Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 9

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 2005 and May 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive10. Thank you. Saswann 15:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: Considering the term was not used before 1950 or so, shouldn't a section or statement be added by who coined the term and when?  Then any peculiarities of the person's meaning for the term could be stated as well.  Was Murray Rothbard the father of the term?  Just a guess.  Someone else can research, please. Carltonh 17:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term anarcho-capitalism

message: I have put Wendy McElroy on the page a couple of times only have to it taken down.  I believe the objection is that it is self-advertising (it couldn't be objected that it is factually incorrect), so I should clarify that I am Randall McElroy and no relation to Wendy.  If I wanted to self-advertise I'd talk about Catallarchy.  (I get asked about this at conferences all the time, so I understand the confusion.)  This being the case, please tell me here what other objection there could be.  If there is none, I'll put that part back.
: Yep, that is why I asked who you were when you first started editing.  Anyway, I don't think McElroy is significant enough to list on the page, but if she is going to be listed it definitely should not be as an individualist anarchist.  First, if she is really an individualist anarchist, why are we listing her on the anarcho-capitalist page at all?  Second, though she considers herself an individualist anarchist, she said some time ago that if the individualists of the past were alive today they would all be anarcho-capitalits.  In other words, by her own logic, she is an anarcho-capitalist.  That she considers this compatible with individualist anarchism is a side point really, since she would be recognised first and foremost as an anarcho-capitalist both by the anarchist individualists of today and by the anarchists collectivists.  Kev 09:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Individualist Anarchism and Capitalist Anarchism

message: Many elements of the "criticism" section are good, but they need to be reworked.  I think I'm going to start moving some of it to the libertarianism article (as discussed above with some other sections) if no one objects because they apply more broadly than just to anarcho-capitalists  Dave 19:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
: Right, because there is no reason to critic libertarianism again in an anarchy article. --Alfrem 17:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: ::: In fact it is not clear to most users on anti-state.com that there should be a difference between this terms. If you are right anyhow and anarcho-capitalism is a subset of market anarchism then the most content in this article must move to market anarchism. And here in anarcho-capitalism is only needful to explain the additions of anarcho-capitalism against market anarchism. --Alfrem 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "if anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism," and I certainly don't think wikipedia is the place to make that determination.  Anyway, since when does anti-state.com get to erase history and decide the meaning of words for people whose ideology they openly revile?  Kev 22:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kev: I disagree that anarcho-capitalism is synonymous with "market anarchism".

