Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 9

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 2005 and May 2005.

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

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive10. Thank you. Saswann 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the term anarcho-capitalism
Considering the term was not used before 1950 or so, shouldn't a section or statement be added by who coined the term and when? Then any peculiarities of the person's meaning for the term could be stated as well. Was Murray Rothbard the father of the term? Just a guess. Someone else can research, please. Carltonh 17:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard obliquely claimed credit for inventing the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the July 1988 edition of Liberty (page 53) in an article titled What’s Wrong with Liberty Poll; or, How I Became a Libertarian.

I've been unable to lay hands on the issue of Liberty but the relevant portion is quoted in this periodical from the Mises Institute: The Anarcho Capitalist Poltical Theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its Historical and Intellectual Context(check out page 8 and footnote 38)

Quoting the above linked article, which itself quotes the article in Liberty: "Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, “my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist.'" It seems likely that the terms "anarcho-capitalist" and "anarcho-capitalism" evolved simultaneously.

On the other hand in this interview Samuel Konkin seems to believe the term was invented much later by one Jarrett Wollstein. "In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists"

I think Rothbard has the better claim.--Matt Apple 00:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchism and Capitalist Anarchism
I have put Wendy McElroy on the page a couple of times only have to it taken down. I believe the objection is that it is self-advertising (it couldn't be objected that it is factually incorrect), so I should clarify that I am Randall McElroy and no relation to Wendy. If I wanted to self-advertise I'd talk about Catallarchy. (I get asked about this at conferences all the time, so I understand the confusion.) This being the case, please tell me here what other objection there could be. If there is none, I'll put that part back.


 * Yep, that is why I asked who you were when you first started editing. Anyway, I don't think McElroy is significant enough to list on the page, but if she is going to be listed it definitely should not be as an individualist anarchist.  First, if she is really an individualist anarchist, why are we listing her on the anarcho-capitalist page at all?  Second, though she considers herself an individualist anarchist, she said some time ago that if the individualists of the past were alive today they would all be anarcho-capitalits.  In other words, by her own logic, she is an anarcho-capitalist.  That she considers this compatible with individualist anarchism is a side point really, since she would be recognised first and foremost as an anarcho-capitalist both by the anarchist individualists of today and by the anarchists collectivists.  Kev 09:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Kev, it's only a side issue to you because you apparently don't consider anarcho-capitalism a subset of individualist anarchism. That's exactly how the vast majority of anarcho-capitalists see themselves, though -- as the culmination and most rigorous iteration of individualist anarchism. Now, both you and those who disagree with you have the right to see things through their own ideological prism. Presumably, with regard to editorial calls about the page on anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-capitalists ought to generally have their say on the matter.

Criticism Section
Many elements of the "criticism" section are good, but they need to be reworked. I think I'm going to start moving some of it to the libertarianism article (as discussed above with some other sections) if no one objects because they apply more broadly than just to anarcho-capitalists Dave 19:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, because there is no reason to critic libertarianism again in an anarchy article. --Alfrem 17:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition
I have an important point.

The Article tells us at first:


 * Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarian political philosophy which calls for a society without state government, and a form of free market where private property exists (see capitalism). Anarcho-capitalists favor voluntary relationships, which they see as including property rights, rather than involuntary political relationships, such as the territorial monopoly of states. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the military. -- version from 2005-04-08

I think this is a misleading description by factoid. Anarcho-capitalism is an other word for Market-Anarchism. (It had come up as a new word in approx. 1960. Not clear from whom for what.) Market-Anarchists wish a free order for themselfs. But that doesn't mean a pure libertarian system. Of course Market-Anarchists favor Libertarianism as philosophy but this is no presupposition or result for a free order in anarchy. In anarchy would also come into being that some groups or individuals make their moral claims by violence since they could enforce it. And this is for ancaps ok because it is a result of competition of forces.

Opposite views? --Alfrem 17:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your basic point. However, I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism".  First, the referance to anarcho-capitalists as "market anarchists" is a relatively recent phenomena, in comparison with the use of the term by other ideologies.  Individualists anarchists and mutualists were and are market anarchists, they described a free market in their time and are today described at times as market anarchists both by traditional anarchists and by anarcho-capitalists.  The free market system they advocated rejected several institutions essential to capitalism as antithetical to the free market, so their "market anarchism" was not one and the same as the capitalist "market anarchism".  If anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all (and there is controversy over this point alone), then it is a subset of market anarchism, not the same thing as market anarchism.  And I think the origin of the word anarcho-capitalism is pretty obviously from Murray Rothbard, at least I've never seen a cited source of a previous use of the term.  Kev 20:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Good critic. But I have new questions. Maybe I dent my head on terms.

Historical root of the term

 * First to the root of "anarcho-capitalism": On anti-state.com someone wrote: "Now if anyone knows who invented the term "Anarcho-Capitalism" I would like to know. I've found a footnote where Rothbard obliquely takes credit for it and I've found an interview of SEK3 where he claims some other guy I've never heard of coined the term. Both agree that it was coined in the late 50's or early 60's."
 * --Alfrem 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * And here is an other evidence from


 * "As John Kelley writes, Rothbard became an anarcho-libertarian immediately after he began to attend von Mises s seminars in 194934. Von Mises was not an anarcho-capitalist, indeed he was convinced that the anarchists were basically ingenuous and that it was necessary to have a monopoly over the exercise of force there will always be individuals and groups of individuals whose intellect is so limited that they are unable to understand the benefits of social co-operation.35 But after von Mises had demonstrated that  laissez-faire policy leads to peace and higher standards of living for all, while statism leads to conflict and lower living standards ,36 according to Rothbard,  defence and enforcement could be supplied, like all other services, by the free market 37. Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, "my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist" 38.
 * Rothbard developed his anarcho-capitalist theory during the 1960s when American politics increasingly concentrated on the increase in welfare and defence spending"
 * --Alfrem 11:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kev: I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism".

