Talk:Market anarchism/Archive 2

Anarcho-capitalism
I have reverted yor edits because we should first discuss it here. The real NPOV would be to make this article only about mutualism and individualist anarchists (anarcho-capitalism isn't idividualist anarchism) that supported and supports a free-market system. By adding anarcho-capitalism, it becomes a POV fork since the anarcho-capitalism article already covers that. Anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism aren't recognised as anarchist schools of thought, deal with it. It's not possible to insert anarcho-capitalism in every anarchist-related article.--Davide King (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not revert; improve. You reverted my other changes as well that was about a clear political bias. Your edits made this an article more about left-wing market anarchism and left-libertarianism. General market anarchism is not inherently capitalist nor anti-capitalist in the modern sense.
 * Regarding anarcho-capitalism, it's listed on the individualist anarchism. Also, the article is not about individualist anarchism; it's about free-market anarchism, and libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism are two schools of thought that has influenced the philosophy and economic theory of free-market anarchism, even though the first in not necessarily individualist nor market-based, and the other might not be a form of individualist anarchism in the historical sense.
 * Again, stop trying to inject the political bias in this article. It's not okay to do this. This is not an article exclusively about left-wing market anarchism. Other than that, feel free to improve it.
 * — Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 15:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yours was no improvement. Left-wing market anarchism is a revival of this free-market anarchism, i.e mutualism, individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not recognised as an anarchist school of thought. You're the one with a clear political bias, not respecting that reliable sources do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchism and thus neither of the free-market ararchist tradition. Just because anarcho-capitalism may have been referred to as free-market anarchism, it doesn't make it so; Nazis called themselves National Socialists, yet they were no socialists. The topic of this article should be the anarchist schools of thought that supported a free-market system; it shouldn't be yet another attempt to inject anarcho-capitalism. General market anarchism is anti-capitalist, if not outright libertarian socialist, just like anarchism as a whole, hence why anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism aren't considered part of anarchism, notwistanding the name, among other reasons. Also, Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source. Just because anarcho-capitalism is listed there, it doesn't make it so; especially considering it literally states this immediately right after: "Though anarcho-capitalism has been regarded by some as a form of individualist anarchism,[155][156] anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard stated that individualist anarchism is different from capitalism due to the individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value [148] and many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all,[157] or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism.[158]"--Davide King (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, making an article about free-market anarchism exclusively about anti-capitalism, socialism, and left-wing politics violates WP:POV. My edits were addressed to negate the political bias introduced by your edits. Then you sneakily disguised my edits as about bias towards anarcho-capitalism by invoking a discussion under this topic. Stop being dishonest. My edits are out in the public and everybody can see them.
 * Regarding the other issues:
 * Left-wing market anarchism is a revival of this free-market anarchism, i.e mutualism, individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.
 * Because you decided? And even if this was true, it still wouldn't mean that this article should reflect that. There's already an article about left-wing market anarchism. Yes, you could argue that point in the article, but it should be done in a neutral manner (e.g., starting the sentence with "According to some people", then add that point, and finally, cite your sources).
 * And anarcho-syndicalism is a form of social anarchism, not market anarchism; in fact, it's very close to anarcho-communism which is a non-market, collectivist form of anarchism and socialism. Mutualism is sometimes considered as social anarchism as well, but much more rarely.
 * Anarcho-capitalism is not recognised as an anarchist school of thought.
 * This is an appeal to tradition/antiquity fallacy since you're arguing from the historical perspective. Wikipedia should reflect the modern use as well. Also, there's already enough said in the article about capitalism being incompatible with anarchism. Furthermore, here's an article specifically addressing that issue. But set these aside, my edits had very little to do with anarcho-capitalism.
 * You're the one with a clear political bias, not respecting that reliable sources do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchism and thus neither of the free-market ararchist tradition.
 * What political bias? You're the one who asserts that this article should be exclusively about left-wing market anarchism, and this phrase is a proof of this:
 * Left-wing market anarchism is a revival of this free-market anarchism
 * Also, there's no consensus on Wikipedia about the compatibility between anarchism and capitalism. It's a controversial topic and both sides have arguments for their position. You can't be a sole judge of that.
 * Just because anarcho-capitalism may have been referred to as free-market anarchism, it doesn't make it so; Nazis called themselves National Socialists, yet they were no socialists.
 * Indeed. Just like calling your sources reliable doesn't automatically make them reliable. They might be, but there's no consensus about that topic on Wikipedia. Also, as a side note, mentioning "Nazis" and "socialism" or "leftism" in the same sentence is usually an indication of a political bias because of the negative connotation associated with Nazis. Keep this in mind. In the meantime, let me ignore this irrelevant example.
 * The topic of this article should be the anarchist schools of thought that supported a free-market system; it shouldn't be yet another attempt to inject anarcho-capitalism.
 * There were attempts to merge this article with anarcho-capitalism from the economically right-biased editors. This time, the attempt is from left-biased editor — you — to make this article exclusively about left-wing market anarchism.
 * General market anarchism is anti-capitalist, if not outright libertarian socialist, just like anarchism as a whole, hence why anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism aren't considered part of anarchism, notwistanding the name, among other reasons.
 * And once again, revealing your bias. As I said, there's no consensus about that on Wikipedia, and you have no right to decide what's right and what's wrong all by yourself. All you can do is to add a viewpoint that reflects the side of your argument (and this article already includes that).
 * Also, I've added a template of libertarian socialism to the article as well because the History section mentioned it, and since it also mentions anarcho-capitalism a lot, anarcho-capitalism template seems just as appropriate.
 * Also, Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source.
 * Wikipedia is not a source at all; it's a collection of sources, and since it has WP:NPOV as one of its policies, I'd imagine it'd be less biased then the opinion articles about politically biased thinkers who do or don't consider capitalism compatible with anarchism. Furthermore, there should be consistency between the articles in Wikipedia.
 * Just because anarcho-capitalism is listed there, it doesn't make it so; especially considering it literally states this immediately right after: "Though anarcho-capitalism has been regarded by some as a form of individualist anarchism,[155][156] anarcho-capitalist author Murray Rothbard stated that individualist anarchism is different from capitalism due to the individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value [148] and many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all,[157] or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism.[158]"
 * A few points:
 * That's exactly how politically neutral articles are written — you state both sides of the argument, and you don't censor anything.
 * The mere fact that anarcho-capitalism is mentioned there proves that it's relevant to the conversation.
