Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 16 October 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Note to editors:

• Please keep your edits concise. Ie, do not overload the page. (eg. "anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism" section.)
• Please do not spam sources promoting one view. (eg. "list of sources saying anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism".)
• Try to Write for the enemy. (eg. do not write sections which wholly argue for the pro-ancap view.)

Archives

• /Archive 1

Things to do

• The article is a spam of links to anarcho-capitalist sites/articles. These should be removed.
• "social hierarchy" could do with expanding since this is the major anti-capitalist argument
• "property" needs a little more on social anarchists' views of private property. the last two paragraphs of that section should probably be condensed down.
• "markets" should probably contain social anarchists' views of exchange
• "egalitarianism" and "use of force" requires social anarchists' views
• "defence" also requires social anarchists' views, or perhaps counterarguments against private defence
• "profit and theory of value" to me is all POV bullshit. I haven't heard of anything like this; I think it could just be deleted.
• "similar philosophies" could do with cleanup; not sure how bad it is, haven't looked at it

-- infinity0 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Literal interpretation of "anarchy"

Article reads:

Both social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists note that "anarchy" etymologically means "without rulers". Anarcho-capitalists interpret this literally to mean no political authorities; while socialist anarchists generalize "archon" leniently to mean any authoritarian structure.

I'd rather say that the socialist anarchists interpret it literally, while anarcho-capitalists use the word in its more narrow sense. Also, claiming that socialist anarchists generalize "archon" is one thing, but that they do it "leniently" is slightly POV, without doubt. Opinions? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --AaronS 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we would leave out adjectives since it's obvious POV. -- Vision Thing -- 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Word. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Levy

Why is reference to Levy removed? -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True form of anarchism?

After looking over this article I just have to laugh at all the writing devoted to disputing whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It's ok to mention a dispute but it goes on to a nauseating degree. I don't think most readers coming here for information care about the dispute over whether any philosophy put forth as a type of anarchism is a "true form of anarchism." TheIndividualist 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably true. But, then again, the issue has never been over whether or not anarcho-capitalism exists or calls itself anarchism. The issue has been about anarcho-capitalists attempting to give themselves an anarchist "pedigree" by retroactively injecting themselves into anarchist history, which is just as silly. --AaronS 01:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They do have an anarchist "pedigree." They come from the US where individualist anarchism originated. Rothbard was turned on to individualist anarchism by Tucker and Spooner. He accepted the early individualist anarchist support for a free market. The difference is he disagreed on what the consequences would be. He though a free market would still have profit. Tucker and Spooner thought competition would eliminate profit. But, of course that's flawed economics. The system that the early individualists want to implement would still have profit. The labor theory of value is erroneous. There is no natural reason that laissez-faire would eliminate profit. There is nothing exploitative about profit. They were fooled by the labor theory of value which was popular at the time. Economics has advanced since then. Any individualist today that tries to hold on to the labor theory of value is embarrassing themselves. TheIndividualist 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to know your position on individualist anarchists, Mr. sock puppet. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pedigree" is a straw man that amounts to exactly the same argument: "ancap is a true form of anarchism"/"no it isn't". To put a finer point on it: ancaps claim influence from particular strains of anarchism, and other anarchists say that their claim is too tenuous to credit. That's it. Arguments about "pedigree", and "tradition", and "real anarchism" all devolve to the same issue-- which is the defining issue that divides ancaps from anarchism in general, which is the point of this article, so it seems a legit topic to go on and on about. . . --Saswann 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that anarcho-capitalism was influenced by early anarchism. And there's no doubt that anarcho-capitalists support private property and a free market. There is no doubt that they differ from anarcho-communists on that. There's no doubt that anarcho-capitalists don't think profit is exploitation. There's no doubt that they're different from all the other anarchists on that account. That's why their philosophy has its own name. What more needs to be said? IndividualistAnarchist 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I reallyt dubt ancap was influenced by any form of anarchism at all. My theory is that it was thought up by some US college boys who only learnt about anarchism from a pocket dictionary. // Liftarn

I'd say that's an exaggeration. There are definitely some anarchist influences, but they are only a small part of it. Really it's just American-style libertarianism with a bit more teeth. It does seem really out of touch with traditional anarchism though. The Ungovernable Force 08:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism is the only possible economic practice that doesn't require state intervention. Maybe anarcho-socialism should be the theory that is constantly derided in this manner. I pray that I never have to hear another 20 year old in a Che Guevara tee talk about Noam Chomsky again. Green hornet 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism

Lots of sources are being miscited or improperly used here. For example, the MS encarta article (which needs to be specifically cited as the UK MS encarta) states, "Since World War II this tradition (individualist anarchism) has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism."