message: I've now reverted two different editors' versions of the first sentence today, so I feel an explaination is warranted.  In the first case, Nat's version implied that anarcho-capitalists reject all forms of government, and that they accepted "the" free market as if there is only one conception of what a free market is.  I repaired both of these errors only to find myself reverted because, according to Nat, the first sentence is not the place to explain this.  I reverted it back due to the fact that no explaination was occurring, rather I was simply leaving the language open for the possibility of such an explaination, given that in Nat's version any such explaination was already ruled out.
This, my first revert, was then changed by RJ.  He left the government part alone but tied in the affirmation of property to the free market, which I think unnecessarily clouds the issue, and then also inserted the description of AC affirmation of the free market as the "common" one.  This attribution of the "common" use of the term free market is nothing more than an attempt to load the sentence toward the bias that the market prefered by capitalists is in fact free.  As such, I reverted for the second time back to my original change of Nat's edit.  Kev 02:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain what this other kind of "free market" is, which the normal conception seems to differ from? RJII 02:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   No, because your idea of the "normal" conception of a free market is not in fact the "normal" conception of a free market, but rather a particular conception based on your own ideology.  There are a number of different variations on market economics commonly refered to as "free markets" and your attempt to conflate them all into one and call it "common" while drawing a false comparison to a single other conception by calling it "obscure" isn't helping anything.  Indeed, I doubt I can explain much of anything to you RJ, your POV warrior attitude would block any attempt.  Kev 04:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what an attitude. Given your defensiveness I suspect you aren't able to answer the question. If you want the sentence to distinguish the free market that anarcho-capitalists believe in from others, then you should be able to explain what other conception of a free market there is. Otherwise, the rest of us are left to wonder just what the hell your point is. RJII 04:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with saying "state government" out of context is that it will lead readers in the US and those familiar with US politics to believe that anarcho-capitalism is focused on abolishing those things we have instead of provinces. As for the free market, I'm not sure what Kev has in mind as far as free markets which have property but which are opposed by A-Cs. - Nat Krause 04:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Well saying that anarcho-capitalists oppose the state could also lead to such confusion, yet the article says that in several places.  Maybe a section should be created to clear up any confusion between "the state" as a form of government and "states" as a mode of government.  I will try to think of another wording to account for this possible confusion.  As to ideologies that believe in the free market and property but are opposed by A-Cs, that would be the vast majority of modern day capitalists, who consider forms of monopoly allowed by AC to interfere with the proper functioning of the "free market".  They believe that the "free market" requires government intervention at some level, because a "free market" requires "free competition" and they define such to not include forms of monopoly that ACs do include.  The attempt by some AC sympathizers to redefine the "free market" as the absence of state intervention is insincere, and it flies in the face of how the term is defined and how it is used not only by state capitalists, but even by many minarchist libertarians who believe that certain state interferance allows a "free market" to exist in the first place.  Kev 05:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "free competition" mean? It means freedom to compete, doesn't it? A monopoly is defined as a situation where one firm is the only provider of a particular kind of good or service. Just the fact that this state of affairs exists doesn't mean that the freedom to compete is not there. It could just be that no one has gotten around to offer a competing product yet. That's why there is a term called "coercive monopoly" which is one that is prohibiting other firms from competing by using coercion, either on its own or though government action. Both anarcho-capitalists and minarchist libertarians are against anti-trust. They don't believe government should interfere with monopolies unless they engage in coercion ( physical force, the threat of it, or fraud) to prevent others from competing. There is no difference in their conception of a free market. A free market is one where no coercion exists. RJII 05:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm not here to argue the point with you RJ.  The fact that there are other conceptions of the free market remains regardless of your view of the merit of the position.  The fact that some libertarians argue that a market with a monopoly is not a freely functioning market is not changed by the fact that you disagree.   Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know of any libertarians who have a problem with monopolies unless they're coercive monopolies. Libertarians like free market monopolies. RJII 16:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Heh, then you obviously don't know very many libertarians.  Oh well, are you ever going to actually educate yourself on these subjects RJ, or do you just enjoy torturing others by spewing out ignorant statements like this?  I know!  Why don't you try reading this article to see if no libertarians have a problem with so-called "non-coercive" monopolies.  Kev 17:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I really don't understand Kev's critique here. The article states that A-Cs are against the state and for free-markets-with-property. Certainly, there are lots of people who only believe in one but not the other, and those people are not A-Cs. - Nat Krause 05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   My only concern is that it be clear that "free market" is not necessarily a market with property, and that the "free market" embraced by capitalism is not "the" free market but "a" free market.  What is so hard to understand about this basic NPOV?  Kev 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: My version of the intro says that the A-Cs support property and the free market. It does not say that one requires the other, and, in fact, it would be redundant if it did. "The free market" is the normal phrase when talking about a general system; "a free market" is okay, but accomplishes no other purpose than to make the sentence less euphonious. Incidentally, the claim that capitalism is not "the" free market is itself a POV. - Nat Krause 11:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Well it does have one slight result other than making the sentence less "euphonious", it also makes it NPOV.  You know, if you care about little things like that.  And yes Nat, the claim that capitalism is not the free market is a POV, which is precisely why I have included no such claim in the article, even while the language you have used implicitly includes a claim that anarcho-capitalists do support "the" free market. Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, "the free market" and "a free market" are synonyms. The only difference is that the former is what is usually used in this sort of context. - Nat Krause 05:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not here to educate you RJ.  I've already refered you to all the sources you need to educate yourself properly on this subject.  I did so in this very talk page, with direct links to online books you can actually *shudder* read to inform yourself on this topic.  That you are asking this kind of question months later can only indicate that you have decided to continue to edit articles on the subject of anarchism while knowing next to about it.  Kev 18:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. It looks to me like you just don't know. RJII 18:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Yeah, that must be it.  I mean, not like I ever gave you any links to Proudhon or Tucker.  Not like Proudhon ever made explicit the difference between property and possession and why one was coercive while the other was not.  No, nothing like that, after all, RJ is knowledgable on anarchism, right?  So, are you ready to admit that you are nothing more than a troll?  Kev 18:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. You can't offer a simple explanation of what this alleged other conception of "free market" there is. RJII 19:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Don't you remember how you had to eat your words the last time you said that?  Kev 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. Refresh my memory  ..that is, if it's relevant to "free market." RJII 02:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Okay, let me put it in economic terms.  My explaining all of this to you, that is an investment for me.  Now, whether or not that investment is worth the opportunity costs associated with it depends on the outcome.  What do I get out of taking my time to explain the fundamentals of anarchism to you one by one?  Certainly it won't be that you will stop making bad edits, nor that you will stop making biased edits, so what is the positive outcome that will make this worth my while?  Kev 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll give me more things to dispute. But, all I'm asking for is what other kind of free market there is. You're stalling. Go do your research then get back with an explanation. RJII 02:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   My research?  lol, if you question my knowledge of the subject matter you need only look at the archive of this very talk page, where I have already laid out in full explaination for more than one person the answer to the exact question you are asking, and yet you said that -I- need to do research?  You are no longer worth my time troll, I will simply revert you whenever I feel there is a need.  Kev 02:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more evident than ever that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. I have no problem explaining basic concepts. All you can do is dodge and stall on this issue. RJII 03:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   First sentence 

