannot objectively call them that given the contentious nature of them using that label. We already have whole paragraphs about how anarchists don't consider anarchocapitalists to be part of their movement, and we list many of the reasons why. Therefore, if we want to adhere to WP:NPOV, we shouldn't call them anarchists outright, but explain why anarchocapitalists think they are anarchists, and why others disagree. I haven't reviewed the article in a while, so would have to do that first, but from what I remember this was already clearly outlined in the text. In terms of saying "other anarchists", since anarchocapitalists are not clearly defined as part of anarchism, and anarchism has quite clearly defined boundaries, saying "other anarchists" is wrong in this context, and I have reverted it. BeŻet (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They are objectively anarchists. And sources confirm it. This is Wikipedia; that's how things work. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to understand what you mean by "sources confirm it". Do some right libertarian and anarchocapitalist writers refer to them as anarchists? Without a doubt. Does the vast majority of anarchists (if not all of them) disagree with labelling this political movement as such? Also, no doubt about it. Like I said, we should be writing that anarchocapitalists see themselves as anarchists, and provide their justifications, however we cannot objectively state that they are, because it's a fringe view held predominantly by anarchocapitalists themselves, and therefore requires attribution. BeŻet (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Merely writing this does not mean much without actually providing some sources in support of this view.--Davide King (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * At first blush, the sourcing is severely lacking throughout the entire article. Many primary sources, not enough independent (read: non-Mises) secondary source commentary about anarcho-capitalism (and not specifically Rothbard). As a tertiary source, WP cares about what secondary source analysis has been done on the subject, not what anarcho-capitalists write about themselves, and to focus disproportionately on the latter creates undue weight. Davide, I suggest discussing specific passages/claims that need better sourcing and/or posing specific questions for focused discussion. Many paragraphs certainly need to be rewritten and some sections might be better off revised from scratch if better sources are available. (not watching, please )  czar  01:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think can probably tell you better about such specific sections and passages since BeŻet added those templates, but I believe your comments are spot on. My issue was with and from anarchists ---> and from other anarchists in the lead.--Davide King (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I took upon myself to try and improve the article some time ago, as there were a lot of issues present. Since I've added the templates, a lot of content has been rewritten and/or removed, however I still believe a lot of the issues remain. The main issue is, a lot of fragments in the article were written from the point of view of an anarcho-capitalist, and thus with their understanding of terms and interpretation of facts. There is a reason why we have a glossary that someone helpfully added to aid in understanding of what anarchocapitalists are talking about. Because of this issue, we had a huge case of WP:OR and portraying opinions as facts. An example of this issue was present in the Historical precedents section, which listed examples of anarchic societies that were not described as "anarchocapitalist" anywhere in the sources (inclusion of which only makes sense if you assume that any example of anarchism is an example of anarchocapitalism). There are also a few non sequitur statements that seem to only make sense to anarchocapitalists (and with their understanding of the world), and a lot of opinions presented as facts without attribution (I've fixed most of those now). For certain statements to make sense, you need to understand the "anarchocapitalist context", that is, all of the assumptions and beliefs held by ancaps. For example, anarchocapitalists don't see wage labour as hierarchical, a view not shared with probably every other political philosophy. Finally, there are a lot of unsourced statements that need citations. BeŻet (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your comment. I think this is a fair analysis. Another issue is that it took for granted that it was anarchist, for example referring to anarchists as left-wing anarchists (a page which was actually deleted and turned into a redirect to discuss the issue) and which I changed to those anarchists or simply anarchists. This was also reflected in the use of terms such as traditional anarchists which are not really used by scholars (they use classical anarchism and they use it to refer to a specific period, not to social anarchism as anarcho-capitalists seem to imply) and is really only used by anarcho-capitalists in another way to imply that they are anarchists, just not traditional anarchists or whatever that means. Apart from left-wing people like Bookchin, it is also mainly anarcho-capitalists that draw a sharp difference between communists and individualists or make it such bigger issue of the debates and issues between the two schools than they really were.