This source clearly indicates that anarcho-capitalism is a branch of the "tradition" of individualist anarchism. It does NOT state that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It might imply that, and in fact I would say that it does give such an implication, but that isn't enough to use as a source for the statement "several scholars consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism". To source a controversial claim like that the scholar in question should say so directly, otherwise any time they ever refer to anarcho-capitalism it could be taken to be an implicit endorsement of AC as a form of anarchism. This is far too weak a standard, but this standard the same source could be used to claim that american libertarianism is a form of anarchism, something american libertarians and probably the people be cited here would themselves disagree with. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

pov terminological section

Put a POV tag there. There is no explanation on what "capitalism" meant for anarcho-communists and individual anarchists, and what anarcho-capitalists believe capitalism to be. Intangible 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism?

This article is CRAZY! What a mess. What is the object of it? It seems to arguments that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and people defending it as being one, or something like that. I think that's what the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article is for. Maybe it should be deleted? DTC 05:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be nothing but a poorly-driven hit piece on anarcho-capitalism. 217.42.182.173 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is an example of the worst kind of pov pushing that I've seen. Get rid of it. Imagination débridée 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to delete it. What is the point here? To show that anarcho-capitalism is not like other forms of anarchism so that it will be concluded that it is not a form of anarchism? Since when does a form of anarchism have to be like other forms of anarchism? This article has a fundamental POV problem that cannot be fixed. It is best to just delete it. PlayersPlace 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree for reasons stated below. Blockader 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I oppose the deletion of this page as it addresses an issue within anarchism that warrants inclusion in wikipedia. attempts to delete this page is obvious POV pushing. this is a major issue and cannot be done justice by simply merging it with the criticisms section in the ancap article. this is apparent to any editor who is not operating under extreme bias. Blockader 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Foant 11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Attemping to delete the article doesn't look like any "POV pushing" to me. How about changing the title? The title is what's making this ariticle POV. It should be called something like "Social anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." Otherwise, the title assumes anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things, but they're not.Anarcho-capitalism 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thay are two different things with different histories, bacground and goals, but shaing a common name. That's why it's so difficult. // Liftarn

No they are not two different things. Anarcho-captialism is anarchism. Lots of philosophies are anarchism. Anarcho-communism is anarchism too.Anarcho-capitalism 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are in the view of virtually everyone except ancaps and a few lazy academics. Even those who describe it as anarchism generally recognise it is from the right-wing libertarian tradition and not from the entirely leftwing anarchist tradition. It's an appropriation of the term by right-wingers that is seen by many anarchists (including myself) as hostile and wrecking. All forms of anarchism are generally united in what they oppose (the state and capitalism) and vary simply on what they advocate. "Anarcho"-capitalism does not fit into this. Donnacha 11:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
libertarian libertarianism n.
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
-adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

Calling libertrians right wing is a common error made by left-wingers. Libertarians are distinctly not right wing anymore than they are left wing. They have only one common interest and that is freedom from government intervention. Libertarianism is based on Classical liberalism. While the Libertarian Party calls for as little government intervention as possible, radical libertarians are anarchists who want no government at all. For left-leaning anarchists to call radical libertarians "right-wing and not anarchists" is based on nothing more than arrogance and ignorance.

As a matter of fact the idea of an anarchist being either left or right wing is ludicrous, as the left and right wings are allegiances to parties or state politics. Thus the concept of left-wing anarchism is an absurd impossibility. It can't ever exist. Imagination débridée 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again wolfy. You'll not that the words right and wing (hyphenated) are before the word libertarian, thus giving them the form of an adjective. In common English use, the use of an adjective to describe a word means that the word does not always mean what the adjective accords it. Right-wing libertarians are those who oppose democracy and egalitarians and exclusively act against the state and not other forms of oppression - people like the so-called "anarcho"-capitalists. As for the distinction between left and right, you couldn't be more wrong. Left and right define the social question - left is in favour of egalitarianism and redistribution, right is in favour of elitism and social divisions. That's why the the authoritarian/libertarian distinction is also used to define the relationship to the state. Donnacha 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, please remember to be civil. There is no need to attack someone with an English lesson intended to belittle. I have to say, with everyone defending their POV strongly, I think this whole article is beyond recovery. There is no need to have an article comparing and contrasting two subjects. It will be almost entirely based on original research, POVs, and definitions that can’t be proven. Keep in mind Misplaced Pages is not about changing what people think, it is about defining the facts. The whole article is rotting with weasel words. No one will change anyone else’s mind on this talk page. The anarcho-capitalists will continue to think it is a form of anarchy. The anarchists will think it is not. There is no use putting my opinion into the mess because it will help nothing. Lets discuss ways to make the article (and not the title) non-pov before we even go to the title.