 * In fact it is not clear to most users on anti-state.com that there should be a difference between this terms. If you are right anyhow and anarcho-capitalism is a subset of market anarchism then the most content in this article must move to market anarchism. And here in anarcho-capitalism is only needful to explain the additions of anarcho-capitalism against market anarchism. --Alfrem 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I said "if anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism," and I certainly don't think wikipedia is the place to make that determination. Anyway, since when does anti-state.com get to erase history and decide the meaning of words for people whose ideology they openly revile?  Kev 22:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Def. Revisited
Anarcho-capitalism is a branch of libertarian


 * This is not essantial. Maybe the most thinkers argue so in their theory, but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy. It is no branch. Ancaps prefer merely the libertarian view for their norm system.

political philosophy


 * anti-political

which calls for a society without state government,


 * not essaintial, too. Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all.

and a form of free market where private property exists (see capitalism).


 * This is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want. Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must get defined. A government could do this in same way, and the ancap would say: "well, that's what I need, fine work". This is rather improbable. But the point is that ancaps reject the one-side-decision-finding and not necessarily the result. Ancaps want consent to get property norms. And these norms are not always unique.

Anarcho-capitalists favor voluntary relationships, which they see as including property rights, rather than involuntary political relationships, such as the territorial monopoly of states.


 * force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than.

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the military.


 * ok --Alfrem 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So I want to change the defintion:

Anarcho-capitalism or Market Anarchism is an anti-political attitude ("movement" would be overdone) of people who reject government. They consider state as not better than a compelled service like a monopoly of shoes. Anarcho-Capitalists respect that other people want a state but they refuse by moral and econonic reasons that they have to take part in state only due to this public demand.

Anarcho-capitalists often prefer arguments of the libertarian meta philosophy and Austrian School.

The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of degree: other libertarians, called minarchists, wish to reduce the size and intrusiveness of the state, but unlike anarcho-capitalists, retain what they consider to be vital functions that the private sector cannot provide, like police, courts and the military.

--Alfrem 15:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already explained, many times, why the "or market anarchism" bit isn't going to fly. Anarcho-capitalism is not synonymous with the free market or with market anarchism, no matter how many anarcho-capitalists want to change reality to make it so.  Further, "people who reject government" is imprecise, it implies that anarcho-capitalists reject government in all forms, when in fact they reject specifically the state.  The rest is fine, though your referance to a monopoly of shoes sure sounds odd.  Kev 22:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that market anarchism is a little misleading because the classic understanding comes from some other people. Therefore it shouldn't mentioned in this first section. Anyway it is fact that it is in plenty use of ancaps to describe what they mean and this is a valid additional term today. OK? --Alfrem 10:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "monopoly of shoes sure sounds odd" is true. We should this put on hold because it is only wording. --Alfrem 10:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Improvement or not
Alfrem, I'm afraid I have some qualms about your proposed definition. Let's address the points 1 by 1. You say, "but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy." Can you give an example of what you're thinking of? It seems to me that all ancap thinkers I am aware of are libertarians of some sort, whether moralists, consequentialists, Randian egoists, or Stirneroid egoists. You say its "anti-political", which is true, but it seems to me that a "political philosophy" is a philosophy about politics, not necessarily in favor of it, and it's clearer to describe it as such. You say opposing the state is inessential "Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all." It seems to me that opposing the state is the sine qua non of AC. If you are really looking only for freedom for yourself, then you are not really a political philosopher, just a rebel (which is not a bad thing). Any group of people without a state is a stateless society. You write: "[a form of free market where private property exists] is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want." I would say that the above is a necessary but not sufficient condition; a limited government could provide it, but AC by definition requires both "a form of free market where private property exists" and statelessness. You continue "Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must get defined." Yes, but not in the intro, please. Lastly, you comment, "force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than," and I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Therefore, I cannot see your proposed new def as an improvement. - Nat Krause 09:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, at first you criticize my arguments, and not my new defintion. Therefore I make it short.


 * You say, "but there are also Ancaps who don't use the libertarian meta-philosophy." Can you give an example of what you're thinking of? It seems to me that all ancap thinkers I am aware of are libertarians of some sort, whether moralists, consequentialists, Randian egoists, or Stirneroid egoists.


 * Not all are libertarians. It is a point of view who you want to consider as "libertarian". David Friedman for example don't call himself as libertarian. He likes this philosphy, but that doesn't mean, that one must pigeonhole evrybody. Also Friedman is no Austrian. He is a purely economist. Also you find on anti-state.com people which speak from the Non-Aggression-Principle as a doctrin of hard-core-libertarians. Further it is thoughtable that you are a very good bank-robbery and think that anarchy delivers a good economy also for bank robberies. Also in Stirner is no hint that he deny basically crime. And I do also because I know that libertarainism is only an ideal theory and nothing what can be copied to reality.


 * You say its "anti-political", which is true, but it seems to me that a "political philosophy" is a philosophy about politics, not necessarily in favor of it, and it's clearer to describe it as such.


 * I am not clear what you mean as "political". It is a point of view again. Of course, there is a lot of ideology critic and there it deal with politic. But what is political? It means for me to do so in public affairs. Even Rothbard did it sometimes. But most ancaps disavow things like Libertarian Party and Freestate Project.


