Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 14

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 05 and Nov 05.
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/Archive 15. Thank you. --Saswann 15:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

message: RJ mentioned he didn't know how notes were being used in the article, here's the rundown 
It's pretty simple.  There's a refrence template  and a note template  that link to each other.  The trick is:
#placing the notes in a numbered list that's in the same order as the citations in the body of the article
#naming all external links ( a link like  will throw off the numbering, Footnotes  is ok. 
Saswann 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I hadn't been able to figure out how that worked. RJII 17:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI - Notes in the article 

message: How would people feel if I deleted the postage stamp, moved the  Libertatis Æquilibritas out of the lead, and moved the Collingwood painting to the lead? The postage stamp was simply the best PD/free image of the Althing that I could find, and the Collingwood painting is obviously much more vivid and interesting to look at. Personally, I feel that the Libertatis Æquilibritas has zero charisma as an image for the lead, and contributes needlessly to the impression that anarcho-capitalism is purely theoretical. I realize that the article is due to be frontpaged on Sep. 9, and it looks like Raul has already chosen the Libertatis Æquilibritas as the frontpage image; I see that as an unrelated issue, and I don't think the Collingwood painting would iconify as well.--Bcrowell 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My only objection would be the fact that the painting is a bit oddly shaped for the lead, and needs to be fairly large to see the detail.  It might overwhelm the lead section.  Where it is, it's balanced by the massive weight of the surrounding article :) BTW, I like the stamp on my browser it fills a void opposite the TOC that would otherwise be a vast white space-- perhaps move the Collingwood picture there? Saswann 12:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you mean one currently living?  Because Murray Rothbard is already on the page . MrVoluntarist 01:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you expand on that a bit? If you're referring to the Althing picture, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Looking at it, I don't see anything that clearly shows "opposing sides"; also, although a lot of people in the picture are wearing blue, there's no obvious reason to think they're wearing uniforms. - Nat Krause 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he means  in the Crit section. And, while I agree that it is flawed in the way described, but it is very difficult to find PD photos illustrating abstract concepts.  This was the best example of "economic violence" I could find in the commons.  I don't think the flaw is that severe in that it's illustrating the critique of economic power relationships, and not a critique about statelessness. Saswann 12:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I removed this phrase from the intro sentence because the article itself explains that the definition of anarchism is disputed.  In fact, there's an entire article on the subject.  I must also express a general complaint about the use of the word "technically".  There really must be some technical definition underlying that sort of claim. Perhaps a law or official policy of some organization - as opposed to a "most people don't think that counts" kind of definition. -- Beland 02:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not technically anarchism" 

message: Please note that von Hayek and the Austrian school is neoliberal/ordoliberal and while anarcho-capitalists read their writings their ideology has very little common with the classical ordoliberalism. Today neoliberal is a bashing word for the ideology of anarcho-campitalism or neoconservatism. It is simply wrong to call v Hayek and the austrian school an anarcho-capitalist. - anon
:Fortunately, the article does not say that Hayek was an ancap. A lot of the current Austrian School is ancap though. - Nat Krause 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  von Hayek 

message: What is to prevent an Anarcho-capitalist society from devolving into uncontrolled violence, as individuals unconstrained by a common enforcement power struggle for wealth and influence?--M@rēino 15:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing --mitrebox 17:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The state of affairs where the forces trying to defend against aggression are stronger than the forces trying to aggress. If consumer demand is greater for defense of liberty than initiation of coercion, then defense would have the upper hand. RJII 17:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I see. So "consumer demand" will "stop the forces". Righty.  So let's say I purchase a discount missile from the recently privatised nuclear stockpiles and fire it at your city. What are you going to do? Bundle your citizens' collective "consumer demand for defense" into a force field? Get real. Talking about misplaced context ...  -- Etusalikii 19:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't contract with others to allow each other to own nukes, out of self-interest. I think the reverse would happen --people would contract to refrain from obtaining nukes, out of their own self-interest. If you didn't contract as such, you would not receive the services of being protected from aggression. In that case you would be fair game for any force that wanted to stop you from obtaining nukes. I think this would hold for anarcho-capitalists that base their philosophy in egoism and contract. If an anarcho-capitalist thinks that people have a right to own nukes under "natural law" that says no one has a right to initiate coercion against anyone for any reason then I can see that being problematic. So, you do bring to light something that's lacking in the article. It's not mentioned that not all anarcho-capitalists believe a prohibition against initiatory agression exists as natural law. Some believe that such a prohibition can only exist out of contract. RJII 04:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence 

