Talk:Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Debt bondage and unfree labour
What is exactly the ancap position on debt bondage and unfree labour. As far as I can tell they are considered perfectly fine since it's "voluntary". // Liftarn


 * Against slavery. -- Vision Thing -- 20:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously not against wage slavery. // Liftarn
 * you obviously have no understanding of subjective value and the childish pseudo scientific analysis of objective labor theories of value. We market anarchists would say no such thing exists where the man is not coerced into the working situation.ThorsMitersaw


 * Better than starving. But, what does this have to do with the article?  Fephisto 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Counter-Criticisms
Should there be a counter-counter criticisms section? Or a response system akin to []? Or are there even people willing for a response page? Fephisto 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I say 'Go for it!' Any part of the discussion is more important and relevant to human progress than the average page. Hayekian 00:57, 29 December 2012 (CEN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.170.135 (talk)


 * No, That's silly. This is Wikipedia, not a discussion forum.Spylab (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
1) I removed part about tribal societies as they are not relevant for anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not a tribal society, and in the article in question neither anarchy nor lack of government is mentioned. Thus, it constitutes original research to use those societies as examples of how things would function in anarchy.
 * Tribal societes by definition do not have governments. Explain why a tribal society is not anarcho-capitalist. No, that tribal societies are not utopian in practice is not a relevant argument, any more than when Communists state the same thing regarding Stalin's Soviet Union.Ultramarine 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Burden on evidence is always on the one who wishes to include something in the article. No anarcho-capitalist have ever claimed that tribal societies are form of anarcho-capitalist society. You are conducting original research here. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that tribes are stateless societies? Explain how they differ from anarcho-capitalism, I see no difference.Ultramarine 09:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Burden on evidence is always on the one who wishes to include something in the article. When you find some reliable source saying that tribal societies are example of anarcho-capitalist society, then you can include it in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of these societes are anarcho-capitalist or not, this is a counter-argument to the claim that armed people can prevent violence.Ultramarine 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This still shouldn't be included. Not only is the citation a single work that most anthropologists disagree with (War Before Civilization), but did someone just try to call tribal societies capitalist? Capital implies divison of labor/work, specialization, and a host of other things, especially mass society. What are you talking about?

