Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 12

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 05 and July 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 13. Thank you. Saswann 13:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

message: In the Individual Anarchist section, I going to delete the following bullet point:
*Both oppose the existence of corporations, as they shield individuals from liability.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, and I have nothing against corporations (unless they receive some kind of special privilege or subsidy from a State), nor against limited liability.  To me, a corporation is just another voluntary organization, like a commune or a partnership, that happens to be owned via "joint-stock" arrangements.  As for limited liability, this is a reasonable and voluntary arrangement whereby passive (non-decision-making) owners reduce risk.  Why should a shareholder lose his house (rather than only the value of his shares) when a CEO does something criminal?  Of course, limited liability shouldn't apply to the criminal.  A standard home loan is usually a limited liability contract.  If the homeowner defaults he loses at most the home, even if the amount owed is more than the value of the home.  At any rate, in a free society I'd expect some/most private courts to support limited liability, and even now anyone can set up a limited liability entity ("virtual corporation) in cyberspace simply by staying anonymous.  --Hogeye 04:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't do original research on wikipedia Hogeye.  I'm sure you can find some prominent anarcho-capitalists who agree with your notion,  it sounds familiar to me, so please do so and referance them and then the deletion would be fine.  Your arguments, interesting as they may be, only count if they happen to be arguments used by a significant portion of other anarcho-capitalists.  Kev 05:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One point I should make here is that a corporation (under US law) is a different animal than Rothbard's formula (this might be another sidebar definition) in that the US legal formulation limits all liability, including the corp's actions with parties not part of a "contract" ie. you are limited in your ability to retaliate against corporate "aggression" (i.e. a company tears down your house by mistake, sells a fraudulent drug that results in death, absconds with your pension.) Saswann 12:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Good.  Now you can delete the statement, though I would recommend against it for two reasons.  1) removing content is generally frowned upon, the more accepted route would be to alter the statement to show that there is disagreement in this area, and tag on of your above quotes to show that some support corporations.  Also, add part of the analysis you provided above for why and to what degree some capitalists support corporations while others do not.  Unless of course your contention is that none of them do, in which case it could be deleted.  2)  When a statement that many people believe is true is flat out delete, even if it turns out that it is false, it inevitably happens that later on a wiki reader will visit the page and put it back in, unaware of previous events.  On the other hand, if a statement is given concerning the falseness of the general impression, or the divide surrouding it, that reader won't assume that the information isn't there. Kev 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I revised the  The Contractual Society to reflect Rothbard's definition of corporation vs. the current legal definition. Saswann 12:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporations & Limited Liability 

message: :Anarcho-Capitalism is an economic philosophy developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century.  It  calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state.  It was developed as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.
I think it would require a severe intellectual contortion to argue that this is somehow unfactual or POV. Saswann 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people think Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist. RJII 14:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not true! Rothbard did the most in this time to claim the term, but he was not alone, and the Austrains were not alone. LOL. --Alfrem 14:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I appreciate your effort, Saswann, but Alfrem's right: some of the statements in the new lead are debatable. It's an improvement, but I think it would be best to go back to the version of a few days ago. - Nat Krause 14:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: How old are you? --Alfrem 18:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Anarcho-Capitalism is the term for an economic philosophy that combines anti-statist principles with a capitalist economic system. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state. The modern incarnation developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century was an attempt at a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.
Ok, no grand claims that this will satisfy any revert warriors-- but I think this addresses all the complaints voiced over the first version.  Saswann 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Anarcho-capitalism refers to an anti-statist philosophy that embraces capitalist principles. The first modern version of anarcho-capitalism that identified itself with this term was developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.
Attempt at pithy, comprehensible and accurate Saswann 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: By anarcho-capitalist's own definition, it's contained within the definition of capitalism.  And the whole free-market debate is so nuanced (got to stop using that word, someone have a better one?) that it cannot be integrated in the lead in any way that doesn't make some sort of assumption.  Leave the fine gradations for the body of the article. Saswann 14:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Lead 

message: :Anarcho-Capitalism is the term for an economic philosophy that combines anti-statist principles with a capitalist economic system. It calls for a free market, unlimited private property rights, and a society without a state. The modern incarnation developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century was an attempt at a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.
Ok, no grand claims that this will satisfy any revert warriors-- but I think this addresses all the complaints voiced over the first version.  Saswann 12:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt #2 

message: :Anarcho-capitalism refers to an anti-statist philosophy that embraces capitalist principles. The first modern version of anarcho-capitalism that identified itself with this term was developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th Century as a synthesis of Austrian School economics, classical liberalism, and Individualist anarchism.
Attempt at pithy, comprehensible and accurate Saswann 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By anarcho-capitalist's own definition, it's contained within the definition of capitalism.  And the whole free-market debate is so nuanced (got to stop using that word, someone have a better one?) that it cannot be integrated in the lead in any way that doesn't make some sort of assumption.  Leave the fine gradations for the body of the article. Saswann 14:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd time the charm? 