 * You say opposing the state is inessential "Most ancaps argue in "dont threat on me" or "right to secede" or "right to ignore the state" or "without me". They dont want change a whole country or "society" to anarchism. They want freedom for themselfs, they say why, and that's all." It seems to me that opposing the state is the sine qua non of AC. If you are really looking only for freedom for yourself, then you are not really a political philosopher, just a rebel (which is not a bad thing).


 * Again, what is political? Is reading Rothbard's books political? Is thinking about political? I don't think so. Of course ancaps have minds and this minds come to public. But who is political? Ancaps reject state for themself. Statists demand state for all. This problem is not resolvable. Ancaps know that. Statists know what would be the consequence of ancapism and ignore it. So "opposing the state" is point of view. "opposing anarchy" would be the same.


 * Any group of people without a state is a stateless society. You write: "[a form of free market where private property exists] is inexact. A state with "limited government" could deliver also capitalism and private property. But that is not what ancaps want." I would say that the above is a necessary but not sufficient condition; a limited government could provide it, but AC by definition requires both "a form of free market where private property exists" and statelessness. You continue "Furthermore the case of "property" is not so easy. Property must get defined." Yes, but not in the intro, please.


 * What is a "form of free market"? What is "property"? You use popular terms with unclear contents to muddle up cause and effect. Stateless society means there is no potent force monopoly. What then comes up is called free market and what there comes up is called property norms and people define property or reject it so long as they want it.


 * Lastly, you comment, "force monopoly is a ko-criteria for ancaps, they dont favor rather than," and I'm afraid I don't know what that means. Therefore, I cannot see your proposed new def as an improvement. - Nat Krause 09:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * with my remarks above it should be a little clearer. Sorry for my bad English. --Alfrem 12:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First sentence
I've now reverted two different editors' versions of the first sentence today, so I feel an explaination is warranted. In the first case, Nat's version implied that anarcho-capitalists reject all forms of government, and that they accepted "the" free market as if there is only one conception of what a free market is. I repaired both of these errors only to find myself reverted because, according to Nat, the first sentence is not the place to explain this. I reverted it back due to the fact that no explaination was occurring, rather I was simply leaving the language open for the possibility of such an explaination, given that in Nat's version any such explaination was already ruled out.