2) I removed Paul Birch's criticism since he doesn't have anything published in this field, and he is not notable enough to have his views presented in Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree and he obviously has published an article. Also, there is not an academic anarcho-capitalist "field", since anarcho-capitalists publish their own books and magazines outside normal academia.Ultramarine 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Web pages don't count. See WP:RS self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That could equally well apply to Mises.org.Ultramarine 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing Wikipedia's policy or what? Anyway, since Birch's article was published in "Libertarian Alliance" I'll leave his criticism, but an on-line FAQ is not a reliable source by any stretch of imagination. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that that Paul Birch article is about Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism where law is created by the market. I haven't read the whole article but it doesn't seem to apply to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism where a Constitution is drawn up. In the latter type of anarcho-capitalism law is not for sale.Anarcho-capitalism 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting response that could be added. The counter-argument would be what or who forces the anarcho-capitalist communities to follow Rothbard's natural common law (or some other set of laws)? I guess a response would be to state that Rothbard's vision of the common law is the best possible law and that competition would force most anarcho-capitalist societies to follow this law more or less closely. A response to that would be that there would be some differences or there would be no need for different communities and that even small differences in laws today between different states cause large problems and costs when trying to solve disputes involving different law systems.Ultramarine 18:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The group of anarcho-capitalists that set up the libertarian legal code would also set up businesses offering to defend individuals from force and fraud as enumerated in that legal code based upon the natural right to own one's own body and product of one's labor. That's not to say that that code wouldn't be violated by rogue components in the society, including maybe be some defense firms gone bad, but that it would be illegal to violate it.Anarcho-capitalism 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not really an answer to Birch's argument, he for the sake of argument assumes no violations of the anarcho-capitalist prohibition of violence but still argues that it is more efficient for a protective business to have a natural monopoly in a territory.Ultramarine 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that a criticism of anarcho-capitalism? If there's a natural monopoly, as opposed to a coercive monopoly, then competition is not being forcefully prevented. Since competition is not forcefully prevented then it's not a state. A monopoly that exists by mere virtue of being the most efficient is not at all opposed by anarcho-capitalists and is consistent with anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In practice it is very difficult for any competitor to establish itself in a natural monopoly and for a business to choose such competitors with much higher costs. In effect this becomse a state, where if a business want another protector, it has to move to another territory, just like today.Ultramarine 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be seen a similar to a water/sewage utility which also probably will have a natural monopoly in territory. Theoretically, if you are rich and want to waste money, you could pay for another company building a new water and sewage treatment plant and for building a separate, parallell duct system just to your house. More likely, if you do not like the local water supply monopoly, you have to move to another territory.Ultramarine 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A state is defined as having a coercive monopoly on defense provision and obtains its revenues from taxation. A business that provides defense, that charges for its services instead of taxes, that happens to have a natural monopoly on defense provision is not a state by definition. Quoting Rothbard:
 * "Let me say from the beginning that I define the State as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. Any institution, not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a "State". On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights. Nor is our definition of the State arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be "States" throughout recorded history. The State, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction." (Society Without a State, Rothbard)
 * There is a difference between a natural monopoly on defense provision and a "compulsory" (or coercive) monopoly on defense provision. The former is consistent with anarcho-capititalism and is not a state. Laissez-faire capitalists do not oppose monopolies unless they're coercive monopolies. That is, unless they coercively prevent others from going into competition with them.Anarcho-capitalism 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In practice the difference is small.Ultramarine 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The moral difference is monumental. Anarcho-capitalists oppose taxation and coercive monopolies. They are fine with anything that is voluntarily funded and is not an instrument of aggression (initiatory coercion).Anarcho-capitalism 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, even magically assuming no violence, they will have natural monopoly protection companies that will demand payment just like a tax. And if you do not have protection, there is nothing to prevent the protection company from taking the payment by force, arguing that you are a free-rider.Ultramarine 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they demanded payment, then they would be a state. That simply wouldn't be anarcho-capitalism. They would simply be in violation of natural law.Anarcho-capitalism 19:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What prevents them in practice from demanding and collecting payment? Ultramarine 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What could prevent that is private defense. If someone starts demanding payment, that is a market opportunity for entrepreneurs to offer protection from them. This could be physical protection or even technological such as the use of private money such as e-gold [] and encryption.Anarcho-capitalism 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that someone will provide private defense without demanding payment? Ultramarine 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they will, and do. It's called a business. They don't demand money. They ask for it.Anarcho-capitalism 19:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But in the end you must pay someone. And the cheapeast provider will be largest one in the territory with the least external disputes. So your only choice will be to pay this one or more to another one.Ultramarine 19:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as they don't force you to pay them and receive their