 * I believe even Rothbard wrote that the economics of 19th-century individualist anarchists were still "socialist doctrines" and thus "nonsense", so I dispute how much influence Tucker and Spooner really had on Rothbard and anarcho-capitalists, for example noting that "the individualist anarchists laid great stress on their nonsensical banking theories, their political order that they advocated would have led to economic results directly contrary to what they believed"; i.e. the individualist anarchists believed that their free-market theories would lead to equality of condition, equality of access to the means of production and equal opportunity which would counteract any potential tyranny in a market society, so they did not advocated market means for market means' shake as anarcho-capitalists may do because the latter do not seem to care about its results whereas the individualists did care and that is why the communists and individualists were closer than it is assumed and many communists were individualists and vice versa; they wanted very similar ends, they simply had different means to achieve that. I believe this is something that makes anarcho-capitalism diverge from anarchism and that is why it may be seen more as radical neoliberalism than anarchism.--Davide King (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are also right about wage labour. Several liberals also viewed wage labour as wage slavery.--Davide King (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that "radical neoliberalism" is a lot more apt descriptor than "anarchism"; however I won't be pushing for including this term, unless a significant portion of sources talk about this. What is important here however is distinguishing sources that come from within the political "movement", and those from outside of it. Anarchocapitalists are free to identify as whatever they want, but in an encyclopedia we need to follow the general scholarly consensus on the matter, and thus not unconditionally include them in the anarchist movement. It seems clear to my that a WP:NPOV approach is to say that, while anarchocapitalists consider themselves to be anarchists, this opinion is not mutual, and the justification for both stances should be included. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying: yes, I share your concern regarding the phrase "other anarchists". BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your comments. The point is that even anarcho-capitalists have recognised this. Rothbard wrote that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. Of course, Rothbard meant that anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchism, but since anarchism refers to those left-wing anarchists, anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist. I do not think this has changed; as shown by our Anarchism and History of anarchism, anarchism is still those so-called left-wing anarchists and anarcho-capitalism is not really discussed. Some searches to start may be anarcho-capitalism "neoliberalism" on Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR; anarcho-capitalism "radical neoliberalism" on Google (we may also get different results if we change "neoliberalism" to "neo-liberalism" since some works may prefer the latter usage); and anarcho-capitalism on Google Scholar and JSTOR.--Davide King (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me and I am really flattered by your nice words. Unfortunately, I can not contribute significantly in this interesting article. Real life is consuming more and more of my free time and I have already undertaken another wp article (not related to anarchism). I 've had a look at this specific article and I agree with the template that there are multiple issues that need to be addressed. Most pressing problem in my opinion is the weak verification of the text. Sources are not the best available, most of them are not third-party or even secondary. Cinadon36 07:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks to you for your response. That is really unfortunate (and I hope everything is fine) because I truly believe you could greately improve this article. I agree about those issues that need to be addressed. Anyway, I also pinged you and because the issue on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist or part of the anarchist movement came out again and I thought you two could probably do a better job on searching sources, what they say and what is the consensus on the issue. One thing I forgot to add in my post above is that anarcho-capitalists seem to be more like that Herbert Spencer's associate (I do not remember the name) who claimed to be anarchist and anarchists lambasted him, including the individualist Tucker, who pointed out how they defended capital and land's owners and I believe also criticising Spencer for emphasizing welfare for poor and working-class people but not for the rich and monopolists of capital and land. I wish I could remember this British self-professed anarchist, it was literally written and sourced on his Wikipedia page, I hope you can help me find it. Just to show this was nothing new.--Davide King (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quality of a lot of the sources leave a lot to be desired. A lot of them are blog posts or references to primary material - what we need is good quality secondary sources. BeŻet (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that is obvious by now. Did you find anything interesting in the Google Scholar and JSTOR links I wrote here?--Davide King (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those search links would likely result in WP:CHERRYPICKING, since you have a foregone conclusion as to the relationship between the terms and that search will only deliver items which would confirm it. -- Netoholic @ 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this makes no sense because the links were about "anarcho-capitalism" and I merely added those about anarcho-capitalism and neoliberalism (I may add those about anarcho-capitalism and anarchism or libertarianism too) because wrote however I won't be pushing for including this term, unless a significant portion of sources talk about this and I thought those links could be useful in verifying how many sources talk about that, if it is significant, due, etc. I even asked if BeŻet found anything interesting in the links specifically because I wanted to avoid bias.