Stop using weasel words. How many is “many”? Take out these words and replace them with names of famous anarchists and anarcho-captialists who have written about the subject. Then cite your sources. I strongly suggest those who believe one thing only work on the parts they believe, and not the parts they don’t. Please leave the parts you disagree with alone, and let others develop it. A Yankee could not keep an article NPOV if they were comparing the Yankees to the Redsocks.

And please don’t use the article to convince others that the way you think is correct. Simply point out facts (or claims made by writers that can be sourced). This is all I have to say from the RFC page. Connor K. 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could quit jumping into bits of sock-busting and assuming they are rational discussions. user:thewolfstar is well know for nonsensical dissembling. I'm happy to work on developing a NPOV version of the article, but it's not POV to say that the vast majority of anarchists worldwide say that "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Not only is it not POV, but there's already a cite for that in the article. And saying this is like the Yankess to the Redsocks is rubbish, this is like the entire World Series versus a team that 's decided that you can play baseball with a golf club and insists all baseball is is hitting a ball. The whole purpose of this article is to focus on the rejection of "anarcho"-capitalism by anarchists in the historical tradition. Donnacha 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are Donnacha, you are nasty. I wouldn't for the life of me, want the likes of you making decisions for me, that's for sure. I know what a damned adjective is. You, on the other hand, don't have a clue what a libertarian is. There is no such thing as a right-wing libertarian. That is an oxymoron, if I ever heard one. The classical liberals were the original libertarians in the U.S., they were the ones that modern (U.S.) libertarianism is based on, and they were the left-wing of their day. They decidedly were not elistist and fought against the priveleged few. If you're going to discuss U.S. history and politics then learn about it first. Otherwise it is most definitely you who are talking out of her ass. Imagination débridée 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the content may be POV against anarcho-capitalism; some of it is POV for anarcho-capitalism. Last time I was here, the article was a horrible mess of content written by User:RJII and me. I tried to clean it up, but someone kept re-inserting stuff RJII wrote, which was bloated to say the least (I won't even go into the POV). Some of what I wrote may be biased, I apologise - at the time I wrote it, I was trying to balance opposing POV, so I may have been too heavy in some areas. Anyway, there still exists pro-ancap bias in the article, so keep that in mind too before you dismiss this article as "anarcho-capitalism bashing" or whatever. -- infinity0 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Infinity0. The title of this article alone (Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism) really does suggest that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism - that they are 2 different things. That alone is heavy duty POV. But I appreciate your kind response. Imagination débridée 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's as bad as you think. I mean, I don't think most people, upon seeing the title, will automatically infer that these are distinct. But readers don't usually see the title on its own anyway - when this article is linked to in articles, there is always context surrounding the link, summarising the dispute. I'm off now, I'll reply tomorrow. -- infinity0 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New title of article

Let's move this to a less POV title. I've been moving it to "anti-capitalist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" and "anti-capitalist anarchism and pro-capitalist anarchism" but it keeps getting moved back. The title separates anarcho-capitalism from anarchism, so it is POV.Anarcho-capitalism 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Intangible 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, the two minority speakers agree. No-one else but the ancaps agree, so stop POV pushing. Donnacha 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be named "Mainstream anarchim and anarcho-capitalism", but the shorter title works. // Liftarn