This, my first revert, was then changed by RJ. He left the government part alone but tied in the affirmation of property to the free market, which I think unnecessarily clouds the issue, and then also inserted the description of AC affirmation of the free market as the "common" one. This attribution of the "common" use of the term free market is nothing more than an attempt to load the sentence toward the bias that the market prefered by capitalists is in fact free. As such, I reverted for the second time back to my original change of Nat's edit. Kev 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what this other kind of "free market" is, which the normal conception seems to differ from? RJII 02:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because your idea of the "normal" conception of a free market is not in fact the "normal" conception of a free market, but rather a particular conception based on your own ideology. There are a number of different variations on market economics commonly refered to as "free markets" and your attempt to conflate them all into one and call it "common" while drawing a false comparison to a single other conception by calling it "obscure" isn't helping anything.  Indeed, I doubt I can explain much of anything to you RJ, your POV warrior attitude would block any attempt.  Kev 04:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, what an attitude. Given your defensiveness I suspect you aren't able to answer the question. If you want the sentence to distinguish the free market that anarcho-capitalists believe in from others, then you should be able to explain what other conception of a free market there is. Otherwise, the rest of us are left to wonder just what the hell your point is. RJII 04:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with saying "state government" out of context is that it will lead readers in the US and those familiar with US politics to believe that anarcho-capitalism is focused on abolishing those things we have instead of provinces. As for the free market, I'm not sure what Kev has in mind as far as free markets which have property but which are opposed by A-Cs. - Nat Krause 04:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well saying that anarcho-capitalists oppose the state could also lead to such confusion, yet the article says that in several places. Maybe a section should be created to clear up any confusion between "the state" as a form of government and "states" as a mode of government.  I will try to think of another wording to account for this possible confusion.  As to ideologies that believe in the free market and property but are opposed by A-Cs, that would be the vast majority of modern day capitalists, who consider forms of monopoly allowed by AC to interfere with the proper functioning of the "free market".  They believe that the "free market" requires government intervention at some level, because a "free market" requires "free competition" and they define such to not include forms of monopoly that ACs do include.  The attempt by some AC sympathizers to redefine the "free market" as the absence of state intervention is insincere, and it flies in the face of how the term is defined and how it is used not only by state capitalists, but even by many minarchist libertarians who believe that certain state interferance allows a "free market" to exist in the first place.  Kev 05:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What does "free competition" mean? It means freedom to compete, doesn't it? A monopoly is defined as a situation where one firm is the only provider of a particular kind of good or service. Just the fact that this state of affairs exists doesn't mean that the freedom to compete is not there. It could just be that no one has gotten around to offer a competing product yet. That's why there is a term called "coercive monopoly" which is one that is prohibiting other firms from competing by using coercion, either on its own or though government action. Both anarcho-capitalists and minarchist libertarians are against anti-trust. They don't believe government should interfere with monopolies unless they engage in coercion ( physical force, the threat of it, or fraud) to prevent others from competing. There is no difference in their conception of a free market. A free market is one where no coercion exists. RJII 05:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue the point with you RJ. The fact that there are other conceptions of the free market remains regardless of your view of the merit of the position.  The fact that some libertarians argue that a market with a monopoly is not a freely functioning market is not changed by the fact that you disagree.   Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any libertarians who have a problem with monopolies unless they're coercive monopolies. Libertarians like free market monopolies. RJII 16:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, then you obviously don't know very many libertarians. Oh well, are you ever going to actually educate yourself on these subjects RJ, or do you just enjoy torturing others by spewing out ignorant statements like this?  I know!  Why don't you try reading this article to see if no libertarians have a problem with so-called "non-coercive" monopolies.  Kev 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I really don't understand Kev's critique here. The article states that A-Cs are against the state and for free-markets-with-property. Certainly, there are lots of people who only believe in one but not the other, and those people are not A-Cs. - Nat Krause 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My only concern is that it be clear that "free market" is not necessarily a market with property, and that the "free market" embraced by capitalism is not "the" free market but "a" free market. What is so hard to understand about this basic NPOV?  Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My version of the intro says that the A-Cs support property and the free market. It does not say that one requires the other, and, in fact, it would be redundant if it did. "The free market" is the normal phrase when talking about a general system; "a free market" is okay, but accomplishes no other purpose than to make the sentence less euphonious. Incidentally, the claim that capitalism is not "the" free market is itself a POV. - Nat Krause 11:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well it does have one slight result other than making the sentence less "euphonious", it also makes it NPOV. You know, if you care about little things like that.  And yes Nat, the claim that capitalism is not the free market is a POV, which is precisely why I have included no such claim in the article, even while the language you have used implicitly includes a claim that anarcho-capitalists do support "the" free market. Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, "the free market" and "a free market" are synonyms. The only difference is that the former is what is usually used in this sort of context. - Nat Krause 05:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you buy and sell in a free market if there is no private property? It doesn't make sense. What are you talking about? Without trade there is no market.RJII 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to educate you RJ. I've already refered you to all the sources you need to educate yourself properly on this subject.  I did so in this very talk page, with direct links to online books you can actually *shudder* read to inform yourself on this topic.  That you are asking this kind of question months later can only indicate that you have decided to continue to edit articles on the subject of anarchism while knowing next to about it.  Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. It looks to me like you just don't know. RJII 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that must be it. I mean, not like I ever gave you any links to Proudhon or Tucker.  Not like Proudhon ever made explicit the difference between property and possession and why one was coercive while the other was not.  No, nothing like that, after all, RJ is knowledgable on anarchism, right?  So, are you ready to admit that you are nothing more than a troll?  Kev 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. You can't offer a simple explanation of what this alleged other conception of "free market" there is. RJII 19:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't you remember how you had to eat your words the last time you said that? Kev 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Refresh my memory ..that is, if it's relevant to "free market." RJII 02:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me put it in economic terms. My explaining all of this to you, that is an investment for me.  Now, whether or not that investment is worth the opportunity costs associated with it depends on the outcome.  What do I get out of taking my time to explain the fundamentals of anarchism to you one by one?  Certainly it won't be that you will stop making bad edits, nor that you will stop making biased edits, so what is the positive outcome that will make this worth my while?  Kev 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll give me more things to dispute. But, all I'm asking for is what other kind of free market there is. You're stalling. Go do your research then get back with an explanation. RJII 02:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My research? lol, if you question my knowledge of the subject matter you need only look at the archive of this very talk page, where I have already laid out in full explaination for more than one person the answer to the exact question you are asking, and yet you said that -I- need to do research?  You are no longer worth my time troll, I will simply revert you whenever I feel there is a need.  Kev 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's more evident than ever that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. I have no problem explaining basic concepts. All you can do is dodge and stall on this issue. RJII 03:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WTF?
"anarchism (dismabiguation)." does not exist. What the fuck is "dismabiguation"? Deleted. - Virgin Molotov Cocktail

leftist anarchist versus anarcho-capitalist dispute in the Intro
Why is there a second paragraph in the intro that just consists of arguing about whether anarcho-capitalists are true anarchists? Why is that even there? Shouldn't that be somewhere in the body of the article in a criticism section? RJII 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think it belongs there. We might want to rephrase it, but it's important to differentiate ancap from leftist anarchism from the outset. Philwelch 02:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it moved. It's a long rambling paragraph that sounds like two kids arguing over who is the real anarchist and who is the poseur. That kind of thing doesn't belong in the intro of an encyclopedia article. RJII 03:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The answers to following questions seem to be variable based upon one's POV:


 * 1) Are anarcho-capitalists anarchist?
 * 2) Are anarcho-socialists anarchist?