message: Someone with an understanding of objectivism and anarcho-capitalism, and how they relate, should take a look at the objectivism section of this article.  It reads to me like someone's propagandizing for Rand but I don't know enough about either to tell for sure.  I've added links and did some minor editing.
forgot my sig: --Andymussell 20:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  objectivism 

message: Article very interesting, started reading it and noticed there were are few hotlinked articles that haven't been written.  I started a basic one for Frank Chodorov, so if someone with a better understanding could fill his article out , plus add any extra unwritten articles. rakkar 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand on related articles, spec. Frank Chodorov 

message: Use this name, and you have a correctly identified social theory. I know that anarchism can be mutually exclusive of socialism, but usually the two are combined in practical anarchist theory. The anarchist movement does not need this article right now; it's name has already been defamed by countless post-Katrina headlines. I feel that wikipedia has been irresponsible in featuring this article. Why poromote sterotypical ideas of what a social theory is when the main funtion of this technology is to share information? (Especially when this website is itself operating in an anarchist manner by allowing all people to add their perspective and knowledge to the community.)
:Well, Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy, so that's not an aim of the site.  If the function of the site is to share information, why do you want a particular piece of information (that is, combining statelessness with capitalist free enterprise rather than socialist collectivism) to be suppressed? *Dan* 00:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
::You know, a lot of people can't conceive of socialism or communism without a government and find them much more exploitative than capitalism could ever be.  If you don't like what the featured articles are, you can always look at articles as they're being nominated from the featured article page and vote on whether to give them featured article status.  You can even look into the future to see featured articles before they get placed on the front page.  So if you had objections, then was the time to voice them. Btw, are you the one who's been vandalizing the page?  If so, please stop.  That's really immature. MrVoluntarist 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What Dan and MrVoluntaryist said.  Also, calling anarcho-capitalism "stateless fascism" is really quite bizarre.  Not only is that an oxymoronic phrase (fascism is all about glorification of the state - Mussolini, in the article you linked: "For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative"), but capitalism is not fascistic.  To an extent, I can understand socialists refferring to capitalism as "kleptocratic"; even saying it leads to de facto feudalism is understandable.  But "fascist"?  Don't you realize how absolutely ridiculous that is?  Even for someone with an admitted bias, that is beyond the pale.  And Wikipedia is not about promoting the ideals of anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists for that matter) - it is simply about the distribution of information.  I find your advocacy of the suppression of information to be rather authoritarian, personally.  --Academician 02:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "anarcho-capitalism" may be an unfortunate coinage in the view of "traditional" anarchists (a point that the article goes on for a whole section for, which has also spawned another whole article) however, it is one used in academic discourse by about half of the 40 some citations.  It is also the most common self-identification used by its proponents.  I think a moment of reflection by any serious editor would consider the renaming this article to conform to the spur-of-the-moment coinage by a single anon user, a coinage that has no usage other than a wikipedia talk page, would be an ill-conceived move.  You are entitled to your opinion, however this article is not about your opinion, or about collectivism.  It is about an economic philosophy that rejects the premises you operate from and is therefore incapable of adhering to your worldview.  Sorry, but there are significant economists that don't buy your argument Saswann 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  try" Stateless [[Fascism]]" 