--Davide King (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Anarcho-capitalism doesn't seem like an end goal, Either you establish working functions through federation and syndicalism, or through corporatism, Anarcho-Corporatism makes more sense because the Corporation owns Sovereignty and not a 'public' state. Stateless Free Market Capitalism still technically has a hierarchy does it not? No matter what this Sovereignty will exert the same role as a state. But what is sure is that Anarchy and Anarcho-capitalism are not the same thing Anarcho-capitalism is Neoliberalism, without cherry picking it's not different then Neo-Feudalism. When the "Ruling" Class is fighting amongst itself in a dystopian wasteland it will offer it's mean of production for the production of violence to protect itself. The Means are still coercive but doublespeak implies that it isn't. This would result in militia societies with sovereignty who's interest is to protect the ruling class (also with separate sovereignty.) for survival because the ruling class owns all the means of production. Technically speaking the Non-aggression Principle in this society would only apply to their ruling Bourgeois class. Renkei (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's quite right. Several sources have highlighted the ideological inconsistencies of anarchocapitalism, and how following these ideas you can have neither an anarchist nor a capitalist society. "Neo-feudalism" or "corpo-fascism" seem like more adequate terms. Nevertheless, those are just our opinions; however (as I said before) there are more than enough sources questioning the "anarcho" part of the name for us to not be able to unequivically describe ancaps as anarchists. BeŻet (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, if academic or other reliable sources use the terms corpo-fascism, neo-feudalism and similar to criticise anarcho-capitalism as "private statism" or "neoliberalism", a sentence may be added about under "Criticism", but we need to find those reliable sources and weight them to see if they are notable. Davide King (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
Do we have any sources associating classical liberalism with anarcho-capitalism? This whole section could be removed because it seems to be completely WP:SYNTH. BeŻet (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Here and here were some recent comments that raised similar issues. This link between anarcho-capitalism and classical liberalism seems to be an American libertarian invention to conflate classical liberalism with their ideals or with a liberalism that is more right-wing than it actually was (that is conservative liberalism, not classical liberalism). As far as I know and as we write there, classical liberalism has often been applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism, which is exactly what I knew about it, i.e. it is used to discuss 19th century liberalism in relation to 20th century liberalism. For example, there were classical liberals who were very left-wing, anti-capitalists and/or opposed wage labour (e.g. Jefferson, Paine, Gesell, etc.) but classical liberalism seems to be conflated with Hayek, Mises and the Austrian School, or at least to their own interpretation of classical liberalism. No mention on how it influenced the left with anarchism, communism and socialism, despite their criticism. Davide King (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Old Right
, I see you removed this text: In the early 20th century, the mantle of anti-state liberalism was taken by the Old Right. These were minarchists, anti-war, anti-imperialists and (later) anti-New Dealers. Some of the most notable members of the Old Right were Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett and H. L. Mencken. In the 1950s, the new "fusion conservatism", also called "Cold War conservatism", took hold of the right-wing in the United States, stressing anti-communism. This induced the libertarian Old Right to split off from the right and seek alliances with the (now left-wing) antiwar movement, and to start specifically libertarian organizations such as the Libertarian Party. While unsourced, it does not seem to be ouright false, but it does need to be verified with sources; are there really no sources that say or mention this, maybe about Rothbard? Because that is the movement where anarcho-capitalism came from, merely with some wording and pivotal leftist terminology and symbolism from anarchism; and is one reason why it is not considered part of the anarchist movement (it did not came out from it, but from the liberal right-wing).--Davide King (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping that paragraph if we can find a source talking about it - I did a quick search but couldn't find it, perhaps someone else will have better luck? BeŻet (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I hope someone can find reliable sources for that. It can provide more context to the origin of anarcho-capitalism and further confirms that it came out from that tradition rather than anarchism, or that it was much more influenced by them than anarchism, merely taking the philosophical anarchist position regarding the state. Davide King (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hatting
Should we toss the needs more citations hat up there?