As such, I think pseudo-factual references to any individuals or groups as "anarchist" should be replaced with more specific references to which of the varying opposed schools of anarchism is being talked about for purposes of NPOV. Philwelch 03:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The funny thing is, this opposition to anarcho-capitalists calling themselves anarchists is coming from the "true anarchists" who are supposed to be against people imposing themselves on others. It seems to me that real anarchists would allow an anarcho-capitalist article to say that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists. Sounds "hierarchical" to me. Just a thought. RJII 04:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See, it's that messed up definition of anarchism that gets us here in the first place. You don't think the Spanish anarchists were imposing when they blew up the churches? Or when they took the factories?--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Phil, in regard to your statement above, my opinion is that anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists are both anarchist, but in different senses of the word "anarchist". That's why the solution is disambiguation. However, this is just another POV. You're right that it would be ideal to use more specific terms when there might be confusion. - Nat Krause 05:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation thing might be good. RJII 05:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation in this case is simply catering to a minority fringe that seeks to subvert anarchism. But be that as it may, if disambiguation is to occur it will at least not be in the form selected specifically by ancaps to put their philosophy in the best possible light while minimizing the overwhelming roll of those who actually challenge authority rather than simply prefering one form over another.  Kev 07:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this article is written in a pretty NPOV way. If you think this article puts anarcho-capitalism in "the best possible light" maybe it's just that you find the philosophy attractive. Maybe you think that exposing it in full is going to turn up something ugly or sinister that's just not there. RJII 16:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There will be no more pandering, anarcho-capitalism and "left anarchism" are not equally legitimate as anarchist ideologies unless you ignore historical facts. The reality is, all the original anarchists were anti-capitalist. All the historical anarchist successes and movements have been anti-capitalist. It is just straight fact that anarchism is anti-capitalist.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 17:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is kind of strange. Because the "original anarchists" were anti-capitalist, it logically follows that some modern anarchists can't be pro-capitalist? Looks like a non-sequitur to me. And, that since "historical anarchist" movements have been anti-capitalists that some modern ones can't be pro-capitalist? Looks like another non-sequitur. Usage of words evolves, and it looks to me like usage of the word "anarchism" has been the process of evolving.. It seems like you're trying to hold on to a strict historical usage that may no longer hold, or is in the process of no longer holding. The quest to retain exclusive ownership of it seems futile to me. Personally, I don't know why anarcho-capitalists would care one way or the other whether it's proper to label themselves "anarchists" ..it's just semantics. To me, the argument doesn't seem significant enough to even discuss in an encyclopedia entry.


 * Maybe because that isn't his reasoning, but only a straw-man you've attributed to him? First, people have been saying "original" anarchist because we already gave too much ground to anarcho-capitalists by refering to them as anarchists in the first place, simply because they insisted on the title.  Second, it is not the fact that the original anarchists were anti-capitalist that makes modern anarchists anti-capitalists, it is the fact that the original anarchists helped define a movement that stood for more than just preferance of one form of domination over others, that stood for freedom for all human beings, and such a movement cannot be erased in the blink of an eye just because a few capitalist apologists begin misusing the word in an attempt to co-opt anarchism.  This is not "a quest to retain exclusive ownership", that is a stupid argument that only a capitalist mentality could even concieve, how could anyone possibly own a word?  This is an attempt to ensure that the word "anarchism" does not become totally meaningless by using it to refer to the very ideologies it most blatantly stands against.  It would be just as legitimate as challenging attempts by individuals to refer to slavery as freedom in the same kind of Orwellian process that anarcho-capitalists are engaged in on several front in their attempt to import some small degree of moral legitimacy to an abhorrent ideology.  Kev 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, anarcho-capitalists certainly believe that they too "stand for freedom for all human beings", and many of them find socialism to be an "abhorrent ideology" that substitutes "one form of domination for another". *Dan* 12:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Then it appears to me that they have two choices. First, they can call themselves something other than anarchists, since anarchists have always been socialists.  Second, they can decry any domination when it arises in both socialism and capitalism, rather than prefering one form to the other, as they in fact do.  Kev 13:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)  Opps!  I forgot a third choice.  Attempt to subvert a pre-existing political movement and redefine its terms in a crass attempt to co-opt a small part of its message while at the same time mostly just supporting the status quo.  Odd that I would forget the choice that most anacho-capitalists go with.  Kev 13:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of this bickering and re-edits over the usage of the terms "anarchist" and "anarchism" by both camps are not getting us anywhere, and it is wasting a great deal of time for all parties involved. Can we not agree to just call anarcho-capitalists "anarchists", since that is what they wish to be called, as long as we include a healthy caveat that anarchists traditionally have not considered themselves such? I realize that anarchists bridle at the usage of "their" term by the ancaps, but they must realize that it is a looser definition of the term and has little to do with the anarchist movement of Proudhon and Tucker from the 19th century. It has far more to do with the American tradition of anarchism as espoused by people like Thoreau - in which anarchism simply means "no government" rather than the more involved definition with elimination of all hierarchies. I am certain that classical liberals would be just as irritated at American Leftists co-opting their term to mean something almost entirely different, but the fact is that words can have multiple definitions and uses. At least in this article, can we simply use the terms like "socialist anarchists" or "traditional anarchists" when referring to the one kind, and "anarcho-capitalists" or "free market anarchists" to refer to the other, as long as we keep the anarchist critiques in the "Critiques" section? Or is this really just too simple of a solution, that you'd all rather keep editing and re-editing each others' edits till Judgement Day? Academician 18:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you cite Thoreau as an example, given that he was also a contemporary of the 19th century like Proudhon and Tucker, yet he never called himself an anarchist and did not consider himself to be one. The reason is fairly simple, anarchism is and has always meant more than mere anti-statism, until the day that Rothbard decided it didn't about 50 years ago.  The fact that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves anarchists is fine support for indicating that they consider themselves anarchists on wikipedia, it is not sufficient to actually refer to them as anarchists on wikipedia however, as that would be a violation of NPOV.  Anyway, I am personally happy to refer to one camp as "traditional anarchists" and the other as "anarcho-capitalists," in fact that is what I've been doing all along because each is based in fact.  However, "socialist anarchist" and "free-market anarchist" are both unacceptable, for reasons I've repeated many times on this talk page.  Refering to one group as "socialist anarchists" heavily implies that there is a type of anarchist that is not socialist, which may or may not be true.  "Free-market anarchist" not only implies that anarcho-capitalists are the only anarchists who believe in a free market, which is not true, but also that anarcho-capitalists actually believe in a free market, which is a point of contention with individualists.  Kev 23:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware that Thoreau did not call himself an anarchist. However - that is how he is referred to in a great deal of published literature, and he was an influence of many anarchists, of both the socialist and capitalist varieties, even though he was not a socialist.  And I think you give far too much credit to Rothbard for the definition of "anarchism" as meaning "anti-government" - in lay circles, this is what it has meant for a great deal of time.  Before I read anything about either anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, I thought that "anarchism" simply meant "anti-government" - and, indeed, the dictionary backs that up (and shouldn't a dictionary definition usually be a good example of NPOV?).  At the very least, the brunt of the connotation (AND denotation) of the term is the focus on the abolition of the state; the abolition of capitalism is, at best, a secondary or tertiary implication.  This is why I do not believe it is so great of a deal that Rothbard and the anarcho-capitalists "co-opted" the term, and why this whole debate seems so childish to me.  Obviously, there is a type of "anarchist" that is not socialist - that type where "anarchist" merely indicates "anti-state" or "anti-authority", and does not consider property a form of authority.  This definition pervades the public consciousness, and it is only inside the limited circles that traditional anarchists frequent that it has this other, much more precise definition.  As far as most people - and the dictionary - are concerned, it is NPOV.