message: I have removed from the article some recently-added critiques. There are two reasons. First, a Wikipedia article is not designed to be a back-and-forth series of claims, counterclaims, and rebuttals; controversial articles like this one tend to spiral in that direction. Second, these passages are not written in very good NPOV style, but state some critical opinions as facts. Removed content is as follows:
:History does, however, show that in societies of unevenly distributed wealth, those with money do not really act in a charitable manner to those without. It might take several very  civil wars before the wealthy people in an anarcho-capitalist society realize that looking after the poor is in their own interest. Still, even in our modern society, many states exist where the wealthy ruthlessly dominate the poor and show no sign of changing their attitides, despite frequent uprisings.
Comments: to say that "history" does or does not show that is necessarily a huge generalization. "Civil war" is a nonsequitur in a stateless society. Anyway, mostly nobody expects anarcho-capitalism to result in a society which is based on rich people subsidizing poor people out of the goodness of their hearts. The last sentence about rich people employing state power in their interests is irrelevant to the subject of this article.
:[The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" (gun control), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all.] The problem with this argument is that there exist several "economic" ways for a wealthy upper class to keep large numbers of poor people in check, even if weapons are sold freely. The possibilites include hiring other poor people to fight as badly-paid mercenaries, using expensive high-tech weapons such as tanks and helicopters that the poor cannot fight with their shoestring budget or establishing a mafia-like system of fear and control.
:Historically, people without the money to buy arms and the time to train with them were always at a disadvantage, even if weapons were available for sale or could be easily made. The French revolution worked only because many poor men had military training and because guns could be taken from government arsenals in large numbers. If this is not the case, an armed insurrection by the poor would be unsuccessful. Moreover, the price of military gear in our world is influenced by the fact that governments buy huge amounts to equip their armies. In an anarcho-capitalist world without huge citizen armies, the price for guns could be much higher. Moreover, wealthy owners of private armies could easily influence the sale of firearms by boycotting any gun manufacturer who sold freely to the poor. This would limit the poor to cheap low-quality arms (perhaps homemade zip guns or weapons like the Sten submachine gun).
Comments: It's not clear what "economic" means in the above. The anarcho-capitalist argument is that is quite likely that any situation involving "Group X keeping Group Y in check by illegitimate violence" would not be economical at all; i.e., it would not be profitable. Moreover, this passage, like the above, appears to operate on the assumption that a society will naturally tend to experience "war" (something resembling what we know as war), with the sides breaking down by social class, which is hardly a proven fact; certainly, this is something that we see a lot in the politics of states, but it's not at all clear how an elite class would coordinate their efforts in the absence of a state; they could just as easily wind up fighting each other. "Historically ..." begins another quite dramatic historical generalization, followed by yet another, viz. a hypersimplistic account of why the French revolution worked (note that this, insofar as it was a popular rebellion, consisted of a group of non-state actors fighting against a state). As for the price of guns, because a gun is not a public good, we can predict with some confidence that the price will always match the demand pretty closely. - Nat Krause 12:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed critiques

message: Saswann, you deleted the claim that "individualist anarchism" was a term for anarcho-capitalism. Individualist anarchism includes individualists that espouse the labor theory of value as well as those that hold the subjective theory of value. There are anarcho-capitalists who simply refer to themselves as "individualist anarchists." One notable anarcho-capitalist that comes to mind is Wendy McElroy. Here is an interview where she says "I am an individualist anarchist." http://gibe.com/forum/messages.asp?forumid=27&topicid=6370&pagenum=2 RJII 14:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not disputing that it might be used by some ancaps, but placing it there ignores the fact that it is a highly contentious assertion.  It is not strictly an alternate term, but als refers to a seprate philosophy.  It makes as much sense as putting "anarchism" in that box.  Technically true, but also highly misleading and soaked in POV.  The box should be limited to terms that, if existed as articles, would be sutible redirects to this article.  Saswann 14:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By that reasoning you would have to also remove "market anarchism," "stateless liberalism," "private property anarchism," and "voluntarism," As the 19th century individualists are also called those things, especially "market anarchists" which is a very popular term for them. RJII 16:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess so. . .  though there may be a better way to deal with it.  I'm going to try a slightly different format.  Saswann 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I think I have a workable solution.  BTW, it would be nice if you turned that McElroy refrence into a note in the text. Saswann 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: individualist anarchism as a term for anarcho-capitalism

message: I've got nothing against Walter Block, but I'm given to wonder periodically why he is single out (in addition to Rothbard) in the intro as the co-founder of modern ancap thought. What makes Block's role different from that of Rothbard's other founders and cohorts, or from that of David Friedman, the Tannehills, Robert Le Fevre, etc.? - Nat Krause 04:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Walter Block

message: I deleted this section:
However, Somalia is far from being a paragon of anarcho-capitalism, as it is lacking in sophisticated systems of private protection of individual liberty and private property from criminal elements. Such systems have not yet developed, hence, crime is rampant in some areas according to some news reports. However, those wishing for protection from bandits may pay security guards or even warlords for protection. There is, however, a rudimentary legal system which has been called "a free market for the supply, adjudication and enforcement of law."  It remains to be seen if private solutions develop to the point of providing high quality security. 
Is wrong because it is not true. There is a full private right enforcement in Somalia as reported in Van Notten's new book. Furthermore, it makes no prove to show some "warlords" news as evidience of lawlessness. --Irgendwer 19:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Somalia POV