I feel like, given the conclusions some members have made, we might want to stick that, or a weak citation hat if that's a thing, on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkynetPR (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Referencing problems
I've removed some recent additions here because they're poorly sourced. The offered  reference anchor is not previously defined, and generates an error message rather than a viable reference. The referenced "manifesto" is, as far as I can tell, as self-published book and not a viable reference. If this material can be substantiated by third party independent references, then it has a place here ... but until then, it should be excluded. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Political quadrant" image
I have removed the you inserted into the article. This was your first and only edit on Wikipedia, so I'm not even sure if you're planning to continue working here, but in case you need a justification for the removal: everything about the image was questionable, and either shows a complete lack of understanding of many fundamentals, or some extremely fringe interpretations/beliefs. This violates WP:OR. BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, acting like you own the article now? Ignoring your off-putting, unwelcoming remark towards a new Wikipedian, polcomp counts as a secondary source, all he needs to do is link it and it's totally useable. The least you could've told him instead of accusing him of breaking a rule. pest (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree on several counts:
 * The Political Compass (which I assume you refer to as polcomp) uses the X axis to define economical differences (Left-Right, so roughly Collectivist-Individualist), while the Y axis to define social differences (Authoritarian-Libertarian). Flixq's image wrongly labels the axis as Authoritarian-Liberal and Socialist-Private Property (?????).
 * The image places Nazism in the top left quadrant, quite an extraordinary thing to do and possibly a result of the teenage argument that Nazis are called "National Socialists", therefore they belong on the left. The Political Compass clearly places Hitler in the top right quadrant, because, quite obviously, fascism and Nazism are right-wing ideologies. Since Hitler privatized state industries, following the diagram's own logic Nazism should be placed on the far right.
 * The "explainer" on the left implies some incredibly odd things. For instance, it implies that abolishing private property means that "the government owns everything". It also uses some strange, arbitrary definitions of what each "value" represents (e.g. "make people moral", "make you wear a helmet"). Additionally, it seems to imply that anarchists want the government to control everything, quite an extraordinary claim.
 * To sum up, the image does not represent anything that a secondary source says, but instead is an original image representing someone's fringe, controversial opinions, which can be easily debunked. It therefore constitutes original research and improper synthesis, and cannot be used as it breaks the rules. What I would suggest is having a blank political compass and just showing where anarcho-capitalism would be placed, because this way you won't imply other things. If you want the diagram to show other ideologies as a reference point, make sure you place them in uncontroversial areas, and use the proper, established labelling for the axis. Using the image I linked above as a reference point could work, as it shows where The Political Compass places certain people representing different ideologies. However, an additional source would be needed to then place anarchocapitalism in the correct area. BeŻet (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree.
 * There are many different versions of the Nolan Chart. There is always an economic axis and a civil liberties axis. The actual labelling is not set in stone and the left-right axis is nowadays rejected as it was precisely to fight against the left-right spectrum simplification that Nolan invented the chart. Also I'm sure you are aware of the different uses of "Liberal" and "Libertarian" outside a US-centric perspective. You need only go to the Nolan Chart wiki page to see a version with "Personal Freedom" and "Economic Freedom" axis.