 * Not that it matters, of course, but I am neither an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist - but I've done my homework and find the arguments on the part of anarchists here more propagandist than substantial. You do not like that someone else uses "your" term in a way that you did not authorize, and hence you seek to essentially exert a claim of intellectual property over them on behalf of the 19th century anarchis movement.  That hardly seems anarchist to me.  That said, I also think that a lot of the anarchi-capitalists' edits have been unfairly NPOV as well, so at least you are even.  But how about one of you be the bigger persons? Academician 00:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Acamedician, I can't speak for anyone else on my "side", but I have for some time seen this exclusively as an issue of different uses of the same word, meaning that I quite agree with your points. The only question should be how to make the distinction as clearly and effectively as possible. I believe Kev has said he agrees with this in principle, although he thinks my past efforts to disambiguate had a pro-capitalist skew, while I think his had the opposite problem. Thank you for your attenion, Acamedician. - Nat Krause 04:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You definitely are importing some kind of biased perspective if you think the dictionary definition you cited backs up the idea that anarchism is mere anti-state. It says, quite explicitly, that anarchism rejects -all- forms of government.  Prisons, judges, military, all of these things are forms of government by any standard conception, yet they are all accepted by one or another anarcho-capitalist as legitimate.  Anarchism decries all forms of government, not merely the state.  The fact that you thought of anarchism as merely anti-government (and somehow conflate that with anti-state), means nothing at all to me as far as evidence for common meaning.  You are a single individual, I don't even know how old or how well read you are, so you certainly are not a case study in and of yourself.  Why is it so obvious that there is a type of anarchist that is not a socialist, because you say so?  If by socialist you mean "endorsing everything Marx ever said, we love communes a la Silverback's description of them", then hey, yeah, I agree.  But for Tucker socialist meant little more than "not capitalist", and from what I can tell there has never been an anarchist that was a capitalist, in no small part because anti-capitalism is integral to any basic understanding of anarchism.  That you don't recognise this is not evidence, to me, that anti-capitalism is not integral to anarchism, only evidence that your understanding of anarchism is either lacking or biased.  Anyway, you go ahead and insist that the dictionary definition is both NPOV and most common (of course I doubt you would insist this with all terms, but hey whatever), cause it just so happens that the dictionary definition doesn't meet your claims.  As for trying to excert some kind of property claim to the word anarchist, that is a tired, old, and ridiculous argument.  That I don't accept it when someone tells me yes means no or that 1 equals 0 do not mean that I am trying to "own" the words or even the concepts, it merely means that I recognise that when we lose common groun in recognizing that 1 does not equal 0 it soon becomes impossible to communicate.  The anarcho-capitalists will stretch the words related to anarchism (anarchist, freedom, government, etc) to no end in order to maintain their claim to the tradition, even going so far as to insist that when Tucker said he opposed capitalism he "didn't mean the same thing we mean when we say capitalism" and that when Proudhon asserted that property was both theft and freedom he was somehow upholding a propertarian ideal.  Unfortunately, I can't just stand by and watch this twisting of logic, because it happens to be doing real harm to a philosophy and tradition that is much older and much more meaningful than anarcho-capitalism ever will be.  Kev 09:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Kev, you write "Prisons, judges, military, all of these things are forms of government by any standard conception," This is an important point. What leads you to believe this? I suspect that, for most people, these articles of "government" as you term it, are things that derive exclusively from the action of the state. It's hard to believe that most people draw any clear conceptual distinction between them. Surely you have noticed that, with a lot of people, once you start trying to explain the benefits of anarchy to them, the first they worry about is, "But where will all the prisons, judges, and militaries come from?" I could be wrong, but I suspect that most people, reading "all forms of government" would think "all forms of government, like monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc." Thus, the dictionary definition, depending on how you take the word "government" can mean two different things, the same as "anarchism" can mean two different things. Personally (although, as you say, this is highly anecdotal), long ago before I knew anything about politics, I always thought "government" meant "state" and "state" meant, well, "province".