 * If you let Rothbard speak for yourself, then, as you might be aware, he theorised anarcho-capitalism, and he's theory is all about markets replacing the state institutions. So, discussion's over, I guess; you cut the branch you were sitting on by claiming that we should just trust whatever Rothbard said.
 * Egoist anarchism is a form of individualist anarchism and it rejects the labor theory of value.
 * Yes, the compatibility between capitalism and anarchism is disputed. That's why you should allow both sides of the argument in articles.
 * Again, this is an article about free-market anarchism, not individualist anarchism.
 * — Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 17:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, making an article about free-market anarchism exclusively about anti-capitalism, socialism, and left-wing politics violates WP:POV. It violates that only if you have yourself a POV in favor of anarcho-capitalism. Because free-market anarchism, as the anarchism advocating a free-market system and not merely an ideology like anarcho-capitalism also calling itself free-market anacrhism, is "exclusively about anti-capitalism, socialism, and left-wing politics".
 * Because you decided? And even if this was true, it still wouldn't mean that this article should reflect that. There's already an article about left-wing market anarchism Because that's what reliable sources sayǃ You keep confusing free-market anarchism for left-wing anarchism, when the latter is mainly about neo-Proudhonian or neo-mutualists like Kevin Carson and Gary Chartier, whereas mutualism and certain strands and tendencies of both individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism fits the free-market anarchism tradition. Anarcho-syndicalism can both result in anarcho-communism or free-market anarchism.
 * This is an appeal to tradition/antiquity fallacy since you're arguing from the historical perspective. Wikipedia should reflect the modern use as well. This is an appeal to what reliable sources actually sayǃ The consensus is that anarcho-capitalism, just like national-anarchism, isn't considered part of anarchism, period. While a few people may consider it part of it, the consensus is that it isn't and that we don't have to repeat this every time we talk about it. The relationship between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism should be discussed only in Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism articles; there's no need to put anarcho-capitalism in every anarchist-related article, only to clarify that the majority of anarchists and reliable sources don't consider it part of it.
 * What political bias? You're the one who asserts that this article should be exclusively about left-wing market anarchism, and this phrase is a proof of this This is just further proof you confuse it for left-wing market anarchism. Mutualism and 19th century individualist anarchists aren't "left-wing market anarchists"; they're the original free-market anarchistsǃ Left-wing market anarchism is the revival of that tradition with people like Kevin Carson et all. And since anarcho-capitalism isn't recognised part of anarchism, this article should be about mutualism and individualist anarchism, Left-wing market anarchism about Kevin Carson et all and Anarcho-capitalism about the "free-market anarchism" you want to push here as fork. We all have poltical biases and I perfectly know mine and I'm aware of it; you don't seem to be aware of yours and just keep accusing me of bias, violating my good faith. You may not be biased in favor of anarcho-capitalism, but your edits certainly were, since the consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism and free-market anarchism is one branch of anarchism (mutualism, individualist anarchism, etc., but not anarcho-capitalism, or national-anarchism that also advocates mutualism).
 * Also, there's no consensus on Wikipedia about the compatibility between anarchism and capitalism. It's a controversial topic and both sides have arguments for their position. You can't be a sole judge of that. That's not what reliable sources say. The consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism; just because a few people may consider part of it, that doesn't change the consensus. These are just some sources: Marshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism; Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"; Meltzer, Albert (1 January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow; Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism; K, David (2005). What Is Anarchism?; MacSaorsa, Iain (2009). Is 'Anarcho' Capitalism Against the State?; Wells, Sam (January 1979). Anarcho-Capitalism is Not Anarchism, and Political Competition.
 * Indeed. Just like calling your sources reliable doesn't automatically make them reliable. They might be, but there's no consensus about that topic on Wikipedia. Also, as a side note, mentioning "Nazis" and "socialism" or "leftism" in the same sentence is usually an indication of a political bias because of the negative connotation associated with Nazis. Keep this in mind. In the meantime, let me ignore this irrelevant example. These aren't "my sources"; these are the reliable sources Wikipedia uses when discussing the topic. And so what? It was a simple example that just because there's the word anarcho- or anarchism doesn't make it anarchism.
 * There were attempts to merge this article with anarcho-capitalism from the economically right-biased editors. This time, the attempt is from left-biased editor — you — to make this article exclusively about left-wing market anarchism. Once again, you keep confusing this for left-wing market anarchism when this is really just the original free-market anarchismǃ Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, Warren et all aren't and weren't left-wing market anarchists but the original free-market anarchists in that they advocated a free-market systemǃ Mutualism is free-market anarchism, not left-wing anarchism, which refers to the neo-mutualism of people like Kevin Carson. Indeed, the only reason why the left-wing is added is because anarcho-capitalism is also referred to as free-market anarchism, but that doesn't mean it's part of free-market anarchism; there're many names used to refer to anarcho-capitalism, that doesn't mean we should create a page for each name. Anarcho-capitalism may be referred to as free-market anarchism but that doesn't mean much when anarcho-capitalism isn't considered part of anarchism and thus neither of free-market anarchism. Besides, the lead already clarifies that the term has been used to refer to anarcho-capitalism and that's enough.
 * And once again, revealing your bias. As I said, there's no consensus about that on Wikipedia, and you have no right to decide what's right and what's wrong all by yourself. All you can do is to add a viewpoint that reflects the side of your argument (and this article already includes that). How's that my bias when I merely follow what the sources say? The consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism.
 * Also, I've added a template of libertarian socialism to the article as well because the History section mentioned it, and since it also mentions anarcho-capitalism a lot, anarcho-capitalism template seems just as appropriate. There's literally no mention of anarcho-capitalism, besides the lead. The Alliance between American libertarians and the New Left section is about the development of left-wing market anarchism from a left-wing reading of Rothbard before he broke with the left.
 * Wikipedia is not a source at all; it's a collection of sources, and since it has WP:NPOV as one of its policies, I'd imagine it'd be less biased then the opinion articles about politically biased thinkers who do or don't consider capitalism compatible with anarchism. Furthermore, there should be consistency between the articles in Wikipedia. I don't understand what you mean, could you explain yourself better? I believe to have followed consistency in that every time we mentions anarcho-capitalism, we add that it's not considered part of anarchism and yadda yadda yadda. That's what I put in the lead when talking about anarcho-capitalism.
