Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 8

message: Someone is linking the Free-market anarchism article to "individualist anarchism" article when it should be linked here. Some on anarchism talk page are arguing that free-market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism aren't same thing, asserting that capitalism is anthethical to a free-market. RJII 18:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not be redirected to either page, but if it is going to be redirected to one of the two it should most definately be individualist anarchism as that movement pre-existed anarcho-capitalism and is accepted as legitimate by other anarchists.  And again, it -does not matter- whether or not you agree with the argument that capitalism is antithetical to a free-market.  All that matters is that such an argument exists and is not blatantly self-contradictory, and that this argument was given long before anarcho-capitalism even existed.  NPOV requires that this fact be reflected in the text, and thus those who put that argument forward have far more legitimacy to claim the title free-market anarchists as they were the first to do so and very much defined what the term came to mean.  Kev 18:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, who then?  Who was the first to call himself a "free-market anarchist"? RJII 19:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Lets see, I've told you twice on the anarchism talk page, I gave you the exact book in which the collection of essays can be found, and I've refered you back to that evidence at least two more times since then.  Heck, I even 'linked to an online version of it in case you were to lazy to find it yourself', and now you are asking me again?  This is the third and last time...  In the collection of essays 'Individual Liberty' Benjamin Tucker explicitly refers to what he advocates as a form of free-market anarchism, and explicitly rejects capitalism.  Honestly, if you aren't even aware of Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, or the other individualists and their position in regards to the market, I think you should seriously reconsider your current crusade to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism.  Kev 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see them referring to "free-market anarchism."  RJII 19:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   RJ, this is ridiculous.  Are you aware that amongst most anarcho-communists the word anarcho-communist and anarchist are sometimes used interchangably?  Are you aware that in doing so the libertarian socialists are conflating their own personal take on anarchism with anarchism as a whole?  Do you think it would therefore be appropriate to refer to anarcho-communism as simply anarchism in wikipedia, and to redirect the page "anarchism" to anarcho-communism?  No, of course not.  Not only because there are other groups claiming the title, not only because anarcho-communists are not the only people advocating anarchism, but also because it would be a disingenuous attempt to redefine the terminology used by anarchists in such a way as to rule out even the very dialogue necessary to distinguish anarchism from anarcho-communism.  Now... if this is inappropriate for anarcho-communism, why is it appropriate for anarcho-capitalism?  Kev 19:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: RJII, Tucker and his circle repeatedly referred to themselves both as anarchists and as the most consistent proponents of the free market (or "Manchesterism"--meaning laissez-faire economics). This is interesting and a bit curious, in part, because they also referred to themselves as socialists and repeatedly condemned bosses, bankers, and landlords (among others). In any case: I don't know whether any of them ever used the phrase "free-market anarchists" but they certainly used the component phrases and thought all the terms involved were descriptive of them. This is also why, incidentally, I don't think that "free-market anarchism" should be redirected to the "anarcho-capitalism" page (or to the individualist-anarchism page either). "Free-market anarchism" is a broader category than "anarcho-capitalism;" you could give a good argument that all anarcho-capitalists are free-market anarchists, but Tucker et al. demonstrate pretty clearly that not all free-market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. (I've had some sharp disagreements with Kev here in the past over how to talk about the lines of influence, but it's pretty clear that describing Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker as an "anarcho-capitalist" is an anachronism, and gets at a genuine commonality between them and (say) Rothbard only at the risk of erasing or substantially distorting their important differences. Radgeek 04:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism is the same as free-market anarchism

message: Haha. Whatever. And the justification you give in your comment is that "RJII has had his way with this article too long." Real objective aren't you? RJII 18:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My justifications for the tag are listed on this very discussion page, and your attitude towards the process only furthers supports it.  Kev 01:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok. I think the colorful tag makes the article prettier. RJII 02:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Good =)  Because at this rate it'll be there for awhile.  Kev 02:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The neutrality of this article is disputed.

