Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 4

message: I notice that one aspect of the present revert war is repeated back-and-forth sniping over the first sentence of the third paragraph: one side insists on anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism; the other side insists on anarcho-capitalism as "claimed to be" a form of anarchism.
Of course, the problem with the former is that it is a tendentious claim for anarchists who conceive of capitalism as inherently hierarchial, and conceive of economic bosses as just as subject to anarchist critique as political bosses.
The problem with the latter is that it replaces the tendentious claim with another one, while claiming neutrality. (Replacing "X is a form of Y" with "X is claimed to be a form of Y" superficially appears neutral, but carries a pretty clear implication that the claim in question is spurious. Imagine if an anarcho-capitalist went through a page on Kropotkin, and, allegedly to maintain NPOV, changed all the descriptions of Kroptotkin as an anarchist to descriptions of Kropotkin as a "putative anarchist" or "so-called anarchist".)
Of course, this mostly highlights the difficulties attendent on writing NPOV articles about bodies of ideas where the logical implications of those ideas are contested. But perhaps there is something of a middle ground available. The language I've suggested is to restate it in terms of anarcho-capitalists' self-description. "Thus, anarcho-capitalists describe their position as a form of anarchism, in the sense of anti-statism..." That anarcho-capitalists so describe their position could hardly be denied by either side; and noting the self-description leaves open the question of whether or not the description is accurate, without leaning in one direction or the other.
I've also made some other changes to the third paragraph. One of these changes is a matter of logical structure: I relocated some material from the second paragraph into the first sentence of the second paragraph, in order to elucidate what anarcho-capitalists mean by rejecting the state, and how it is a consequence of their position on markets and property. Another is to slightly flesh out the distinction between both positions and the colloquial use of "anarchy." 
Another of these changes are related to NPOV. Since part of the debate on these issues is related towards whether or not anarcho-capitalists can be seen in continuity with individualist anarchists, it's tendentious to identify anti-capitalist anarchism with "traditional" anarchism simpliciter. Similarly, I have no idea whether most modern-day anarchists are anti-capitalist or anarcho-capitalist, and I doubt that there is any verifiable data on whether or not this is true. Better to say "many" and to link it explicitly to the traditions from which these criticisms come.
I doubt that anything we could come up with will resolve all points in this dispute or make everyone happy. But I hope that the introduction of a fresh perspective may make some progress possible.
Radgeek 19:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt at peace... 

message: O.K., so it took me a bit longer to come back to this page than I had thought. Some more comments on Kev's comments are interleaved. Radgeek 15:17, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec 13 

message: Hi folks. I'm not going to get involved in this debate, I'm just passing on something I put in The Machinery of Freedom and then decided would probably be better here. When you decide what you want to do with the article, you may want it.
:Vernor Vinge published a short story, "The Ungoverned", set in a society based on the principles outlined by Friedman and focusing on how it would deal with crime, disputes, and invasion.
Cheers, Tualha 01:41, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec 20 

message: This phrase:
:Indeed, individualists would argue that a market which included usury and wage labor would not be free at all, and therefore relationships within could not be based on voluntary association.
has been struck from the discussion of points of agreement and disagreement between individualists and anarcho-capitalists; it is an inaccurate representation of the individualist position. (Tucker, for example, did not regard interest, rent, etc. as actual invasions against individual liberty; he regarded them as exploitative arrangements that were propped up by other, genuinely invasive institutions--such as government restriction of competition in banking and money, illegitimate restriction of homesteading on unused land, etc.)
::  Assuming this is correct (and I'm not so sure, I remember a quote of Tucker saying that usury deprived individuals of their earnings, and I have trouble believing that he thought a direct restriction of the collection of those earnings (i.e. rent, interest, etc) which is upheld by force would not be an invasion against their liberty), it still doesn't seem to apply to the above passage.  As the article exists, it misleadingly conflates the "free" market that capitalists refer as the same one that individualists refer to, drawing a much closer illusory parallel then the evidence actually calls for.  Individualists do not think that a market which includes capital relations is "free," many of them have said so many times, I would be happy to provide quotes if necessary.  Further, the belief that capital markets are not "free" markets is not limited to Tucker.  Are we in agreement that individualists did not view capital as a part of "free" individual relations?  If not, I'd be happy to provide the evidence, if so, I don't see what is wrong with the edit.  If you are worried that it states or implies something other than this, then please rework it.  To simply delete it instead is to prefer one form of misrepresentation to another.  - Kev 01/03/04
It's right to say that Tuckerian individualists would sharply criticize the claims of some anarcho-capitalists about the "voluntary" nature of corporations, etc., and argue that the exploitative nature of certain key "capitalist" arrangements has to color the understanding of certain arrangements as "voluntary" or "involuntary." But it's not right to put it in the way it was put here. I am trying to think of a better way to put this point; I'll post again if I come up with something.
Radgeek 01:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan 2