 * We literally have Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism that already do that; there's no need to repeat what's already stated there. We also don't mention people who consider fascism socialism or Nazism left-wing; maybe you don't understand how anarcho-capitalism is considered a fringe even within libertarianism itself and outside of the Internet and memes. Being neutral doesn't mean putting climate change and climate change denialists, evolution and creationism, etc. on the same level. Why should we do this for anarcho-capitalism when the large majority of sources reject that it's part of anarchism? And if you disagree with that, then show me your own realible sources that disagree with that.
 * That really doesn't prove anything. Anyone can edit on Wikipedia and put whatever one wants; and if there's nobody to check that, the vandalism remains. Ironically, it's mentioned only to disprove the fact it's really part of anarchism.
 * That's exactly what you're doing; trusting Rothbard that his theory is "all about markets replacing the state institutions", rather than just privatising everything or make the state itself private rather than abolish it, etc.
 * Egoist anarchism also include egoist communism, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.
 * Yes, it's disputed and the consensus is that it's not anarchism. We should allow both sides of the argument only in the related articles (Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism), not in any anarchist-related article that mentions anarcho-capitalism.
 * And free-market anarchism includes mutualism and individualist anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism, which is something else. If the consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism, then it simply shouldn't be included here.
 * I invite     among others to partecipate to this discussion and state their opinion on the matter.
 * P.S. When there's a dispute like this, it's custom to keep the page as it was and not edit until the discussion is over or a consensus has been reached.--Davide King (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After a cursory read-through of both your arguments on this talk page, my initial opinion is that at least a small mention of anarcho-capitalism in this article is probably warranted, along with an explanation that most anarchists do not consider it a form of anarchism. Discussion about that certainly shouldn't dominate the article, but a small note about it seems appropriate.
 * Davide, I think the situation here is very similar to the situation with Libertarianism, where the oldest original sense of the word was a left movement, and it has since been appropriated by a right movement instead, and the proponents of the original left movement continue to contest the term's use as historically discontinuous, but in common parlance used by ordinary people who are going to be searching Wikipedia, there are just two groups both claiming the term and claiming that the other group fails to really satisfy the principles the term stands for.
 * You know my biases are toward the left, and I think of both libertarianism and anarchism as intrinsically left-leaning movements, and of right-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism as failing to live up to either libertarianism or anarchism. But from an encyclopedia standpoint I think we need to acknowledge, with appropriately small weight in the article, that the right-leaning movements do claim the terms, and link users to their articles for further detail on those. Even Anarchism itself has a small section on anarcho-capitalism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for your well thorough comment. I believe the lead already addresses this.
 * Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorism is a strand of left-wing market anarchism that has been associated with left-libertarianism in the United States, with counter-economics being its means. Anarcho-capitalism stresses the legitimacy and priority of private property, describing it as an integral component of individual rights and a free-market economy. However, there is a strong current within anarchism which does not consider anarcho-capitalism as part of the anarchist movement because anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism incompatible with capitalist forms.

As a result, the term may be used to refer to diverse economic and political concepts such as those proposed by individualist anarchists and libertarian socialists like the Europeans Thomas Hodgskin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, or the Americans Stephen Pearl Andrews, William Batchelder Greene, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren, among others; and alternatively anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David D. Friedman, or anti-capitalists like Konkin, Carson, Chartier, Roderick T. Long, Charles W. Johnson, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman and Chris Matthew Sciabarra.
 * I think this is more than enough. Free-market anarchism is used by anarcho-capitalists to refer to anarcho-capitalism itself, whereas the topic of this article is and should be the branch of anarchism (thus, excluding anarcho-capitalism or national-anarchism) that supports a free-market system within anarchism, including mutualism, individualist anarchism and certains trends of anarcho-syndicalism; and not merely anti-state free-marketism, with anarchism reduced to a dictionary definition that only means an opposition to the state, when anarchism and its movement has historically been much more than that. I also believe that we shouldn't insert anarcho-capitalism in any anarchist-related article, especially when immediately after it's stated that it isn't seen as part of anarchism; it's simply undue. This should be discussed only in the Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism articles. Any mention of anarcho-capitalism or similar anarcho- or anarchist philosophy that use the word but isn't considered part of anarchism should be removed in anarchst-related articles, except the ones in which the issues is debated. I believe the paragraphs in the lead are more than enough.--Davide King (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that bit in the lede, and I thought it sounded appropriate, but I'm not clear what state the article is currently in compared to what contentious edits this argument is over; I wasn't sure if you wanted to remove that, or if someone else just added that, or if you just removed or add something else, or what. The edit history for the article doesn't show one clear back-and-forth over one contentious bit, so can someone either link to an appropriate diff or just describe here what change exactly is being proposed or disputed? --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that part was there before and I wrote it myself. It all started today with this, then the user made a series of edits, adding the anarcho-capitalism template, etc. This was the version prior to that. I exchanged History with Left-wing market anarchism because that History was actually more appropriate for this since Free-market anarchism should be the main article and Left-wing market anarchism doesn't need a too long History section. Indeed, it wasn't neutral because it made it look like mutualism and 19th century individualist anarchism were left-wing market anarchism and free-market anarchism was anarcho-capitalism when in reality mutualism and 19th century individualist anarchism were the original free-market anarchists. As I stated above, this page shouldn't be merely about free-market anti-statism but free-market anarchism and thus only about the recognised schools of anarchism. So it all started similarly with Right-libertarianism, where one user just doesn't seem to accept that the overwhelming consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism and feel the need to put anarcho-capitalism in every anarchist-related article. I also think that "also known as free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism" should be here rather than Left-wing market anarchism because mutualists and individualist anarchists explicity referred to themselves as part of the anti-capitalist and socialist movement, when not outright proudly calling themselves socialists. While not extreme like putting fascism or Nazism in Socialism (and there've been users who did just that, not too long ago either), I think it's simply tiring and wrong to put anarcho-capitalism and then stating that a majory of sources and anarchists reject it. This isn't some 50-50 but an overwhelming consensus in favor of not recognising anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchist as part of the anarchist movement. Furthermore, free-market anarchists favors possession over property, supporting use and occupation property norms, opposing usury (profits, rents and interests) and wage slavery, etc., which anarcho-capitalism supports.--Davide King (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comprehensive response! I'll try to do the same.
 * It violates that only if you have yourself a POV in favor of anarcho-capitalism.
 * I don't have that. I also don't have a favourable view of any other form of anarchist/anti-statist theories. Although, I have a favourable views of libertarianism in general. However, on your personal page, I see you have left-leaning views.