services it's still anarcho-capitalism. If they decide to turn evil and start taxing they become a state, and since they are the only provider in town they will eventually become lazy and inefficient. That opens up a market opportunity for cheaper and better defense which is voluntarily funded (and included in that defense is protection from that state).Anarcho-capitalism 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So why has this not happened already?Ultramarine 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is happening already. As I pointed out, businesses are offering digital private money that can be used to avoid taxation. It's simply a matter of time before it becomes more extensive, as people increasingly want liberty. States will lose a significant amount of funding and will have to eliminate services. As these services are eliminated, those that consumers value will be provided by the private sector. States may always be around, just as street thugs will always be around, but some of us will be able to afford to protect ourselves from them both.Anarcho-capitalism 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, as the world is now becoming richer and better ruled, soon all tax havens will be simply prohibited. If digital money or e-gold causes any significant loss of taxes, the states will simply prohibit them also.Ultramarine 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The underground economy in the U.S. alone is estimated at 1 trillion dollars. The state would like to prohibit that but it can't, just like it can't prohibit the use of private encyrpted money. The state is weak and getting weaker. The long-term trend is toward privatization not state-ownership. Also, note that business today offer security guards. These are provided because the state can't adequately protect everything. And there are private courts..arbitration. That is private defense. That is anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism comes in degrees. It will only increase in scope.Anarcho-capitalism 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, it the state want to prohibit business and banks to use electronic money, they can simply do so. Then you have little use for it. You can already stash cash in your closet if you want to.Ultramarine 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No they could not, at least not in the U.S. Fortunately, the Founders intentionally created a weak government, and answerable to voters, in order to ensure a very large scope of individual liberty. Private money is going to be so big in the not too distant future that there will be no way to stop it. Morever, people won't want to stop it, including people in government because the long-term trend in humanity is the increasing valuation of individual liberty. Everything will eventually be privatized.Anarcho-capitalism 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the US constitution prevents the state from prohibiting electronic money? Also, the constitution can and has many times been changed. I agree regarding the trend regarding liberty, but see little in anarcho-capitlism, only wishful thinking. In practice the strong protection companes would exploit the weaker. If you are poor and have a weak protector, what prevents another stronger group from defeating the your protecter and take your property and make you a slave?Ultramarine 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The will does not exist to prohibit private money even if it were possible, never mind that changing the constitution requires a 2/3 majority. Humanity is over time gradually and increasingly valuing individual liberty. If you are poor and have a weak protecter then you are out of luck, obviously. But that's not anarcho-capitalism. In anarcho-capitalism, in its fullest manifestation, the defense is strong enough to defend you from states and other criminals. And, again, that depends on increasing consumer demand for liberty. I don't want to the U.S. government to be eliminated immediately. It would be chaos and violence. Another state may even invade and set up a more oppressive system. I want everything to be gradually privatized. I want taxes or the ability to tax to increasingly be reduced and for regulations to be increasingly be reduced. This is a matter of changing human psychology that comes with gradually illumination and appreciation for liberty. As William Godwin said of the state, "however we may be obliged to admit it as a necessary evil for the present, it behoves us, as the friends of reason and the human species, to admit as little of it as possible, and carefully to observe whether, in consequence of the gradual illumination of the human mind, that little may not hereafter be diminished." Or as Thoreau put it, "'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." Again, anarcho-captialism is a matter of degree. It already exist now in degree, by the existence of private courts and private security guards, and private untraceable money that avoids taxation.Anarcho-capitalism 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This the same response that communists make when faced with the contradictions of their society: human nature will somehow magically change so that their utopian society will become possible. Supposing human nature will change, how do you know this change will be towards anarcho-capitalism and not socialsm?Ultramarine 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a change in human nature but a change in psychology ..increased demand and appreciation for individual autonomy. I think we already see it changing in that direction throughout the history of the world. The inception of the political system of the United States is an example of that. It is the result of humanity progressing to demand individual liberty. Throughout the history of the world we see man increasingly, though pretty slowly, rejecting authority over the individual. As far as human nature, I think human nature is self-interested. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't call for a change in that at all.Anarcho-capitalism 04:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The US political system is a superior system based on current human nature, not on a change in human nature. Similarly, after WWII the Japensese suddenly didn't change their nature; they changed their political system to a superior one but based on the same human nature.Ultramarine 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it came from a change in human nature. It came from a change in psychology. It is the result of increased demand for individual liberty ..a degree of demand that did not exist up until it was created. The U.S. could not have been created in say 1000 A.D. because people just did not value individual liberty to a great enough degree. It took people taking intellectual leaps, writing philosophy, and changing the psychology of the world...but not only changing the psychology but revealing the truth ..that there is actually no legitimate authority over the individual. People are learning to recognize that. Appreciation and demand for freedom continues to increase. Hence the collapse of communist systems. We'll never see large scale communism again. There may be isolated attempts now and then, but they'll all eventually taper off to nothing as all authority over the individual is increasingly recognized to be