 * The scoring given for the chart is admittedly somewhat colloquial but there's nothing out of the ordinary in it. Certainly not in the scoring of the economic freedom axis which is just a percentage of State control of the economy, that is absolutely standard for measuring economic freedom. As for the civil liberties axis the ordering might vary but freedom of speech, protection of property, the non-aggression principle, drugs, having control of your own body... those are always part of the debate and very appropiate in this wiki page on anarcho-capitalism.


 * As for the "how much economic control the nazis had" debate... I've seen very heated arguments between historians, but it is definitely not a fringe view to argue that they subordinated private property to state control and strategic central planning even before 1939. You could argue they are a 2 or a 4 in the economic freedom axis, but it would be completely non factual to score them anywhere above a 5. They definitely centrally controlled police, pensions, education, all heavy industry, transportation, most of agriculture had quotas and prices imposed, they had rationing and price controls... So no, it might be debatable but calling it "fringe" is an indication of bias on your part. Flixq (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Nolan chart is not any more useful than one with a "good" and "bad" axis in any of its forms, as it is always going to be using arbitrary definitions of concepts like "personal freedom" and "economic freedom" which do not mean the same thing for everyone and therefore including it, along with an equally arbitrary placement of ideologies and people, is not WP:NPOV. The reason Nolan invented the chart is to paint his ideology in the best possible light by giving the impression that it is the "most free" and any of such attempts at making a political compass don't belong outside internet forum roleplay circles and propaganda outlets. Oqwert (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Several issues here:
 * The Political Compass and the Nolan Chart are two different things. If you are somehow combining them, you are performing original research. If you want to use the Nolan Chart, just use it then without any of the additional controversial flull.
 * "Percentage of State control of the economy" isn't a "standard for measuring economic freedom" – I have no idea who told you this. Clearly the Index of Economic Freedom places Singapore at the top, even though it has a larger public sector than Venezuela, United States, United Kingdom etc.. Denmark scores highly in the economic freedom charts despite having a large public sector, universal healthcare and free education.
 * The Nazis didn't have direct state control over industries. They privatised most of them and gave them fantastic deals as to encourage them to support the war effort, while suppressing the labour and union movements for them. They glorified private property. That's a very right-wing government. Placing them on the right side of the Political Compass is completely standard, as I indicted in the source above. Placing them on the left hand side is a fringe opinion. Regardless, this is not the topic of this article, and it's pointless to discuss it here. Consult literature on this topic if you have any doubts.
 * Things like protection of property and the non-aggression principle are right-libertarian talking points, and do not fall within the Y axis but the X axis.
 * To sump up, feel free to use a Nolan Chart and place Anarchocapitalism there (without including any of your controversial opinions), but clearly label it as a Nolan Chart, because it isn't a frequently used chart and it's only popular amongst right-libertarians. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