 * Because free-market anarchism, as the anarchism advocating a free-market system and not merely an ideology like anarcho-capitalism also calling itself free-market anacrhism, is "exclusively about anti-capitalism, socialism, and left-wing politics".
 * If you're equating (and correct me if you're not) market anarchism with left-wing market anarchism you might as well propose a merger with that article. Or the article about mutualism, individualist anarchism, or anarchist economics. The other option might be to remove the article and replace it with a disambiguation page linking to appropriate articles.
 * I'm personally not convinced that the term free-market anarchism exclusively refers either capitalist or anti-capitalist theories as modern anti-state and pro-market movements include both political groups.
 * Also, regarding the page title, I think free is redundant since, if we accept that anarchism is the fullest expression of freedom, there can't possibly be a non-free form of market anarchism, and your edits removed the term market anarchism from the article altogether.
 * Because that's what reliable sources sayǃ
 * Would you mind providing them here? Please don't provide something by left- or right-wing thinkers as it'd indicate a bias. I'm looking for something like an academic, preferably peer-reviewed encyclopedia like Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
 * You keep confusing free-market anarchism for left-wing anarchism
 * I don't. As I already said, I don't think that market anarchism is inherently left- or right-leaning.
 * when the latter is mainly about neo-Proudhonian or neo-mutualists like Kevin Carson and Gary Chartier, whereas mutualism and certain strands and tendencies of both individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism fits the free-market anarchism tradition.
 * Okay? What's your point? Market anarchism can refer to mutualist theories, or not. Anarcho-syndicalism can take a market form and result in a market-based economy, or not. How does that indicate a confusion on my side?
 * Anarcho-syndicalism can both result in anarcho-communism or free-market anarchism.
 * Yes, hypothetically, anarcho-syndicalism can result in either communist society or market-based stateless society; not necessarily one or the other. That said, the majority of influential anarcho-syndicalist theorists were communists as well, like Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin. That's why I said anarcho-syndicalism was closer to anarcho-communism.
 * This is an appeal to what reliable sources actually sayǃ The consensus is that anarcho-capitalism, just like national-anarchism, isn't considered part of anarchism, period. While a few people may consider it part of it, the consensus is that it isn't and that we don't have to repeat this every time we talk about it.
 * Again, provide them. I'm not aware of such consensus. A while ago, I had a debate about the meaning of libertarianism and there was no consensus about its leanings back then. I consider both libertarianism and anarchism ambiguous on their own, and, in the political context, outside of their general meaning, I always try to include left-wing or right-wing adjectives to distinguish them. Otherwise, I find it always creates a confusion.
 * The relationship between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism should be discussed only in Anarcho-capitalism, Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism articles; there's no need to put anarcho-capitalism in every anarchist-related article, only to clarify that the majority of anarchists and reliable sources don't consider it part of it.
 * The only reason I included the template was because of the mention of Austrian School and Rothbardian views in the History section. And again, I'm not convinced that anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with market anarchism, and I'd much appreciate if you explained why you think they are.
 * This is just further proof you confuse it for left-wing market anarchism. Mutualism and 19th century individualist anarchists aren't "left-wing market anarchists"; they're the original free-market anarchistsǃ Left-wing market anarchism is the revival of that tradition with people like Kevin Carson et all.
 * At no point have I said that anywhere in my response. I challenge you to exactly pinpoint a sentence or sentences written by me that'd indicate a confusion on my side. And, FYI, mutualism is definitely left-leaning, as is geolibertarianism and agorism (which is considered as a form of left-wing market anarchism). Individualist anarchism isn't strictly left-wing, though.
 * And since anarcho-capitalism isn't recognised part of anarchism, this article should be about mutualism and individualist anarchism, left-wig market anarchism about Kevin Carson et all and anarcho-capitalism about the "free-market anarchism" you want to push here as fork.
 * I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said here. I believe you made a typo or some sort of writing error.
 * We all have poltical biases and I perfectly know mine and I'm aware of it; you don't seem to be aware of yours and just keep accusing me of bias, violating my good faith.
 * What makes you think that I'm not aware of my political biases? You can have all the biases you want, but in the perfect world of Wikipedia, the articles shouldn't reflect that.
 * You may not be biased in favor of anarcho-capitalism, but your edits certainly were
 * The only edit that might have been biased towards anarcho-capitalism was the one where I added the sidebar templates of libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism under the history section, and you undid nearly all of my edits, including ones that restored the mention of the term market anarchism, without free- in front of it, cleaned-up duplicate references, and removed terms like free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism. Not every form of market anarchism is anti-capitalist or socialist.
 * since the consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism and free-market anarchism is one branch of anarchism (mutualism, individualist anarchism, etc., but not anarcho-capitalism, or national-anarchism that also advocates mutualism).
 * Again, I'm not aware of such consensus. Also, I'm not sure about the state of consensus about national-anarchism, but anarcho-capitalism is listed under anarchism template and if there were consensus that it's not a form of anarchism, I'd imagine the template would reflect that. And, yes, I know that Wikipedia can't be treated as a source, but there should be consistency between the content that's hosted on it. If there's a consensus you mentioned, the template contains anarcho-capitalism by a mistake and it should be removed as well.
 * That's not what reliable sources say. The consensus is that anarcho-capitalism isn't part of anarchism; just because a few people may consider part of it, that doesn't change the consensus. These are just some sources: Marshall, Peter (1993). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism; Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"; Meltzer, Albert (1 January 2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow; Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism; K, David (2005). What Is Anarchism?; MacSaorsa, Iain (2009). Is 'Anarcho' Capitalism Against the State?; Wells, Sam (January 1979). Anarcho-Capitalism is Not Anarchism, and Political Competition.
 * I'm pretty sure if I dig enough, I'll just as easily find sources that consider anarcho-capitalism as a part of anarchist thought. There have been numerous anarcho-capitalist theorists throughout the history and most, if not all have considered anarcho-capitalist theory as a part of anarchism. What I'm looking for is an academic, reliable resource, like IEP or SEP, or simply a set of logical arguments that leads to that conclusion, or a talk page on Wikipedia that reached that consensus on some logical and empirical basis.
 * These aren't "my sources"; these are the reliable sources Wikipedia uses when discussing the topic. And so what? It was a simple example that just because there's the word anarcho- or anarchism doesn't make it anarchism.
 * At no point have I made that point. If that were true, it'd imply that Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic or Bernie Sanders is a socialist and many other nonsense. And once again, please provide the page on which the consensus has took place.