message: In removing content from this page in the form of an example Aca said the following:
"This is a ludicrous and unworthy straw-man. The description as-is states the argument sufficiently."
Unforunately, while I can agree that the idea is ludicrous and unworthy, it is not a straw-man.  Not only is the argument that one could attempt to claim ownership of the air in a particular locale completely in keeping with the criticism that definitions of property may be molded in order to justify any kind of claim, but it also has precedents with several other necessities of life already claimed as owned by propertarians.  What is more, this page lists as an example of an anarcho-capitalist society the one depicted in the book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein.  It just so happens that in that society, which is described on this very page as anarcho-capitalist, the oxygen is owned and individuals must pay to breathe it.  Horrible isn't it, all the more so because it is true.  As such, I'm putting the sentence back in, even if you find it hard to look at.  Kev 09:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On determining which arguments are ludicrous and which are not =

message: Fact: The traditional "anarchist" movement that overwhelmingly claims the title is an anti-capitalist movement separate from anarcho-capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is anarchist.
"Traditional" anarchist POV: Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist.
Those are the facts and those are the points of view presented. In order to preserve NPOV, Wikipedia must not pass judgment on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. In order to preserve factuality, Wikipedia must make the factual distinction I noted above. In the latest versions of the articles anarcho-capitalism and anarchism this is the case. Since "anarchist" is the best (only) term to describe the anti-capitalist anarchists ("left-anarchist" would be a neologism and Wikipedia can't make up neologisms), I now have no problem with leaving "anarchism" as it is and disambiguating. Similarly, libertarianism disambiguates between the originally and predominantly American ideology of "libertarianism" and libertarian socialism. I offer this as a resolution to the POV dispute of the past few days.
Philwelch 10:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact, POV, and acceptable verbiage 

message: I noted that "traditional anarchistm" is called "left anarchism" in the Intro, especially by pro-capitalists. This is a true statement. Do not delete it. Just noting this to preempt what I think will inevitably be objected to if I don't. RJII 17:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Left anarchism