illegitimate.Anarcho-capitalism 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would have been difficult sustain the same political system in 1000 AD. But this was because the lacking technology and economic development at this this time: Very few books, no newspapers, no education, little literacy, and so on. Most people lived on the edge of starvation with little time or knowledge of anything outside their village and the next harvest. So in a sense I may agree with you, advancing technology and living standards increases the interest in and possibility of liberty. But again, I see no guarantee that this will lead to anarcho-capitalism. It could equally well lead to left-wing anarchism or technocracy.Ultramarine 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a progression in humanity toward increasing individual liberty. Anarcho-capitalism is the logical end of that because it rejects all authority over the individual and the product of his labor. You don't see such a progression toward increasing individual liberty. Ok.Anarcho-capitalism 05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Socialists would argue that an equal socialist society is just as a logical endpoint from the prior feudal societies with the immense diffrences in wealth and inherited class differences, and would argue that liberty would be just as respected in their vision.Ultramarine 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks liberty is consistent with forcefully depriving an individual of the product of his labor simply doesn't understand liberty. It's simply a matter of education.Anarcho-capitalism 05:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It could equally well be argued that the inheritance of wealth is not consistent with liberty, since some people are giving unfair advantages from birth, just like in feudal societies.Ultramarine 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument wouldn't work, because fairness and liberty are two different things.Anarcho-capitalism 06:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dubious, the power gained from inherited wealth can be seen as restricting liberty. Regardless, the trend towards fairness in human affairs is very strong.Ultramarine 06:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what it's "seen as." Being wealthy does not necessarily mean you have more liberty than someone that is poor. In a free society which protects individuals from aggression, both have the same amount of liberty. Fairness in human affairs is communism ..complete equality of wealth. The trend is definitely not that way.Anarcho-capitalism 06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The power gained from inherited wealth restricts the liberty of those with no such inherited wealth. There is definitely a trend towards less inherited privileges.Ultramarine 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. Being wealthier than someone else doesn't restrict the liberty of someone with less wealth in a society with laws that protects individuals against aggression.Anarcho-capitalism 06:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. Someone who is very poor has, for example, no time to express their views and associate with anyone. Also, again, There is definitely a trend towards less inherited privileges.Ultramarine 06:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't understand freedom then. Freedom is having the liberty to write and speak. Freedom is not the "freedom" to be provided with a computer and modem, or with a microphone, because that requires aggressing against someone else to force them to provide those things. If freedom does not apply equally to all people, then it's meaningless. Some people having the liberty to aggress against others is not a free society. In a free society, everyone is protected from aggression. In a free society, if you want a computer and modem you have to work to purchase one or ask someone to give you one. Stealing is not consistent with freedom.Anarcho-capitalism 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You do not have liberties such as freedom of speech and association if you work all the time. The trend is certainly towards giving all people such liberties and removing inherited privileges.Ultramarine 07:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you do have freedom of speech and assocation if you work all the time. You just don't have time to exercise your other freedoms. Any time you're doing one thing, you're exercising a freedom at the cost of not exercising some other freedom. Freedom is not "freedom" to be provided with things by others. It's freedom from being obstructed by the aggression of others.Anarcho-capitalism 07:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your version of "freedom". Again, the trend is certainly towards removing inherited privileges and towards giving all people real liberites and freedom. A society where only some people are free to express their opnions and associate with others, due to inherited wealth, where other cannot, is not free.Ultramarine 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where someone gets their wealth, whether it's inherited or from selling hot dogs, having more wealth than someone else doesn't mean you're more free. In a society that protects individuals from aggression, all individuals are equally free regardless of their income. Because I can afford to eat at Capital Grille and you can only afford to eat at Burger King does that mean I'm more free than you? Of course not. To say it is is absurd.Anarcho-capitalism 07:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The comparison is between not working at all due to inherited wealth and working all your your time. Do you consider the last people the be free and have liberties? Ultramarine 07:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they're free and have liberties. They're working aren't they? The liberty to work and profit from one's efforts is an essential freedom. Freedom is not about having the same things as everyone else, whether it's the same leisure time or the same material pleasures. It's about having the liberty to acheive those things through effort without being obstructed by the violence of others. You may acheive them and you may not, but the freedom is there if you're willing to work for it. Freedom is not about having anything other than freedom itself. What you do with freedom is up to you. What you can accomplish with it is up to you.Anarcho-capitalism 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But in this case in effect they do not have freedom of epression or association, while those with inherited wealth does.Ultramarine 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they do have the freedom of expression and association. Of course they're associating with people they work with. But, you seem to think that not having "time" to do something means that you don't have the liberty ..the right..or protections.. to do it. Having freedom means that you have protection from aggression that might be taken against you by others to do whatever you have the ability to do in such an environment. Not having the same abilities as someone else, the same leisure time, or the same wealth as someone else doesn't mean you're less free than them. If you're poor, you're free to work up to that level. The freedom is there.Anarcho-capitalism 07:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In practice it means less free, and the trend is certainly towards removing inherited privileges and giving all people equal opportunities and the same freedom when they start life. Why are you arguing for inherited privileges and unequal opportunities?Ultramarine 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No in practice it does not mean less free. Freedom is not about having the same abilities as someone else. It's about being protected from others forcefully preventing you from acheiving things. A right to inheritance is essential to liberty, because essential to liberty is the right to own the product of one's labor and what one receives in trade or gift. If I recieve an inheritance, I am not diminishing your liberty. I'm not aggressing against you in any way. You're just as free as you were before I received the inheritance.Anarcho-capitalism 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you cannot exercise liberties in practice, they are of little use. If someone inherits wealth and does not have work, while another person have to work so much that he cannot exercise liberites, but if they shared the wealth both could exercise liberty, then the inheritance restricts libery.Ultramarine 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you cannot exercise liberties in practice they are of little use FOR THE TIME BEING. You may not be able to afford to take a tour of the world the world, but the liberty is there for when you can afford to do to so and that's what's important. There is the liberty to work and earn wealth. That's the first step. Giving money from my inheritance to you does not increase your liberty. It might increase your ability to enjoy liberty, but that's about it. There is a difference between having freedom against the aggression of others and having the ability to exercise any particular action within that sphere of freedom. A person with no legs is not able to exercise his right to walk, but he still has as much of a right to walk as someone with legs does.Anarcho-capitalism 07:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But if the society is poor, and if both shared the wealth, both could work and have liberties in the free time, but if one have all the wealth and the other person have no free time and liberties, and since society is poor, for a long time or the whole life of these individuals, the same will remain true? Then one person will have no liberty during his life, due to the inheritance.Ultramarine 08:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You would have the same amount of freedom tommorrow as you do today if I receive an inheritance tommorrow. I cause you absolutely no harm by inheriting. Do you propose to steal the gift given to me? If so, don't speak to me about liberty because you have no respect for it.Anarcho-capitalism 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the inheritance restritcs the liberty of the person who does not share but who could have liberty of both shared the wealth.Ultramarine 08:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No it does not. Don't you see the difference between refraining from giving something to someone and taking something away from someone?Anarcho-capitalism 08:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only see that at birth two persons are given different privilegis and effectual liberites at birth, with no effort or work by the persons in question involved in this.Ultramarine 08:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? People are born with different physical attributes, different mental attributes with some people being superior to others in these respects without having had to work for these things. There is nothing wrong with inequality. It's just the way it is. And to equalize people in wealth or whatever requires aggressing against them by stealing from one to give to another. That's not freedom. In a free society, if you want others to have more money you can voluntary share your wealth with them and you can ASK others to share their wealth. But in a free society, there is no stealing to acheive your egalitarian goals.Anarcho-capitalism 08:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Diseases are "natural" and "just the way it is". Most people still think that they should be prevented. Again, the trend is towards giving more people real liberties and equal opportunities. Those arguing for inherited priviligies have been on the losing side a long time now, even if those with inherited privilgies think that removing them is stealing.Ultramarine 08:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, disease should be prevented, but voluntarily prevented. You shouldn't be allowed to force me to find a cure for your disease or force me to fund research for a cure for your disease. That's not what freedom is about. Theft is not consistent with freedom. As far as inheritance goes, if you take contrary to my consent what I own, that is indeed stealing. That is by definition, stealing. Whatever someone receives as a gift they own. With ownership comes the right to transfer ownership. If you think stealing is consistent with freedom, I don't see much hope for you at this point.Anarcho-capitalism 08:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are on the losing side of history. The trend is against inherited privileges and giving all people equal opportunities.Ultramarine 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The trend is that welfare statism is on the way out.Anarcho-capitalism 08:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "welfare" about giving all equal opportunities.Ultramarine 08:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there is. Forcefully taking wealth from one and giving it to another with less is welfare statism.Anarcho-capitalism 08:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether this is true in the US or not, the global trend is towards less income inequality and more equal opportunities at birth and during life, for example by better education and healthcare.Ultramarine 08:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even relate to what we've been talking about. Hey, I don't have time to indulge you anymore. Take care.Anarcho-capitalism 08:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Of course they're free and have liberties. They're working aren't they?" Uh... Slaves work, are they free? They get paid in food and lodging. That's real currency where there is no official currency. How is this person who is being paid and who is working free and have liberties? How do they protect these liberties when they have no ability to hire protection due to their unique wage situation? How do they escape if they are being coerced? Again, they're left to the vigilance of free men who are willing to give up their own labor to preserve this moral system's integrity. AndrewK760 (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for tag
Vision thing, please list your specific reason for tagging this article as not compliant. The only thing I can tell from the discussion is that you don't think capitalist societies can be tribal, but I see not reference in the text to capitalist societies as tribal, only a criticism that they might devolve into creating a "fragmented tribal environment". Are you stating that capitalist societies are immune from changing into fragmented tribal societies?