 * Once again, you keep confusing this for left-wing market anarchism when this is really just the original free-market anarchismǃ
 * Then the terms you've added — free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism — don't belong here.
 * How's that my bias when I merely follow what the sources say?
 * What reputable sources say the following?
 * General market anarchism is anti-capitalist, if not outright libertarian socialist
 * There's literally no mention of anarcho-capitalism, besides the lead. The Alliance between American libertarians and the New Left section is about the development of left-wing market anarchism from a left-wing reading of Rothbard before he broke with the left.
 * You're right! The history section only mentions Rothbard, not anarcho-capitalism. I should've checked that closely.
 * I don't understand what you mean, could you explain yourself better?
 * Sure. I meant that Wikipedia is more neutral ground compared to many resources that are written in favour of particular political views. The discussion can also take place on Wikipedia to ensure the neutrality; the same can't be said about many resources written by politically opinionated authors. Wikipedia also has a mechanism of settling disputes via discussion and consensus, and making changes to the articles in accordance with the consensus. As for the consistency, if we agree that it's justified to list X as a possible form of individualist anarchism, then it follows that the same can be done in the case of market anarchism.
 * maybe you don't understand how anarcho-capitalism is considered a fringe even within libertarianism itself and outside of the Internet and memes.
 * That might be true, but then anarchism (and anti-statism) in general is a fringe political philosophy by itself.
 * Being neutral doesn't mean putting climate change and climate change denialists, evolution and creationism, etc. on the same level. Why should we do this for anarcho-capitalism when the large majority of sources reject that it's part of anarchism?
 * And I'm not claiming that. I also don't have strong opinions regarding the meanings of anarchism, anti-statism, or capitalism. People use these terms differently, and I try to not think in terms of a single definition. If it's true that a large portion of reliable sources reject anarcho-capitalism as part of anarchism, then it should affect the state of consensus on Wikipedia, and hence, the content on Wikipedia, including this article and the anarchism sidebar template, because it's important to have consistency.
 * That really doesn't prove anything. Anyone can edit on Wikipedia and put whatever one wants; and if there's nobody to check that, the vandalism remains.
 * Vandal acts and mistakes can happen; that's why there are guards on Wikipedia. But let me make correction of what I said: The mere fact that anarcho-capitalism is considered noteworthy to be mentioned in the individualist anarchism article proves that it's relevant to the conversation, and if it's not noteworthy to be mentioned there, then it's there by a vandal act / mistake and it should be removed.
 * Ironically, it's mentioned only to disprove the fact it's really part of anarchism.
 * False claims can be noteworthy. The entire Young-Earth creationism article is an example of that.
 * That's exactly what you're doing; trusting Rothbard that his theory is "all about markets replacing the state institutions", rather than just privatising everything or make the state itself private rather than abolish it, etc.
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Rothbard's claim was about the absence of reliance on the labour theory of value in anarcho-capitalist theory, while it's one of the basis of the individualist anarchism. That was something you quoted as a proof, not me.
 * I don't see a contradiction between markets replacing the state institutions and privatising everything or make the state itself private as long as by privatizing the state we mean privatizing its functions, except for coercion, and as long as we agree that private property is compatible with market anarchism. Different "anarchist" schools might have different opinions about how anarchist society can look like and how can it be achieved as long as they don't violate some core anarchist principle.
 * Also, I don't think that it's an appropriate place to argue around conspiracy theories about Rothbard's hidden intentions.
 * Egoist anarchism also include egoist communism, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.
 * The point was that the labour theory of value isn't a necessarily a characteristic of individualist anarchism as Rothbard claimed.
 * Yes, it's disputed and the consensus is that it's not anarchism.
 * Let me have a look at that, please.
 * And free-market anarchism includes mutualism and individualist anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism, which is something else.
 * My point was that you incorrectly pointed to individualist anarchism. While individualist anarchism has influenced market-based anarchist theories, the mentioned theories can't be expected to be fully in accordance with individualist anarchism, let alone be a subset of it to use a principle of transitivity as you did. Even if Rothbard was right in his claim, there's no valid transitive relation that makes market anarchism a subject to the same claim.
 * Thanks for your participation to the discussion once again!
 * — Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 19:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much too for your participation and comprehensive response. I'm glad to know you found mine too. And I would like to apologise if I may have come out as patronising, but I believe this is something I'm knowledge enough and thus I'm very passionate about it. I have nothing against anarcho-capitalists; they simply aren't part of anarchism, just like national-anarchists. The ones who can be considered anarchists are in practice mutualists.
 * I don't have that. I also don't have a favourable view of any other form of anarchist/anti-statist theories. Although, I have a favourable views of libertarianism in general. However, on your personal page, I see you have left-leaning views. I haven't edited that page in over a year and I don't see how that matters anyway. I wouldn't be here on Wikipedia if I couldn't make good contribitions in a neutral manner.
 * If you're equating (and correct me if you're not) market anarchism with left-wing market anarchism you might as well propose a merger with that article. Or the article about mutualism, individualist anarchism, or anarchist economics. The other option might be to remove the article and replace it with a disambiguation page linking to appropriate articles. I'm sorry, but I think you were the one who was equating that with left-wing anarchism. As I stated before, I believe Free-market anarchism should be only about the branch of anarchism that supports a free-market system. This would include mutualism, individualist anarchism, some forms of anarcho-syndicalism and left-wing market anarchsim; anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism shouldn't be included (I think the lead does a good job in covering what free-market anarchism can refer to) as they aren't considered part of anarchism; this is the consensus I have seen here. Ironically, national-anarchism may have a bigger claim to anarchism since it actually follows mutualism whereas anarcho-captalism supports usury, opposed by the individualist anarchism it claims or represents to be.
 * I'm personally not convinced that the term free-market anarchism exclusively refers either capitalist or anti-capitalist theories as modern anti-state and pro-market movements include both political groups. That's the common name and since anarchism is an anti-capitalist movement, including both pro-market and anti-market trends that are accomunated by their anti-capitalism and opposition to usury, free-market anarchism refers to the branch of anarchism that supports or advocates an anti-capitalist and socialist free-market system. I don't deny that anarcho-capitalism has been referred to as free-market aarchism (we have a list of names in the Anarcho-capitalism page), but that doesn't mean anything or make it part of free-market anarchism, much less of anarchism.