message: Spooner believed in private property and business. I put more details in individualist anarchism. Kev is reverting documented research there as well. RJII 20:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, out of curiosity, since Spooner was reportedly opposed to wage labor, how exactly did he operate his businesses such as the American Letter Mail Company?  Did he personally deliver all the letters by hand, himself, or did he violate his own professed principles by hiring workers to do it? *Dan* 20:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobody is claiming that he was a capitalist or supported everything about capitalism. I put in quotes from Spooner and other research in individualist anarchism with you deleted because it conflicted with your previous understanding of individualist anarchists. RJII 21:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Spooner's support of the free market is a rejection of capitalism, not support of aspects of it.  The only way to claim that is to call individualist economics capitalist after the fact, to define something like say, owning a business, as capitalist even though the individualists explicitly rejected capitalism while advocating business ownership.  And no RJ, unlike you I've actually read Tucker, so you have yet to present anything new to my understanding of individualist anarchists.  In fact, you have yet to present anything I haven't heard from anarcho-capitalists before, perhaps because you are only using their old recycled arguments.  If you doubt this, please feel free to look at the archives of this very talk page, or the archives of flag.blackened.net, or the a-list.  You could also check the archives of the ifeminist page and anarchism.net, except they didn't keep archives.  Kev 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, nobody is calling Spooner a supporter of capitalism --capitalism is not one idea, it's a combination of conditions. By the way, this is about Spooner, not Tucker. RJII 21:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, noted Scottish left anarchist Iain MacSaorsa says that "Spooner's ideas seem to fall somewhere between those of modern Libertarians and Socialists" and notes Spooners position on private property. No one is saying Spooner was a capitalist. RJII 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I agree that Spooner's ideas fall between libertarianism and socialism.  Ever heard of libertarian socialism?  So long as the text makes very clear Spooner's repeated rejection of institutions essential to capitalism, I not only have no objection to expanding on his philosophy (especially on in his own article, rather than trying to leech legitimacy from him he), but I encourage it.  Kev 22:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MacSaorsa is not talking about libertarian socialism. He's talking about modern capitalist libertarians. RJII 13:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual anarchists - private property - Kev deleting

message: This article needs a section on the influence of individualist anarchism on the development of anarcho-capitalism. Right, now it's only mentioned in the "conflicts with anarchism" section, from a left anarchist perspective and is not accurate. RJII 22:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That section used to be in the main article, but was moved to the criticism section after it was balanced by the individualist anarchist position.  And the current criticism section is mostly accurate, certainly a lot better than the historical revisionism you are currently peddling.  Kev 22:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Acted on my own advisement and put one in. RJII 21:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs section on Individualist Anarchism influence on the origin of Ancap

message: The following discussion of terminological differences was deleted by Che. It has been re-added because there was frankly no discernible purpose whatsoever in the deletion. Che claims that it is false that the differences are purely terminological. Of course he's right, but the passage never claims that the differences are purely terminological. It's purpose is to clearly delineate where the differences between contemporary anarcho-capitalists and 19th century individualist anarchists lie.
: Some of the difficulty here here may be understood as terminological: anarcho-capitalists typically use the word "capitalism" to mean the free market, i.e., an economic order based entirely on voluntary association, free of intervention from the State. Socialist anarchists, on the other hand, typically use "capitalism" to identify a system of specific economic practices prevalent in historical and modern markets. One can be an advocate of capitalism in the first sense without being an advocate of capitalism in the second sense; indeed, some anarcho-capitalists argue that government intervention creates many problems in the "capitalist" marketplace today. On the other hand, there are substantive [...]
This is a simple matter of fact about how words are typically used in two different schools of thought. It's also an important point to clarify in trying to understand how far "capitalist" a-c's of the 20th century and "socialist" individualist anarchists of the 19th agree and wherein they differ. If you have reasons to object to the way that the two sides of the terminological distinction are set up, feel free to edit the passage to reflect something more accurate, but simply deleting it in order to play up the contrast that follows it is editorially irresponsible. Radgeek 06:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and added some sentences on the terminology of "socialism." The individualist anarchists did not define it as it is defined today. It was about wage labor, not collectivism. (at least for the American anarchists ..i'm not familiar with the Europeans.) RJII 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage re-added 

message: The paragraph in this section that begins "Anarcho-capitalist also seem to think that their society would have little internal violence" is odd. If it's an ideal ancap society where no one initiates coercion against anyone else, then there's going to be absolutely no violence. But, I don't see ancaps thinking this possible. I don't think they deny human nature and proclivity to violence --that's why they are in favor of business that protects people from coercion (police, courts, etc) ..because they recognize human nature. It's not that they think violence will stop. But, it is in a Criticism section so I suppose it's ok  ..it's just a bit misguided. RJII 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense agencies and monopoly

message: This article is bloated and wordy, yet doesn't even begin to explain anarcho-capitalism. There's a link to Noam Chomsky in the first paragraph (advertising?), but David Friedmen is never mentioned. The editors don't seem to be particularly interested in the subject. Mirror Vax 01:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It's not a very good article. It's been warred over on minor points so much that nobody has time to improve the general content of the article. A lot of people are scared off from having anything to do with it at all. - Nat Krause 05:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not accurate or neutral