message: I agree that the Somalia section needs to be cleaned up.  For example, the claim that "Nevertheless, though Somalia continues to be a poor country that has been ravaged by civil war, the number of individuals living in abject poverty (individuals living on less than $1 per day) has diminished" is not sourced.  If it is meant to be sourced from the world bank report that follows, then it is not supported, as that report only gives the info for a single year, so there is no way to see if it has grown or diminished, only that it is slightly less than neighboring countries.  It would probably also be more balanced to not that while the abject poverty statistic is 7% less, per capita income is about half and access to safe water is 1/3 (which the report blames in part on the absence of government).  The section also refers to education being private, but doesn't mention that enrollment is 65% lower in Somalia than neighboring countries.
There is also a general tone to the Somalia section that seems to skirt POV issues.  For example, while the text reads, "One business sector that is said to be doing especially well is telecommunications." and goes on to note that there are even internet cafes, the article it sources reads that the telecommunications industry is one of, "Somalia's few success stories in the anarchy of recent years."
There is little way of knowing how much the statistics offered are influenced by Somaliland or Puntland, in which clan rule (i.e. a state) extends over several regions.  Several studies have indicated that data from Somalia is hard to get and generally inaccurate, as shown by the lack of economic data in the world bank database  (from which these figures were taken), and the contradiction that can be seen in figures like the literacy rate estimated by the CIA factbook (38% 2001) versus the world bank index (81% 2003).  As the CIA factbook says, "Statistics on Somalia's GDP, growth, per capita income, and inflation should be viewed skeptically."  
There have also been considerable donations to regions of Somalia by outside states such as the EU, Italy, and the US, to shore up their infrastructure, while its debts have continued to grow, so it is difficult to know how much of there development is from lack of a state or from the presence of foreign state investment.  Finally, many of the world bank's report have not been glowing concerning the state of the economy, "Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, a situation aggravated by the civil war and the absence of a functioning national government for more than a decade.  The impact of state failure on human development in Somalia has been profound, resulting in the collapse of political institutions, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure, and massive internal and external migrations."    
In other words, some of the claims made in the article aren't supported by the data being cited.  I'll clean it up myself if no one else bothers, just wanted to give a heads up for the reasons first.  Revkat 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia 

message: Not to shout, but recent edits severely screwed up the footnote numbering.  Please note the following when placing references in the document:
#Do not EVER put an unnamed off-site link in the article.  They throw off the footnote numbering within the article.  I commented out half a dozen.  I am making no calls on the value of the references in themselves, but please name them if you feel they should be included.
#When adding a footnote, be sure that the note at the end of the article is placed in the correct position!  The notes in the table need to be in the exact same order as the references in the article.
'''
This might seem a little anal, but this is a featured article, and messing up formatting like this makes the whole thing look amateurish, which shouldn't be anyone's goal here--Saswann 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE BE CAREFUL FORMATTING CITATIONS! 

message: May I suggest the following clarification to the non-aggression axiom.  The text following the Rothbard quotation, as presently written, is cluttered and confusing.
First, the prescription against the "initiation of force, or the threat of force" is ambiguous, because it can be taken, incorrectly, to mean that the "initiation of the threat of force" is forbidden.  In a more precise formulation, this prohibition should clearly not apply to a threat to DEFEND one's person or property by force, regardless of whether the threat is made before or after someone else acts aggressively.  In other words, when distinguishing between initial and defensive force, the correct equivalent of "initial force" is the "threat of initial force."
Second, "fraud" should be made more clearly equivalent to "force."  Indeed, the purpose and result of both force and fraud are the same:  they are used to change another person's conduct.  Fraud differs from force by merely this:  the perpetrator of fraud changes his victim's conduct by intentionally creating a false reality in the victim's mind, i.e., if the victim had not been defrauded, then he would not have changed his conduct unless he had been compelled to do so by actual force.  Therefore, fraud, like the threat of force, is the psychic equivalent of force.
Therefore, I would rewrite the non-aggression axiom thus:  "One should neither initiate force or fraud, nor threaten to initiate force (threats and fraud being the psychic equivalents of actual force), against another person or his property."
Any objections or other comment?  LEKulp 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point. It's a threat of initiating force that's forbidden --initiating a threat to use force isn't itself forbidden if the threat is to use force to defend oneself. But also, it needs to be clear that it's physical force. "initiate physical force..." RJII 02:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have a problem calling it an "axiom" as well, because like you said it implies that it's self-evident. Also, it intimates natural rights, which not all libertarians believe in. It's alternatively called the "non-agression principle," so we could use that. RJII 03:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Aggression Axiom--Proposed Clarification