even from an ancap perspective, that image should as well be removed, since we do not believe that it is possible to control society without controlling the economy, so the blue quadrant would be contradictory. we also believe that it is not possible to control the economy without controlling society, so the green quadrant would also be impossible, turning the political compass into a line that ranges from pure liberty to complete state control.

So while yes, nazis are “conveniently” placed next to communists, other property aggressor ideologies that are away from it in the blue and green quadrants, making it inaccurate. Iron Capitalist (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Edward Konkin III
Currently, the article identifies Samuel Edward Konkin III as an anarchocapitalist, while as far as I know he was the creator of agorism, which is considered by Konkin himself a part of left-wing market anarchism (agorists see capitalism as an exploitative system based on privilege backed by the State, and Konkin himself wanted a world without wage labour and boss-worker relationships). Does any source state that he was indeed an anarchocapitalist? BeŻet (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now removed him from the article. BeŻet (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

agorism is a branch of ancap, the only difference is that they differ on the means they use to get rid of the state

while ancaps do support a political action to prevent the state from doing more damage to themselves, like making a political party, agorists says that you should try to “live without the state” and boycott anyone that associate with it in the process

for example, if you buy food but food is taxed, then grow your own food tax-free food in your backyard

so yes, konkin can be included in the article without any ideological conflicts Iron Capitalist (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The O'Keeffe quote
Is someone able to clarify what does the O'Keeffe quote mean: the right to restitution created by the violation of the victims' property could be homesteaded by bounty hunters. How does one homestead a right to restitution? Where does this right originate from in a contract-only world? Since only a primary source is used, is there a secondary source that explains this? If not, we should probably remove this as it's quite unclear. BeŻet (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know if “homesteaded” is the proper word, since “homesteading” refers to resources that has no owner

but the logic is correct, someone that is harmed can sell their right to reparation to a bounty hunter if the victim doesn’t have the means to go after the criminal themselves Iron Capitalist (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Phylosophy is confusing
I believe would be better to clarify the phylosophy section if the phylosophy is explained before presenting who was the creator of the phylosophy, it is stated twice along the article that rothbard based ancap on the natural law Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

thinking better about it, maybe having a section where the phylosophy is presented and then a historical section attributing the ideas to the authors would better organize it Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

BeZet shouldn't work on this article. Reading their comments, its clear they have no real understanding of AnCap

Why socialism “is when government”
I have read both of the resons of why you removed the section and none of those is really a good reason to remove the section, hoppe is a reliable source of the ideological body of ancaps and it is not really possible to say that including his work would be a form of “promotion”

if that’s the case, then rothbard’s work should also be removed from the entirety of the wiki page Iron Capitalist (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your change had to be reverted, because it basically constituted an essay piece expressing your opinion, and it was essentially original research - you have referenced a primary source, but provided your own interpretation of it. What we need is good quality secondary sources, so that the interpretation can be attributed. You have also made a lot of statements that are questionable opinions but were presented as facts. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Moreover, the change does not follow the manual of style, as, like I said before, is essay-like. Finally, a sudden introduction of a section called Why socialism “is when government” is non sequitur - it could be a good title for an op-ed, but doesn't logically follow anything in the article itself, nor is of encyclopedic style. If you want to present Hoppe's ideas, you have to present them as such: e.g. "Hoppe's interpretation of socialism states that..." or "Hoppe believes that seizing the means of production means non-producers taking from producers" (side note: even though it's literally the exact opposite!) or "Hoppe believes that taxation is a form of control of someone else’s property without any prior contract" etc. and bear in mind that he expresses fringe opinions, which may not be WP:DUE. BeŻet (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

don’t be sorry, that’s okay, that’s part of the game, anyone can edit the wiki page

“you provided your own interpretation of it”

I did not provided my own interpretation of it, it is literally what is argued in his book

“questionable opinions as facts”

like what? it is not my opinion, it is what is argued in the source

“it’s essay-like”

fine I can take that critic because I am new to wikipedia editing, let me know what can be changed

“doesn’t logically follow anything in the article”

the article itself needs serious revision, that section is meant to present ancap’s views and arguments

“if you want to present hope, you need to state “hope’s interpretation of socialism” (side note: it’s the exact opposite)”

have in mind that we are talking about the ancap wiki page, not any socialism page, and like you told me, a statement, right or wrong, needs to be sourced to be in an article