 * Also, regarding the page title, I think free is redundant since, if we accept that anarchism is the fullest expression of freedom, there can't possibly be a non-free form of market anarchism, and your edits removed the term market anarchism from the article altogether. I agree, but that seems to be the common name and I removed it simply because it was redundant.
 * Would you mind providing them here? Please don't provide something by left- or right-wing thinkers as it'd indicate a bias. I'm looking for something like an academic, preferably peer-reviewed encyclopedia like Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. While I greately appreciate "academic, preferably peer-reviewed" sources, Wikipedia doesn't rely only on them. Do you deny or think the sources I listed you aren't reliable?
 * I don't. As I already said, I don't think that market anarchism is inherently left- or right-leaning. Anarchism as a whole is either left-wing or post-leftist. There's no right-wing anarchism or right-wing market anarchism.
 * Okay? What's your point? Market anarchism can refer to mutualist theories, or not. Anarcho-syndicalism can take a market form and result in a market-based economy, or not. How does that indicate a confusion on my side? Anarcho-syndicalism can both result in anarcho-communism or free-market anarchism. Yes, hypothetically, anarcho-syndicalism can result in either communist society or market-based stateless society; not necessarily one or the other. That said, the majority of influential anarcho-syndicalist theorists were communists as well, like Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin. That's why I said anarcho-syndicalism was closer to anarcho-communism. Thank you for this, that's exactly what I meant and I'm glad I was right about it. What you said here is absolutely right and I don't deny or disagree with any of this. Maybe you can help improving the article by adding these informations about anarcho-syndicalism. Because while I agree that anarcho-syndicalism is closer to anarcho-communism, I believe there're relevant informations about anarcho-yndicalism and how it can advocate and result also in a market-based stateless society. My point is that market anarchism refers only to recognised anarchist schools of thought, hence no anarcho-capitalism or national-anarchism. We can discuss economically both anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism and their support from free-market anti-statism in the Economics section of their respective pages, but they shouldn't be here.
 * Again, provide them. I'm not aware of such consensus. A while ago, I had a debate about the meaning of libertarianism and there was no consensus about its leanings back then. I consider both libertarianism and anarchism ambiguous on their own, and, in the political context, outside of their general meaning, I always try to include left-wing or right-wing adjectives to distinguish them. Otherwise, I find it always creates a confusion. I provided them and you can check them on their respective pages. As far as libertarianism is concerned, the consensus is to use it in broader terms while acknowledging its centenary history as anarchism and libertarian communism/socialism, while creating a Libertarianism in the United States page too.
 * The only reason I included the template was because of the mention of Austrian School and Rothbardian views in the History section. And again, I'm not convinced that anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with market anarchism, and I'd much appreciate if you explained why you think they are. Yes, but the section about left-wing market anarchism isn't about anarcho-capitalism and it's misleading. Left-wing market anarchism is a left-wing reading of Rothbard that basically endorses mutualism and rejects anarcho-capitalism.
 * At no point have I said that anywhere in my response. I challenge you to exactly pinpoint a sentence or sentences written by me that'd indicate a confusion on my side. And, FYI, mutualism is definitely left-leaning, as is geolibertarianism and agorism (which is considered as a form of left-wing market anarchism). Individualist anarchism isn't strictly left-wing, though. I apologise for that, but I thought you were making confusion about them, like when you said What political bias? You're the one who asserts that this article should be exclusively about left-wing market anarchism, and this phrase is a proof of this when I simply want this article to be about mutualism, individualist anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, which by no means are left-wing market anarchism, if that's what you think. They're the original free-market anarchism. Left-wing market anarchism is only the left-libertarianism of Carson et all, which should be included here as it's a revival of this tradition and a form of mutualism rather than anarcho-capitalism. Geolibertarianism and agorism aren't considered part of anarchism either, but rather of libertarianism, especially the American one. They may consider themselves anarchists (simply against the state) and I welcome them, I have nothing against them, but I'm not sure they're seen as part of anarchism and I have always thought of them more of the broader libertarianism.
 * I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said here. I believe you made a typo or some sort of writing error. I'm sorry and apologise if I wasn't clear. I meant to say that Free-market anarchism should be about only mutualism, individualist anarchism (both American and European), left-wing market anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, pretty much like it's now, besides anarcho-syndicalism, which I hope you can help me expand on that; and Left-wing market anarchism should be about the Carson et all school as it's now.
 * What makes you think that I'm not aware of my political biases? You can have all the biases you want, but in the perfect world of Wikipedia, the articles shouldn't reflect that. I said that only because you accused me of bias and continued to do that right at the beginning of your reply here. As I stated before, it may not be that you're biased, but your edits were. As far as I'm aware, the consensus is that anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism aren't part of anarchism and thus shouldn't be included here.
 * The only edit that might have been biased towards anarcho-capitalism was the one where I added the sidebar templates of libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism under the history section, and you undid nearly all of my edits, including ones that restored the mention of the term market anarchism, without free- in front of it, cleaned-up duplicate references, and removed terms like free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism. Not every form of market anarchism is anti-capitalist or socialist. This is the bias I was talking about. The thing is that every form of market anarchism is anti-capitalist or socialism. Anarcho-capitalism may consider itself a form of market anarchism, but it's not considered part of anarchism, so it's a form of stateless market, not of anarchism. I don't think anarcho-capitalism should be included when free-market anarchists, whether mutualists, individualist anarchists or anarcho-syndicalist, all agree on anti-capitalism, if not ouright calling thesmelves socialists, which they also did; and agree on opposing usury, which anarcho-capitalism supports or see no problem with it, just like rejecting the anarchist concern for both equality and liberty.
 * Again, I'm not aware of such consensus. Also, I'm not sure about the state of consensus about national-anarchism, but anarcho-capitalism is listed under anarchism template and if there were consensus that it's not a form of anarchism, I'd imagine the template would reflect that. And, yes, I know that Wikipedia can't be treated as a source, but there should be consistency between the content that's hosted on it. If there's a consensus you mentioned, the template contains anarcho-capitalism by a mistake and it should be removed as well. I believe that's the consensus and that's why I invited other users to see what they think. I don't understand that either and I agree with you about consistency. Anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism should be included in the template only as Issues and wikilinked to Anarchism and capitalism and Anarchism and nationalism, respectively.