 * And by the way, what do you think most people would make of an anarcho-syndicalist syndicate? - Nat Krause 09:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nat, again you seem to be speculating a great deal about what people commonly think of. Nothing wrong with this speculation, but I don't see any hard evidence anywhere to base claims made in these articles on.  Do people think that judges govern because they "just happen" to be integrated into institutions of government today, or because judiciary in itself is a form of government?  I don't really know, and you can I can speculate, but I don't think you know either, and at some point all we are doing is splitting hairs and talking semantics.  It is hard to deny that a judiciary is considered by most people to be a governing insitution, I think we both agree on that, but I'm sure if we try hard enough we can come up with some element of one definition or other than is easier to deny.  Like, for example, to deny that most people think "all forms of government" means literally what it says rather than "all modes of government" or "all types of government representation".  That one is easier to deny, because it is harder to know, I frankly have not the first clue what most people interpret that as, and again, I doubt you do either.  However, all of this is a tangent, my only point here is not to make some call to universal knowledge and indicate that Acamed is wrong and I'm right, but rather to give some indication that the "oh so obvious" evidence he is citing is far from obvious indeed.  It is not at all obvious that the dictionary supports the anarcho-capitalist interpretation of anarchism, anymore than it is obvious (imho) that dictionaries are a good example of NPOV.  Further, the interested third party and therefore closer to NPOV position he is trying to imply he holds is no such thing, and I would think this would be obvious enough that he wouldn't try to claim it.  Regardless, we all have POVs, we all have an axes to grind, and the sooner we admit that the sooner we can try to come up with language that allows for multiple POVs, which is the only hope NPOV has on wikipedia.


 * As to what people would think of an anarcho-syndicalist syndicate, I suppose it depends. I have seen a few functioning examples that I would never imagine would be thought of as government, whereas I've heard of a few examples that I would personally say were a form of government themselves.  My response to the latter is simple, they were not anarchist, and their examples are one of the reasons I've always been wary of syndicalism myself.  But being wary of syndicalism doesn't mean I need to alter the facts and pretend that anarcho-capitalism is a part of the anarchist tradition or that socialism is incompatible with anarchism.


 * Along these lines, it is the hesitation of most anarcho-capitalists to admit the same of many insitutions they champion that makes me wonder if in the end anarchism really means anything to them at all, if it is anything more than an attempt to claim moral legitimacy to institutions they know are abhorrent. Anarchism is an ideal that humans can attempt and fail to attain, that I will readily accept.  Anarchism is an ideal that some can claim to attempt while actually trying to do something else, that much seems obvious and unavoidable.  But it frankly disgusts me when "anarchism" becomes nothing more than a slogan used to gloss over the aspects of a given political/economic system that we don't like to think about.  When it is attached to capitalism, it becomes exactly that, imho, in the same way that neo-nazi's and state communists try to cover up their less palatable ideals by latching onto anarchism.  Kev 11:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For both Kev and NatKrause: Privately funded defensive forces are not governing anyone but protecting people from being governed by those who initiate coercion. Now, if these things are funded through taxation, then that's when they start taking the character of a government since the act of taxation is coercive. Private defense forces amount to the same thing as you defending yourself against another individual that is coercing you --does that make you a government? Of course not. It's you defending yourself from being governed. It's the opposite of government. THe essence of government is that it initiates force. Now if privately-funded courts, and police, etc stepped over the line and began initiating force then they would take the character of a government. But, they need not. RJII 14:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On determining which arguments are ludicrous and which are not
In removing content from this page in the form of an example Aca said the following: "This is a ludicrous and unworthy straw-man. The description as-is states the argument sufficiently."

Unforunately, while I can agree that the idea is ludicrous and unworthy, it is not a straw-man. Not only is the argument that one could attempt to claim ownership of the air in a particular locale completely in keeping with the criticism that definitions of property may be molded in order to justify any kind of claim, but it also has precedents with several other necessities of life already claimed as owned by propertarians. What is more, this page lists as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society the one depicted in the book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. It just so happens that in that society, which is described on this very page as anarcho-capitalist, the oxygen is owned and individuals must pay to breathe it. Horrible isn't it, all the more so because it is true. As such, I'm putting the sentence back in, even if you find it hard to look at. Kev 09:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opps, in the time since I last waded through this entire monster someone has taken out the literature section and moved it to another article. Anyway, it is still linked to from this article and still contains the relevant evidence. Kev 09:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage
Fact: The traditional "anarchist" movement that overwhelmingly claims the title is an anti-capitalist movement separate from anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. "Traditional" anarchist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist.

Those are the facts and those are the points of view presented. In order to preserve NPOV, Wikipedia must not pass judgment on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. In order to preserve factuality, Wikipedia must make the factual distinction I noted above. In the latest versions of the articles anarcho-capitalism and anarchism this is the case. Since "anarchist" is the best (only) term to describe the anti-capitalist anarchists ("left-anarchist" would be a neologism and Wikipedia can't make up neologisms), I now have no problem with leaving "anarchism" as it is and disambiguating. Similarly, libertarianism disambiguates between the originally and predominantly American ideology of "libertarianism" and libertarian socialism. I offer this as a resolution to the POV dispute of the past few days.

