Talk:Market anarchism

Tree diagram of Anarchist Schools


This is useful to show how Free-market anarchism relates to other schools, and to help the ansoc sectarians to understand how anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-geoism, and anarcho-mutualism are also forms of anarchism. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ..and here's Rowbotham's map of the Flat Earth. Could you please stop making disruptive changes without discussing them first? BeŻet (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that anarcho-capitalism is a type of free-market anarchism is undisputed - except by a few sectarian anarcho-socialists. Ancap satisfies the definition of anarchism, being opposed in principle to all rulership aka political authority. (I wonder how an illogical ansoc sectarian clique captured this article?) At any rate, anarchists can have any position consistent with statelessness. Anarchists range from primitivist to vegetarian to nudist to greenie, from collectivist property systems to sticky property systems and everything in between. Anarchism is about absense of rulership, not consensual property norms. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, is there a source for this diagram, or is it something that you have made yourself? It's a pretty poorly constructed diagram, to be quite honest, with a lot of messy and confusing labels. It's also just plain inaccurate. Anarcho-primitivism is largely considered to be from the individualist strain of anarchism: labeling it as "socialist" is inaccurate, given its rejection of the mere existence of a means of production; and labeling it as "collectivist" is also plainly inaccurate, given that its chief critique is of civilization, an inherently collectivist idea. This is just one of a number of errors with the diagram, including the inclusion of "Geoism" as an inherently anarchist economic school, or mutualism as an "individualist" school when it explicitly emerged from socialism. What does "sticky" even mean in this case? There are so many problems with this diagram, both factual and aesthetic, that it's almost embarrassing. I have no idea what kind of case there is for including this diagram in any Wikipedia article, least of all prominently displaying it in the lede of an article. I'll advise you again, stop trying to push your diagrams and specific Point of View, this is getting ridiculous. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Incoherent history section
Neither the subsections about "Mutualism" or "Individualist anarchism in Europe" mention any connection to Free-market anarchism, or indeed, even mention markets at all. The history section needs an overhaul to focus specifically on the subject at hand, because currently it is unclear how much any of this even has to do with free-market anarchism. Grnrchst (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * So having looked at the prevelance of the term "market anarchism"/"free-market anarchism" on Google Ngrams, it seems pretty clear that this term was coined in the mid-1960s. Yet this article's history section consists almost entirely of a series of summaries of other articles, with barely even a tenuous connection to the subject, in what reeks of a novel synthesis. I'm doing my best to cut out the irrelevant original research, but I would really have to encourage people to stick to what is explicitly stated in reliable sources. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now cut almost the entire history section. It seems like a lot of this was added based on the implicit assumption that they were connected to some "free-market anarchism", despite none of the sources making reference to a "market anarchism" or anything of the sort. If you think I've gone too far, please feel free to revert the cuts you disagree with. But honestly, I doubt there's anything worth salvaging. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got to say I'm impressed, and not in a good way. Usually when I cut down on the original research and novel synthesis in other articles like this, I'll usually find one or two reliable sources worth salvaging in there. But this history section had nothing in there. Not one source verifiably referenced "market anarchism". It was entirely composed of fluff. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've finally dealt with all the synth. Unfortunately, what remains is about 1/6th of the size of the previous iteration of the article. The content itself is poor quality and some of it is cited to questionable sources. But at the very least, I can now say it isn't making stuff up any more. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Free-market anarchism → Market anarchism – It seems like "market anarchism" is the common name in the reliable sources we have available to us. All the cited sources in the bibliography use "market anarchism", with only one using "free-market anarchism". In the further reading, most of them use "market anarchism", and two use "free-market anticapitalism". The only sources that exclusively use "free-market anarchism" (Miller, Paul, & Miller Jr. 1993; Hoffman & Graham 2006) appear to use it as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism, whereas the use of "market anarchism" across the other sources is clearly disambiguated from anarcho-capitalism.

As such, I'm proposing this article be moved to "Market anarchism". It might also be worth considering "free-market anarchism" for a redirect to anarcho-capitalism. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per rationale of the OP. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per OP, I don't see any reason to oppose. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)