 * I'm pretty sure if I dig enough, I'll just as easily find sources that consider anarcho-capitalism as a part of anarchist thought. There have been numerous anarcho-capitalist theorists throughout the history and most, if not all have considered anarcho-capitalist theory as a part of anarchism. What I'm looking for is an academic, reliable resource, like IEP or SEP, or simply a set of logical arguments that leads to that conclusion, or a talk page on Wikipedia that reached that consensus on some logical and empirical basis. Yes, there're sources that include anarcho-capitalism within individualist anarchism or confates it with it; and we do note that, but it's such a minority against the overwhelming consensus I have seen. Just because many anarcho-capitalists considered and still consider themselves anarchists doesn't mean much, especially when Rothbard himself boasted about "stealing the word from the enemy" and rejected anarchism, seeing it as full of "irrational collectivists" who "have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines". That's why I reitarate my invite to users such as     among others to help us with this and find them.
 * At no point have I made that point. If that were true, it'd imply that Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic or Bernie Sanders is a socialist and many other nonsense. And once again, please provide the page on which the consensus has took place. As I have stated, it was just an example. I think the main issue we have here is that you consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchism and free-market anarchism, whereas I don't consider it part of either, based on my research.
 * Then the terms you've added — free-market anti-capitalism and free-market socialism — don't belong here. The terms indeed belong here when anarcho-captalism isn't included and I believe it shouldn't be, besides what's written in the lead. The issue is that I don't think or believe non-recognised anarchist schools belong here, whereas you seem to think they do, or at least you don't seem to be sure about the consensus.
 * What reputable sources say the following? I gave you some, what's your issue with them? Either way, I'm sure the users I mentioned can give you more, or find sources that disagree with mine and we can confront them.
 * You're right! The history section only mentions Rothbard, not anarcho-capitalism. I should've checked that closely. That's why I didn't understand or get the anarcho-captalism template, or when you said that anarcho-capitalism was mentioned in the History section, which I believe should be expanded only with some part on anarcho-syndicalism.
 * Sure. I meant that Wikipedia is more neutral ground compared to many resources that are written in favour of particular political views. The discussion can also take place on Wikipedia to ensure the neutrality; the same can't be said about many resources written by politically opinionated authors. Wikipedia also has a mechanism of settling disputes via discussion and consensus, and making changes to the articles in accordance with the consensus. As for the consistency, if we agree that it's justified to list X as a possible form of individualist anarchism, then it follows that the same can be done in the case of market anarchism. I absolutely agree with you on this again. That's why I made these edits you found biased in the first place. I was merely trying to reflect the consensus on anarcho-capitalism not being part of anarchism. I agree that agorism and anarcho-capitalism should be removed from Individualist anarchism (they're more appropriate for Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States) and that, along with anarcho-transhumanism and national-anarchism, aren't considered anarchist schools of thought.
 * That might be true, but then anarchism (and anti-statism) in general is a fringe political philosophy by itself. Maybe, but anarcho-capitalism is considered even more fringe.
 * And I'm not claiming that. I also don't have strong opinions regarding the meanings of anarchism, anti-statism, or capitalism. People use these terms differently, and I try to not think in terms of a single definition. If it's true that a large portion of reliable sources reject anarcho-capitalism as part of anarchism, then it should affect the state of consensus on Wikipedia, and hence, the content on Wikipedia, including this article and the anarchism sidebar template, because it's important to have consistency. Once again, consistency is something I value a lot, that's why they should be removed from the template or moved in the Issues section of the template, where we can wiklink them to Anarchism and capitalism, Anarchism and nationalism, i.e. the pages where we specifically talk about why they are generally not considered part of anarchism.
 * Vandal acts and mistakes can happen; that's why there are guards on Wikipedia. But let me make correction of what I said: The mere fact that anarcho-capitalism is considered noteworthy to be mentioned in the individualist anarchism article proves that it's relevant to the conversation, and if it's not noteworthy to be mentioned there, then it's there by a vandal act / mistake and it should be removed. You're right, again. However, I wouldn't say that's enough and I still believe it should be removed. What will be next? Anarcho-conservatism? Anarcho-fascism? Anarcho-conservatism was actually created and anarcho-fascism I think redirects to Anarchism and nationalism or National-anarchism. While there may be issues with an anarchist definition, anarchism isn't merely anti-statism, that's why we don't and shouldn't put any ideology that may purposely be anti-state or advocate its abolition.
 * False claims can be noteworthy. The entire Young-Earth creationism article is an example of that. Yes, but we don't mention Young-Earth creationism in all Earth-related articles. We should mention these anarchist philosophies that aren't recognised as part of anarchism and discuss them only in Issues in anarchism or related articles, rather than mention them in all anarchist-related articles and say they aren't recognised as part of anarchism anyway.
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Rothbard's claim was about the absence of reliance on the labour theory of value in anarcho-capitalist theory, while it's one of the basis of the individualist anarchism. That was something you quoted as a proof, not me. I didn't understand what you meant exactly either, but the thing is that Rothbard also rejected the individualist anarchists opposition to usury and property, besides possession and use norms.
 * I don't see a contradiction between markets replacing the state institutions and privatising everything or make the state itself private as long as by privatizing the state we mean privatizing its functions, except for coercion, and as long as we agree that private property is compatible with market anarchism. Different "anarchist" schools might have different opinions about how anarchist society can look like and how can it be achieved as long as they don't violate some core anarchist principle. I was saying that one criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that it doesn't really support the abolition of the state but merely its privatisation, which is different. And private property is compatible with market anarchism only if you consider it as possession; that makes it property only as long as you use it; and if there's wage labour, the worker gets the full value out of it instead of going to the capitalist; and in practice most market anarchists favoured self-employment or co-operatives. Anarcho-capitalism simply violates some core anarchist principles, hence why it's not considered part of anarchism, whereas mutualism is. Supporting usury, abstentee, capitalist private property and workplace hierarchies does't make one anarchist, even if one may genuinely believe in a stateless society; but anarchism is a society that is self-managed and self-governed, based on voluntary, cooperative institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations.
 * Also, I don't think that it's an appropriate place to argue around conspiracy theories about Rothbard's hidden intentions. I'm surprised you said that when Rothbard didn't hide any of that. It's not really a controversy. It's out in the open. These were just two examples of some anarchist criticism I know about.
 * The point was that the labour theory of value isn't a necessarily a characteristic of individualist anarchism as Rothbard claimed. That's just Rothbard's opinion. He also rejected the normative claims associated to it, hence why anarcho-capitalism isn't considered part of individualist anarchism either.
 * Let me have a look at that, please. I don't have the page at hand now, but that's why I invited other users I know to be knowledgeable to help us.