message: There are several factual inaccuracies in this article along with the many NPOV violations.  However, at this time there seem to be less than 5, so according to policy I have tagged individual passages rather than the article at large.  Thus, the  tag has been added to a few sections, the reasons for which follow:
*No evidence has been given for the attribution of the term market anarchism as common, furthermore the term already describes another group that is given no mention here.
:What sort of evidence would accept? I notice that there are 9,720 hits for "market anarchism" on google. Of the first 20, 18 are referring to anarcho-capitalism. The other two of are actually linking to the same article, which, unless I'm misunderstanding it, seems to be based around some new, idiosyncratic idea of "market anarchism". None of the first 20 appear to be referring to the individualist-anarchists specifically (although the first hit, Roderick Long's page, is big on them, too). I don't how meaningful you consider this sort of evidence to be, though. - Nat Krause 19:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I would consider a significant movement calling itself market anarchism to be evidence for the use of the term "common".  Kev 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say "initiate force against another if the property..." It says "initiate force against the property of another." In other words, you're not initiating force against something that somebody owns if the thing you're initiating force against is not owned by anybody. It's a logical impossibility. RJII 17:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sure, and if that was all that was being claimed the statement would be fine, but it is also saying that this conforms to the anarcho-capitalist opposition to the initiation of force against the property of another, and earlier we have already detailed that initiation of force against property of another is to an anarcho-capitalist tantamount to initiation of force against that person themselves.  In other words, the text is reading that having someone claim that a given thing is their property cannot be interpreted as aggression if that thing was previously unowned, and that it would be a logical impossibility for the creation of property from the unowned to be aggression.  A very minor change in the wording would fix this, but as long as you continue to ignore objections on your editing spree there isn't much point, thus the tag.  Kev 18:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you say I'm ignoring objections?  I'm responding to your objection right here. As far as they key tag, as I said, I like how the color looks in the article so I have no problem with it. It also gives the article a sense of radicalism which I think is attractive so I'd like to see it stay. Aside from that, the sentence doesn't mention "aggression." But, go out in the middle of a previously undiscovered jungle and wage a campaign of agression against a banana tree. *If* no one owns it, then you're not using aggression against something that's owned by anyone. Again, the sentence mentions initiation of force, not aggression. Maybe you'd rather it said "physical force" instead of just "force"?  Let's try that. RJII 19:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I can say you are ignoring objections because you roll back the edits on a regular basis.  Other than that my previous comments stand as there is nothing new you have added here.  Kev 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever, dude. RJII 02:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy disputes 

message: This is a cute little bit of racism:  Also, there is no certainty that this tribe did not steal the property, or, if they did not steal it, whether that property was stolen by others in the more distant past.
:I don't see any racism in that. It's just said to make a universal point, rather than making any judgement against Native Americans. Who knows the history of transfer of land possession in the world throughought the history of man? There is probably not one square inch on Earth that hasn't been stolen from someone else somewhere along the line. Who was the first thief? The first owner? We don't know. RJII 03:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   And my point was that this applies to all cases, including something that is claimed to have been stolen yesterday.  Kev 03:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: If we leave out mention of Native Americans and instead use a hypothetical example the concepts can be explained better. The concepts are better explained in neutral and universal terms. Also, let's assume we know that someone stole land from a "tribe" in the past.. If those people are long dead, who are you going to give the land back to? The children of their children of their children? If you think this should be done is it possible to trace this? If it is possible to trace, you aren't giving the land back to the owners but to children removed by several generations that never owned the land in the first place. How about if some of these children along the line mated with non-indians? Do they receive a portion of the land as well? There are problems. I'm sure there are are various positions from various anarcho-capitalists on this subject. But, what they do want is the establishment of private property "rights" so these seemingly insurmountable complications can be set aside and future peoples can be free from being subject to the same problems. RJII 03:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   You inserted the sentence on inheritance in this article, yet you suddenly dispute the concept of inheritance when applied to victims of theft.  Apparently and intelligent thief is legitimate in anarcho-capitalism?  Kev 03:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't put in the sentence about inheritance. It was someone else. As far as your question goes, I don't see it as worthy of response. RJII 04:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Cripes, if I used that standard with you this talk page would be blank.  Kev 06:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd 