Philwelch 10:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Left anarchism
I noted that "traditional anarchistm" is called "left anarchism" in the Intro, especially by pro-capitalists. This is a true statement. Do not delete it. Just noting this to preempt what I think will inevitably be objected to if I don't. RJII 17:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Individual anarchists - private property - Kev deleting
Spooner believed in private property and business. I put more details in individualist anarchism. Kev is reverting documented research there as well. RJII 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So, out of curiosity, since Spooner was reportedly opposed to wage labor, how exactly did he operate his businesses such as the American Letter Mail Company? Did he personally deliver all the letters by hand, himself, or did he violate his own professed principles by hiring workers to do it? *Dan* 20:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All individualists believed in business, that doesn't make them capitalists. Spooner did not believe in private property as entitlement as capitalists do, he upheld possession, again as all individualists did. But I will make both of you a deal, you guys actually do some friggen research for once in your lives and back up your claims with quotes from Spooner himself, and I will properly put them in context and demonstrate that none of your supposed evidence means what you interpret it to mean. Kev 20:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nobody is claiming that he was a capitalist or supported everything about capitalism. I put in quotes from Spooner and other research in individualist anarchism with you deleted because it conflicted with your previous understanding of individualist anarchists. RJII 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Spooner's support of the free market is a rejection of capitalism, not support of aspects of it. The only way to claim that is to call individualist economics capitalist after the fact, to define something like say, owning a business, as capitalist even though the individualists explicitly rejected capitalism while advocating business ownership.  And no RJ, unlike you I've actually read Tucker, so you have yet to present anything new to my understanding of individualist anarchists.  In fact, you have yet to present anything I haven't heard from anarcho-capitalists before, perhaps because you are only using their old recycled arguments.  If you doubt this, please feel free to look at the archives of this very talk page, or the archives of flag.blackened.net, or the a-list.  You could also check the archives of the ifeminist page and anarchism.net, except they didn't keep archives.  Kev 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody is calling Spooner a supporter of capitalism --capitalism is not one idea, it's a combination of conditions. By the way, this is about Spooner, not Tucker. RJII 21:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, noted Scottish left anarchist Iain MacSaorsa says that "Spooner's ideas seem to fall somewhere between those of modern Libertarians and Socialists" and notes Spooners position on private property. No one is saying Spooner was a capitalist. RJII 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that Spooner's ideas fall between libertarianism and socialism. Ever heard of libertarian socialism?  So long as the text makes very clear Spooner's repeated rejection of institutions essential to capitalism, I not only have no objection to expanding on his philosophy (especially on in his own article, rather than trying to leech legitimacy from him he), but I encourage it.  Kev 22:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * MacSaorsa is not talking about libertarian socialism. He's talking about modern capitalist libertarians. RJII 13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article needs section on Individualist Anarchism influence on the origin of Ancap
This article needs a section on the influence of individualist anarchism on the development of anarcho-capitalism. Right, now it's only mentioned in the "conflicts with anarchism" section, from a left anarchist perspective and is not accurate. RJII 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That section used to be in the main article, but was moved to the criticism section after it was balanced by the individualist anarchist position. And the current criticism section is mostly accurate, certainly a lot better than the historical revisionism you are currently peddling.  Kev 22:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Acted on my own advisement and put one in. RJII 21:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Passage re-added
The following discussion of terminological differences was deleted by Che. It has been re-added because there was frankly no discernible purpose whatsoever in the deletion. Che claims that it is false that the differences are purely terminological. Of course he's right, but the passage never claims that the differences are purely terminological. It's purpose is to clearly delineate where the differences between contemporary anarcho-capitalists and 19th century individualist anarchists lie.


 * Some of the difficulty here here may be understood as terminological: anarcho-capitalists typically use the word "capitalism" to mean the free market, i.e., an economic order based entirely on voluntary association, free of intervention from the State. Socialist anarchists, on the other hand, typically use "capitalism" to identify a system of specific economic practices prevalent in historical and modern markets. One can be an advocate of capitalism in the first sense without being an advocate of capitalism in the second sense; indeed, some anarcho-capitalists argue that government intervention creates many problems in the "capitalist" marketplace today. On the other hand, there are substantive [...]

This is a simple matter of fact about how words are typically used in two different schools of thought. It's also an important point to clarify in trying to understand how far "capitalist" a-c's of the 20th century and "socialist" individualist anarchists of the 19th agree and wherein they differ. If you have reasons to object to the way that the two sides of the terminological distinction are set up, feel free to edit the passage to reflect something more accurate, but simply deleting it in order to play up the contrast that follows it is editorially irresponsible. Radgeek 06:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and added some sentences on the terminology of "socialism." The individualist anarchists did not define it as it is defined today. It was about wage labor, not collectivism. (at least for the American anarchists ..i'm not familiar with the Europeans.) RJII 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Defense agencies and monopoly
The paragraph in this section that begins "Anarcho-capitalist also seem to think that their society would have little internal violence" is odd. If it's an ideal ancap society where no one initiates coercion against anyone else, then there's going to be absolutely no violence. But, I don't see ancaps thinking this possible. I don't think they deny human nature and proclivity to violence --that's why they are in favor of business that protects people from coercion (police, courts, etc) ..because they recognize human nature. It's not that they think violence will stop. But, it is in a Criticism section so I suppose it's ok ..it's just a bit misguided. RJII 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

individualist anarchism and wage labor
Che requested a source. Here's one:

Not accurate or neutral
This article is bloated and wordy, yet doesn't even begin to explain anarcho-capitalism. There's a link to Noam Chomsky in the first paragraph (advertising?), but David Friedmen is never mentioned. The editors don't seem to be particularly interested in the subject. Mirror Vax 01:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. It's not a very good article. It's been warred over on minor points so much that nobody has time to improve the general content of the article. A lot of people are scared off from having anything to do with it at all. - Nat Krause 05:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary individualists
The article currently says the following: "The anarcho-capitalist claim to individualist tradition is rejected by many individualist anarchists" (present tense) and "Contemporary individualist anarchists believe that explicit support for capitalism places one outside of the individualist anarchist tradition." Who exactly are these contemporary individualist anarchists? Someone like Wendy McElroy would claim that the contemporary individualists are anarcho-capitalists. - Nat Krause 07:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wendy McElroy is fringe. She claims that the original individualists, who all considered themselves anti-capitalists, would be anarcho-capitalists were they alive today. Which makes here individualism dubious.--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 02:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, but who are the non-fringe contemporary individualists? - Nat Krause 03:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)