The only other criticism I see is the Paul Birch bit, which you seem to have let go. Please let me know what it is, in concrete terms, that you want changed. Etcetc 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the text to which I object. Article about stateless tribal societies doesn't talk about anarcho-capitalism and therefore it can't be applied here, while text about private protection organizations is sourced to online faq by a private website, which is not a reliable source. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the fact that it doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism makes it irrelevant, since it is making a broader point about societies in general. However, since there is no source given thus far that links this with anarcho-capitalism, it does seem to qualify as original research.  I'll remove it.  The line coming before it is also improperly sourced from a listserv, so I will remove that one as well.


 * I agree as well on the private protection agency lines, though I can't help but noting that you've let many similar sources slide in other articles when they are not critical of anarcho-capitalism. This seeming double standard aside, I think this text is worthy of removal as well, at least until someone can source it better.  Does this exhaust your reasons for tagging the article?  Etcetc 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed text
I have removed the following text for being improperly sourced in 2 cases and original research in one. Since many of the points brought up seem valid I am placing the text here in the hopes that someone can properly source it eventually:

The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" (gun politics), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all.

However, this is contradicted by the large scale violence in stateless tribal societies where all males had and knew how to use weapons. Research shows that not only was warfare more common in small-scale societies than it has been among nation states, it involved a greater percentage of the population, and the numbers killed were proportionately higher as well.

Critics also argue that one can observe private protection organizations in practice in gang wars, where different gangs compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests, causing high violence.

Objectivist
I've removed the word objectivists from the first criticism and replace it with classical liberal. The reason for this is that the word added nothing, the argument held nothing unique to objectivism and seamed to be an argument from the classical liberial tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.6.251 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Repitition
Note: Also made a minor edit for clarity (changed 'equal right to liberty' to 'equal right to outcomes') But more importantly noticed significant repetition in the opening sections of 'Morality' and 'Pragmatic' sections regarding competing defense firms. Sections of paragraphs are repeated word for word. Might be worth someone with better writing chops than I fixing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.34.61 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

lede change
The recent edit to the lede doesn't seem as explanatory. IMO, the old lede was preferable. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is newest version acceptable? byelf2007 (talk) 5 July 2011

Looks fine to me. BigK HeX (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Style, setup, and weight
this is supposedly an article about the criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, because there is almost none in the main article, so it should focus on the criticism side lets see:

Some critics argue that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[1] Some anarchists agree with this argument, but argue that it is futile to eliminate the potential concentration of power by concentrating power in the hands of the state.[2] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient.

Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in. Therefore, the state's monopoly on the use of force is a violation of natural rights. He wrote, "The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals."[3] In his book Power and Market, he argued that geographically large minarchist states are indifferent from a unified minarchist world monopoly government.[4] Rothbard wrote governments were not inevitable, noting that it often took hundreds of years for aristocrats to set up a state out of anarchy.[5] He also argued that if a minimal state allows individuals to freely secede from the current jurisdiction to join a competing jurisdiction, then it does not by definition constitute a state.[6]

Many anarcho-capitalists argue that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Furthermore, Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[7] In response, Randall G. Holcombe argues that defense agencies could form cartels and oppress people without fear of competition.[8] Rothbard conceded this point and responded that one cannot justify a concentration of power out of a fear of a concentration of power, and that a market system is the best checks and balances system.[9]

2 sentences of the whole first criticism section portrait the criticism the section is about (see bold), the rest of the text only deals with the defense of anarcho capitalism against this criticism by repeating the anarcho capitalist positions over and over (see italics) this section fails horribly at the aim of the article and gives undue weight to the anarcho capitalist positions which are already described in the main article...178.24.228.150 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means then, edit boldly. KLP (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Pragmatic Criticism Lacking
There is no critique of anarcho-capitalism from a pragmatic perspective beyond some rubbish defensive that was put there. I'm surprised the simple fact that the most powerfully DRO would not necessarily be the most just one wasn't explicitly mentioned. That is a simple theoretical fact that has been overlooked, there is a high risk that the two or three most powerful DROs could form a duopoly or Triopoly serving the interests of the most powerful corporations. How can the businesses rating the DRO be impartial when their in need of money themselves thus vulnerable to manipulation. With a triopoly in place, even the rating agencies could be setup functioning corruptly serving the interests of a Triopoly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "There is no critique of anarcho-capitalism from a pragmatic perspective beyond some rubbish defensive that was put there." No, see the first paragraph.
 * "the simple fact that..." So find a source and put it in there. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 September 2012