 * My point was that you incorrectly pointed to individualist anarchism. While individualist anarchism has influenced market-based anarchist theories, the mentioned theories can't be expected to be fully in accordance with individualist anarchism, let alone be a subset of it to use a principle of transitivity as you did. Even if Rothbard was right in his claim, there's no valid transitive relation that makes market anarchism a subject to the same claim. I think I lost you here, what exactly are you saying? I agree with that, but I think you say that because you consider anarcho-captalism as part of individualist anarchism, which I reject? By indvidualist anarchism, I meant those anarchists that supported a free-market anarchism which are cosidered part of individualist anarchism; I didn't mean individualist anarchism as a whole, just like I didn't mean all anarcho-syndicalism, because as you correctly pointed out and I agree, it's more related to anarcho-communism, but it can result in both anarcho-communism and free-market anarchism. I'm just saying that free-market anarchism is the branch of anarchism that supports a free-market system and that anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism aren't and shouldn't be included because they aren't recognised as part of anarchism but rather as radical, stateless variants of liberalism and nationalism.--Davide King (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Responding to the ping above, is there a specific point that needs a third-party opinion? If so, can you pose it as an explicit, succinct question so I don't have to wade through the entirety of the above? (By the way, I think I have a solution for this multi-talk page "definition of anarchism/libertarianism" discussion but need some time to put it together.) (not watching, please )  czar  18:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding the consensus is that anarcho-capitalism, just like national-anarchism, isn't considered part of anarchism. Could you confirm that? What I propose is to remove non-recognised anarchist schools of thought like anarcho-capitalism in anarchist-related articles, especially when it's just inserted to state that anarchists and others don't recognise it, etc. They should only be mentioned and discussed in their main page (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism) and anarchist-related issues pages (i.e. Anarchism and capitalism, Anarchism and nationalism, etc.; and Issues in anarchism).--Davide King (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * re: "isn't considered part of anarchism", my understanding is that it's not that simple/facile. I.e., it's widely considered as not in the lineage of social anarchism but it still has overlap with anarchist principles. Better than extricating all mention is to ask what sources explicitly cover "free-market anarchism" in relation to "anarcho-capitalism" and use those sources to explain the relationship between the two, regardless of the term's lineage. But I'd start with asking what such sources exist. czar  19:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your repyǃ Why did you explicity mention social anarchism? I admit I honestly don't understand how anarcho-capitalism can be considered part of anarchism or even individualist anarchism, when the latter rejected usury, was concerned about equality and supported usufruct property norms. There were Rothbard's contemporaries who rejected him and Rothbard himself ackowledged all these differences even from individualist anarchism and that anarcho-capitalism wasn't individualist anarchism. While some writes may consider it part of it, from what I have seen the largely majority exclude it, just like national-anarchism. It's my understanding that agorism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-transhumanism and national-anarchism aren't considered anarchist schools of thought or not notable enough and hence should be removed. Agorism and anarcho-capitalism are part of the American libertarian tradition; national-anarchism of that of nationalism, if not outright fascism, notwistandhing the name; and anarcho-transhumanism doesn't seem notable enough to have its own page. I think they should be removed from anarchist-related articles and should be mentioned and discussed only in their own relative pages, like their main page (i.e. Anarcho-capitalism), issue page (i.e. Anarchism and capitalism; Anarchism and nationalism, etc.) and in Issues in anarchism page. While they may all have some overlap with anarchism, that doesn't make it part of anarchism and doesn't mean that it's anarchist; Marxism also overlaps with anarchism and we know how that went down. My understanding is that anarcho-capitalism and national-anarchism are stateless capitalism or stateless liberalism and stateless nationalism, respectively, rather than anarchist. They may use anarcho- and anarchism in their names, but that doesn't mean much as they fail core parts of anarchist principles and history.
 * Could you please show me some sources that talk about it?--Davide King (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism clearly satisfies the definition of market anarchism. To slant it toward one biased conception ("free-market anti-capitalism") is POV. Virtually all the citations are from c4ss.org, hardly an unbiased site. So I'll put in my improved intro. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Our definition is: Free-market anarchism ... is the branch of anarchism that advocates a free-market economic system based on voluntary interactions without the involvement of the state. Clearly anarcho-capitalism qualifies. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There're doubts that anarcho-capitalism is considered an anarchist school of thought of part of the anarchist movement. This page should be about only the recognised schools of thought and not any free-market anti-statism; I already stated in the lead that the term is also used to refer to anarcho-capitalism, but there's the Anarcho-capitalism page itself to discuss its economics. I hope we can find a consensus on this on whether anarcho-capitalism shoul dbe included, etc. Until then, the page should be reverted to the status quo.--Davide King (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doubts by whom? Sectarian anarcho-socialists? Even Kevin Carson admits that anarcho-capitalism is a type of market anarchism.
 * "So — again — in practice, the fact that standards for constructive abandonment would be to a large extent a matter of local convention, with a wide range of possible thresholds for abandonment from the most liberal to the most stringent, means that Lockeanism and occupancy-and-use really differ only in degree rather than in kind. Or to put it another way, Lockeanism is occupancy-and-use, but with somewhat more lenient occupancy requirements for maintaining ownership than most explicit occupancy-and-use advocates call for." - Kevin Carson, Are We All Mutualists? https://c4ss.org/content/40929
 * Market anarchist Roderick Long also agrees that ancaps are market anarchists. Only a few strident sectarians disagree. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your bias and POV-pushing is showing when you describe social anarchism as anarcho-socialism, when most individualist anarchists also described (and still do) themselves as socialists. It's not just "sectarian anarcho-socialists" who doubt that. Also you seem to confuse mutualism, which is considered part of anarchism, with anarcho-capitalism (that isn't about occupancy-and-use), which support or otherwhise isn't opposed to eternal ownership; as far as I'm aware, pretty much all anarchists agree the only legitimate property is possession and usufruct property norms. I already told you to keep the page like that until there's a consensus and that's why I hope more users can state their thoughts on the matter. Either way, your edit was unhelpful; free-market capitalism isn't used to refer to free-market anarchism and gives more important to anarcho-capitalism than to the more prominent mutualism and anti-capitalis/socialist individualist anarchism, with a much bigger and longer story.--Davide King (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * National Socialism is utterly Socialist. This is the big lie of modern historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.89.72 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and some people believe that the Earth is flat, but we follow what the scholarly consensus says on the topic. BeŻet (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2021 (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)