what is being sourced is what ancaps, including hoppe, one of the main heads on it, advocate for and believe, you should not include your personal views into this if you believe socialism means the opposite of what is argued for, you would be making it a soapbox Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is what's argued in the book, you have to attribute all statements to Hoppe; but then we need to establish whether his opinion should be included in the article, as it's an opinion about his understanding of socialism, and not about anarcho-capitalism. In other words, we are presenting the viewpoint of one anarchocapitalist about a specific topic that is a different ideology, but it's unknown whether this opinion is shared by others, or even significant. To help establish this, we need to use secondary sources. We also need to write the article from a neutral point of view, not from an anarchocapitalist point of view, hence my suggestions regarding the sentences, for instance instead of writing This means that “workers taking over means of production” implies that any non-producer taking over production from producers would fit the very definition of socialism we should write Hoppe argues that any non-producer taking over production from producers would fit the definition of socialism, or instead of (...) it has become private property and therefore it must be seized by others that did not produced it/did not owned it prior to production we should use something like (...) Hoppe believes that in socialism that property would have to be seized by others who did not produce it or own it prior to its creation. Also, please bear in mind that phrases like "many people often criticize", "indeed it’s not obvious why" or "one might argue" are so-called weasel phrases and should be avoided. BeŻet (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the recomendations, I’ll see what I can do

side note:(yes, the page is about ancap, but ends up being about ancaps as well in my understanding, so even though that section would talk about socialism, it’s point would not be to talk about socialism, but to present the ancaps’ view-point of the subject socialism

also yes I understand your point that “do not include what one, and only one, person believes in the article”, I took the liberty to include the section from my own experience of seeing people arguing about this over and over in multiple discussion circles over the years) Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that we can't write things simply "out of our own experience", we always need sources for everything, otherwise we do original research. Even if a scientific expect logged in to Wikipedia, they couldn't add any scientific facts without providing adequate sources, because anyone can claim to be an experienced person, but we always need a way to validate information. BeŻet (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism sidebar
I know an-coms are very protective of their property, the word "Anarchism", they 'own' the word, but the Anarchism sidebar does mention Anarcho-capitalism so does merit inclusion here. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 18:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if you say "it doesn't mention it under schools", go read the talk page for the sidebar where they argue that because Anarcho-capitalism doesn't include the sidebar it shouldn't be listed under schools. It's a circular argument - it can't be here because it's not there, and it can't be there because it's not here. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 23:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in the sidebar doesn't automatically merit inclusion. Things like cooperative, gift economy, anti-war movement, counter-economics, spontaneous order, Independent Media Center, freeganism etc. are all mentioned in the sidebar, yet they don't include the sidebar itself. As discussed several times now, anarcho-capitalism has a lot more to do with Capitalism and Liberalism than with Anarchism, hence why those sidebars are preferred. BeŻet (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It has to do with Capitalism AND Anarchism, thus the name. But if you prefer the circular argument, go for it.  It doesn't belong here because it isn't there, it doesn't belong there because it isn't here.  Anarcho-communists, who don't believe in property, are very protective of their ownership of the word "Anarchism". Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  13:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not making the circular argument you refer to, nor am I an anarcho-communist, I'm just saying that the anarcho-capitalist ideology has hardly anything to do with anarchism apart from its name, and it's more of a radical chic than anything (buffalo wings are not made from buffalo). Moreover, anarcho-communists (and all other anarchists for that matter) reject private property, not every form of property, so they don't reject things like personal property or collective property. BeŻet (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So is the word Anarchy private property, personal property, or collective property? I like how you said "anarcho-communists(and all other anarchists for that matter)" because it assumes the conclusion.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Words are not property. The correct usage of a word is determined by both historical and contemporary factors having to do with descriptive usage facts and logical coherence. I’m not entirely sure what clever argument you think you’re making here, but the implied “Anarchists say our historically recent semantic revisionism is a serious confusion, therefore, they’re not actually leftists, since they believe in private property” is disruptive and foolish. Please stop. Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an undisputed fact that certain anarcho-capitalists describe themselves as "anarchists" - nobody can stop them from doing so; they can call themselves whatever they like. But in an encyclopedia, where we are talking about the wider history of Anarchism, Anarchism as an ideology and schools of anarchist thought, we are talking about a specific meaning of the word and not just about people who label themselves as such. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but we won't go and categorize the country as a democratic state. Likewise, anarcho-capitalists who have barely any overlap with Anarchist ideology (even their anti-statism differs from that of anarchists, because anarchists reject the state while anarcho-capitalists want to privatise the state) don't get automatically bundled up with anarchists simply because they call themselves that. Talking about ownership of words here makes no sense. BeŻet (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also an undisputed fact that since Anarcho-capitalists are anarchists, therefore "all other anarchists" do not reject private property and some accept it.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is a highly disputed fact with hundreds of sources questioning capitalism's compatibility with Anarchism. All forms of anarchism, including individualist anarchism, reject the system of private property. Even Rothbard himself said anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of individualist anarchism, and admitted later on that anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism and should be called "nonarchism" instead. BeŻet (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BeŻet is entirely correct. There are very few scholars in history, philosophy, or political science (to name just a few relevant fields) who describe anarcho-capitalism as an actual form of what has, since William Godwin, been described as anarchism, and from a quick look at anarchism-related articles published in the relevant fields’ top peer-reviewed journals, the view that anarcho-capitalism is an actual type of anarchism is, at best, treated as WP:FRINGE and is, at worst, treated as sophomoric foolishness. I know that a few Americans coming along fairly recently and intentionally muddying the semantic waters by saying “Let’s use this word in a completely new way that is directly at odds with the way it’s been used for 200 years, not because we have an argument for redefinition, but just because we like the word” is confusing to many Americans who aren’t familiar with the vast scholarship on anarchism, but stomping one’s feet and complaining that it’s just not fair that right-wingers can’t make up their own meanings for important words isn’t how actual academic scholarship works, especially not when capitalism requires class hierarchy and anarchism denies the legitimacy of any such hierarchy. WP:COMPETENCE, not merely complaints borne of a refusal to read the actual scholarship in WP:RS is required here.Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing to highlight here is the "US-centricism" of anarcho-capitalism - right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are things that mostly exist in the US. A lot of people outside the US still view libertarianism as a synonym of anarchism, and anarchism as something that is predominantly anti-capitalist. Libertarianism had nothing to do with economical liberalism and capitalism until the term had been co-opted by American laissez-faire capitalists around 50 years ago. However, the view that anarchism is compatible with capitalism in any way is already a fringe view in the USA, let alone outside that country where hardly anybody thinks that. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with the socialists in this one, despite the “anarcho” in our name, it’s just by accident that we ended up in anarchism.