Geez the stuff already there is rubbish, it makes sense to remove it at the very list if you demand evidence from the more objective critique. What is already there is rubbish, can't you see that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "What is already there is rubbish, can't you see that?" No. I need arguments. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by that. A "bad argument" wouldn't be relevant--bad arguments get their place on this site. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 September 2012

Its best to separate the counter arguments from the pro arguments then by inserting creating different headings. It just makes thing a bit cleaner plus the pro criticism element is lacking from the article, its riddled with bias. Soopman11 (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "the pro criticism element is lacking" As in pro-ancap or anti-ancap?


 * "its riddled with bias" How so? Byelf2007 (talk) 29 September 2012

Shouldn't this be merged with the main article?
It seems to me that this article should be rolled into the main article on this topic. I have seen a few libertarians sharing the main article in social media the same way they share political cartoons, which seemed odd to me until I realized that the main article avoids critical views, instead shunting it to a separate article. I hope that doesn't sound too glib, and I suppose that my observation also applies to articles about other political systems as well, some of which have separate "criticism" articles, but it seems that political systems which are largely theoretical (meaning ones which exist mostly in hypothetical academic discussions and debates) do not need to be compartmentalized like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.217.190 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms about Anarcho-capitalists' views on health inspection to prevent illness
Since Anarcho-capitalists want to privatize everything and abolish the state, shouldn't there be criticism of that position concerning the improbable manner by which private entities will inspect food and regulate industries that sell contaminated food? In an anarcho-capitalist society, private inspection of contaminated food to prevent illness or even death would be considered an infringed violation of the right of the business to sell such food and would clearly violate the non-aggression principle. If a food industry doesn't oblige to allow a private health inspection service to inform the public of its poor quality and standards, the business has every right to refuse agreement with that because of the non-aggression principle. How can Anarcho capitalists prevent innumerable deaths caused by things like food poisoning when there's no government regulation and safety inspection? Shouldn't we add some information about Anarcho-capitalists' desire to abolish government operated health inspection services and public entities like the FDA? Nashhinton (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky overload
I think this article has too much from Noam Chomsy, and not enough from other critics.

50.49.121.243 (talk) 05:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for page protection
Since the page was posted to https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2q8l48/what_do_you_think_of_wikipedias_criticisms_of/ it has been bombarded with changes designed to discredit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.235.118 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You call two edits, with one not removing anything "Bombarded with changes" ? Don't use hyperbole here, we're grown-ups (or at least I hope) so I think wikipedia editors can largely manage the excruciating power of two edits. --Nod'Vos 22:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod'Vos (talk • contribs)

Real World
Does anyone want to create a section on the lack of real world examples as a criticism. Humans have existed for about 100-200k years and I can find no anarcho-capitalsit societies that have every existed. Some libertarian blogs point to obscure night watchmen state societies like the Icelandic Comonwealth which technically isn't anarchist but thats it. NeoStalinist (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a good addition if sourced. To me it is connected to the criticism that a truly free market has never existed.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Criticisms of 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://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717040101/http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/ac-vs-ia.html to http://www.spaz.org/~dan/individualist-anarchist/ac-vs-ia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017201953/http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp000713.txt to http://www.spunk.org/library/otherpol/critique/sp000713.txt
 * Added tag to http://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Criticisms of 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/20031128120031/http://www.vix.com:80/objectivism/writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html to http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151056/http://www.paulbirch.net:80/AnarchoCapitalism1.html to http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060806070819/http://www.paulbirch.net:80/AnarchoCapitalism2.html to http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
 * Added tag to http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=1

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) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge to main article
Anarcho-capitalism already covers this topic in sufficient detail (more a less a concise when not verbatim version of what was written here). There isn't a showing of reliable, secondary sources to warrant a summary style split from that section. Moreover, the sourcing is heavily reliant on primary source quoting (X scholar said Y) rather than secondary sourcing. If it remained separate, it would need TNT to rid itself of the non-encylopedic tone, and at that point, we're looking at expanding summary style from the existing section anyway. czar 18:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)