message: Alfrem, traditional individualist anarchists and some classical liberals advocate a "free market" but don't believe individuals should be granted title to unused land. A landlord charging someone rent for land that he didn't have a choice of being born on is tantamount to being a government. He didn't agree to choose to have a landlord or not. Rent was imposed on him. That's basically the reasoning. So, it's arguable whether "unlimited private property rights" are consistent with a "free market." You could be right in your point, but in order to differentiate between other philosophies that say that advocate a free market, i think it makes sense to state explictly that there is there is no ethical limitation of private property in anarcho-capitalism. Besides, capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production with decisions being made in a free market. Just saying "free market" is not quite enough. RJII 20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, "unlimited" is vague and misleading.  I.e. Some anarcho-capitalists believe that IP (intellectual property) is valid, other's that it is simply a monopoly  enforced by State.  So something like "neo-Lockean" may be better.  There is still an ambiguity (sticky property permissable vs. sticky property only), but no need to open that can of worms in the intro. "Propertarian free-market" may be best.  Hogeye 21:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is all too complex in the intro. The intro should hold only the important things, no insider-wording or misleading terms. --Alfrem 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  Hogeye, I think you're trying to embed too much nuance into the lead.  Because the lead is only a few sentences, it is going to be a generalization.  The body of the article is where we should get into markets and property issues specific to the issue at hand.  In fact, looking at my own current rewrite, I wonder if the phrase "calls for a free market and unlimited private property rights" &c. is needed at all anymore.  Saswann 12:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: free market and unlimited private property rights

message: I just wanted to tell Alfrem that my revert was not personal.  I'm actually glad that there's a Non-aggression principle article now.  However, I'd ask for a little more care next time, a lot of that section was Ancap-specific, and does not belong in a general article on this segment of libertarian thought. (Unless it becomes a much broader article surveying all the philosophies that adhere to it.)  Also, just dropping the section was removing content that was central to the article— unlike, say, the tangent about Crypto-anarchism— the principle is essential to understanding the whole. Saswann 17:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see only one ancap-setence: "The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom." The rest is also important for libertarians and should not hold in this article due to redundancy. --Alfrem 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The general points are now in the general article.  The Rothbard quote belongs in the Ancap article as a citation showing an Ancap philosopher upholding the principle, and the remaining sentence is needed so that the non-aggression axiom is actually defined in this article. Leaving only the phrase "non-aggression axiom" with no accompanying explanation or citations is really opaque style. Saswann 19:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-aggression principle 

message: It is well written, has nothing to raise the wrath of my anarchist (broadly socialist) principles ('cept the fact that it is claimed that anar..., but you address that).  Thus I would like to congratulate the editors.  
--harrismw 04:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for the kind words.  A lot of editors have done a lot of work to bring this article up to snuff, and I think a lot of the disputes over content have been comparatively well mannered-- if extraordinarily wordy :) Saswann 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am impressed with the quality of the aritcle 

message: I'm putting this up for peer review since (aside from the recent debate over the lead) the form and content seems to have stabilized Saswann 15:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: "This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchisim."
I don't agree with this.  Many collectivists believe in possession property, which was also presumably appropratiated originally.  A bigger difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism is in the abandonment criteria.  Broadly speaking, ancaps keep their property until and unless they consent to trade or gift it, while ansocs keep it only as long as they are using it.
I'm going to think about this and probably revamp this section, renamed "Property Theory" or some such.  Maybe I'll include that property system comparison table:
	<TABLE BORDER="3" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="12" ALIGN="center" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
		
		
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=240><B>Anarchist Schools</B>
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=140>Collectivist
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=140>Individualist (traditional)
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center" WIDTH=140>Anarcho-Capitalist
		</TD>
		</TR>
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Is land legitimate private property?
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">No
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes (qualified)<BR>
*as long as owner uses it<BR>
*it can't be used as collateral.
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes
		</TD>
		</TR>
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Are man-made capital goods<BR>
		legitimate private property?
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">No, in most cases.
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes
		</TD>
		</TR>
		<TR>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Is it immoral to collect profit<BR>
		from capital and interest?
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes.<BR><FONT SIZE="-1">It's a crime, and<BR>
		should be expropriated in most circumstances.</FONT>
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">Yes.<BR><FONT SIZE="-1">It's a vice, but<BR>
		should not be expropriated.</FONT>
		</TD>
		<TD ALIGN="center">No.<BR><FONT SIZE="-1">It's permissable,<BR>
		and generally a virtue.</FONT>
		</TD>
		</TR>
				
	</TABLE>
Hogeye 22:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original appropriation