A “consented government”, where people consent to all the rules and consent to pay all fees, is a legitimate institution under ancap, while other forms of anarchism would reject it entirely.

The main core of “ancap” is consent, from consent you arrive in capitalism (do not confuse with corporativism) and from capitalism you conclude that the best way to operate a society is if we allow capitalism to operate in all it’s sectors, this means that capitalism would be providing schools, roads, healthcare, security, and jurisdiction services.

Because of this “let capitalism take care of everything” the state becomes inexistent, but not by principle, but by accident, it’s simply a conclusion, not a principle.

So while yes, that’s a form of anarchism, no, ancaps are not anarchists, we are capitalists. Iron Capitalist (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I believe a section making that distinction should be included, I can write something and update there Iron Capitalist (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There already are two sections showing the distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, unless you're talking about a different distinction? Could you explain? Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, okay, the word is the PROPERTY of the ancoms and ancaps aren't PERMITTED to use it. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ancaps can call themselves anarchists if they want, but they are distinct from what anarchism is generally understood to be - and this is what we write in the article, that they label themselves as anarchists but do not fulfil the generally accepted definition of anarchism. Nobody's preventing them from describing themselves as whatever they want. BeŻet (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * well, I probably didn’t fully read the wiki when I wrote that, so forget what I said about adding a distinction section Iron Capitalist (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * what Bezet said, we are technically anarchists but not because we think any form of giving and receiving orders is bad, or because we think that private property is bad, we want all interactions to be consented, including interactions with the gov, that causes us to be radical capitalists if you want to put that way, we are first capitalists, remember that Iron Capitalist (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)