message: Why are you opposed to letting the reader know that that "initiation of force" is distinct from force used in response to an initiation?  Believe me, many people, when they see that someone opposes "initiation of force" their first objection is "Duh. How can you defend yourself if you're against initiation of force?" Then one has to go through the whole explanation that defending oneself is a secondary use of force  ...force used when someone else uses initiatory force. This is a neutral distinction that has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism in and of itself. What is the problem? Is it that you don't get the distinction either? RJII 03:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already explained the problem above.  Anarcho-capitalists define intiation of force to include things like trepass of property, or eating an apple shoplifted from a store.  Commonly, or at the very least amongst a significant number of people, initation of force is considered to apply only or generally to the physical person, violence or restraint used against a body.  So for the article to say that they are against initiation of force when they in fact support using force to repel say, non-aggressive trespassers, or at times even to forcefully claim restitution or enact punishment on a shoplifter, is biased in favor of a conception of initiation of force that is specific to anarcho-capitalists.  The only reason I'm letting the claim stand is because it is now clearly labeled as a claim, but your import of (initiation of force as distinct from response) throws that NPOV out the window and tells the reader that yes, in fact the capitalists are always -responding- to force when they enact their little system of property domination.  Kev 04:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem oblivious to what I just said. The parenthetical thing is only telling the reader what initiation of force means. It's not saying what particular things constitute initiation of force. RJII 04:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   And as we have previously discussed, if the passage existed in a vacuum that would be fine.  But since it exists in the context of detailing anarcho-capitalist claims, and those claims involve non-normative (or at the very least non-universal) conceptions of the initiation of force, it is rather relevant not to have the text indicate that the type of force capitalists are refering to is in fact responsive.  Kev 04:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, let me make this even easier to understand. It is explaining what "initiation" means. It's not explaining what force means. RJII 04:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Quit with the snide condescention.  If you want to act like a jerkoff, go ahead and have the guts to actually voice yourself rather than hiding behind that smug air of superiority that your ignorance lends you.  That passage does -not- merely explain what initation means.  It explains what initiation of force means, and that is directly relevant to my comments.  Kev 06:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initiation of force

message: "freedom of individuals to choose their path of life, either to become wealthy, stay poor or found a cooperative." does not address initial conditions. "stay wealthy"? or "path of life with regard to choices such as work and associations."
Also, consider this. Violence is OK in defense of property, so the US Government can claim sovereignty over all US land and use violence if you are on that land and don't follow the rules. Free association is OK so we the citizens of the US are allowed to form the government FOR THIS PURPOSE. You don't want to follow our rules? GET OFF OUR LAND. Isn't that the world you say you want to live in? You ALREADY have it. Oh, you want to have sovereignty YOURSELF? Well, you can aquire it the same way EVERY nation on Earth has - declare yourself sovereign and defend that statement with SUCCESSFUL force. You want someone to GIVE you sovereignty? Yah, and I want someone to give me a million dollars. Not gonna happen. 4.250.168.94 20:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial conditions

message: That seemed to me to be the consensus of the above section.  We have several options now:
#Stripping down this page so that it contains as little redundancy as possible with libertarianism and making it just about the anarcho-capitalism aspect. (my preferred choice)
#Just fixing it up (sort of a pain and leaving lots of redundancy)
#Eliminating it and redirecting to libertarianism (probably a bad idea, but I thought I should mention the possibility)
#Something else
Thoughts?  Dave 08:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
:  Of those options I would most support the first.  The second would be okay but I've yet to see anyone spend the kind of time necessary to fix the entire article, and the one person who was about to a month or so ago got driven off, and there is no need for the redundancy.  The third one is a definate no, as anarcho-capitalism is a distinct concept from libertarianism and significant enough to merit its own page.  Kev 10:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV sign removed, cleanup sign added

message: I've removed this passage as it did not actually respond to the critique that came before it, but the content may not exist elsewhere in the article and I don't know where to put it so for the moment it goes here:  "Anarcho-capitalists typically argue that a broad classical liberal conception of private property is justified independently of the state, either by utilitarian considerations or by natural law. Thus, they argue that individuals can use force to defend a wide range of private property, and they can cooperate with others or hire a defense agency to defend whatever they can rightfully defend on their own."  Kev 10:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost passage