That might work.Anarcho-capitalism 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put the title aside until the article has improved, see above.--Connor K. 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It can't improve until the title reflects what the article is supposed to be about. "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" means nothing.Anarcho-capitalism 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Title is fine. Content may be improved. Please try to accomodate all view points, not just your own (inferred from your name), which is in the minority. -- infinity0 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The title is not fine. It is terrible. How can you have an NPOV article when it is assumed from the start, by the title of the article that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things? That is stacking the deck against anarcho-capitalists. PlayersPlace 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, - an article called Hand and fingers does not automatically imply that the fingers are not part of the hand. Donnacha 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What would it be about then? If there is already an article on Hand then why not discuss Fingers in the Hand article? Or in its own Fingers article?Anarcho-capitalism 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We have two subjects A and B. Some people think B is a subset of A. Others think it isn't. "A and B" is the logical name for an article on this dispute. Your previous point missed the article's purpose entirely. If lots of people think "finger" is separate from "hand", whilst others thought "finger" was a subset of "hand" then we wuold have an article called "Finger and hand". What else would you call it? -- infinity0 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the aritcle is about whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism or not, I would call it "Arguments over whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making a big fuss over nothing. This title and the one you just suggested convey the same meaning, except this one is shorter. If you are afraid of new people reading the title and then inferring that anarchism and ancapism are different, I don't think they will. The very first paragraph explains the content of the rest of the article. If anything, the name ancapism is itself POV, since that positively asserts itself to be part of anarchism. But in any case, this point is null, since whenever this article is linked on this wiki, there is always a section explaining the summary of this dispute. -- infinity0 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The title does not signify that the article is about a dispute.Anarcho-capitalism 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does that matter? The article isn't purely about the dispute, but about the contents of the dispute too. -- infinity0 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to move the title. But even with that this article is a POV fork and should be deleted. I'm sure it will be eventually. "Anti-capitalist anarchism and pro-capitalist anarchism" sounds good to me. DTC 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tough, you lost. And, the final word on this stupidity - Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker - no implication that they're separate. The whole basis of the dispute is that there is no such thing as "pro-capitalist" anarchism. To put that in the title is extreme POV-pushing. Donnacha 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that this article can be made non POV by confining discussion on whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism to one section instead of the whole article. There is not enough dispute in academia to constitute a whole article. There is still the question of what to do with the rest of the article though. What it an article called "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" about?Anarcho-capitalism 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is preferable to change the name though.Anarcho-capitalism 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, anything that doesn't agree with you is extreme pov pushing. And why can't you just be civil? Is is it necessary to be so hostile and condescending to everyone you talk to? You said, "there is no such thing as "pro-capitalist" anarchism". I and a number of other editors can testify that there is such a thing as we are all pro-capitalist anarchists. So I guess you're just wrong about that. Imagination débridée 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's just you people who continue to over-emphasis a right-wing attempt to take over the term anarchist like right-wingers took over the the term libertarian that is extreme POV pushing. I'm an anarchist from Europe where, if considered at all, so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are laughed at. You can claim a two-wheeled machine is a car if you like, but people will laugh and point out it's a bicycle. You are clearly a sock-puppet of everyone's favourite disruptive editor coming out with exactly the same kind of nonsense you have done in the past. Capitalism is authoritarian, thus inconsistent with anarchism. Full stop. History and any reasonable analysis of what anarchism stands for agrees with me. Some loony libertarian who clearly spent too much time in Ayn Rand's company and a few web-warriors agree with you - doesn't make you right. Yawn, wolfy, you're boring me. Donnacha 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And you are clearly someone who ought to study American history before making ignorant comments about it. Read what I wrote (above) concerning libertarianism. You have a habit of sharing your ignorance concerning US libertarianism and history. As far as what Europeans think about anarcho-capitalism or anything else, I really couldn't give a damn less, and most Americans feel the same way. Most Americans also reject communism. I know this for sure as I am an American who knows a lot of other Americans. And I mean a lot. Please try to talk more pleasantly. Imagination débridée 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans have no idea what Communism is, since your country illegally ejected hundreds of true revolutionaries after 1918. I'm very aware of the high point of anarchism in the US, when Emma Goldman spoke to thousands, when the Wobblies fought the Pinkertons. You Rothbardists have no knowledge or understanding of anarchism - you're the true children of the Reagan era - the time of the cartoon president. Donnacha 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "laughs" at me though. Intangible 01:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Donnacha 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTHING is more authoritarian than communism. Imagination débridée 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Wolfy, whatever. The control of the majority by the few is authoritarianism. That's what capitalism is. The voluntary association of all without capitalist exploitation is real freedom, that's what communism is. Donnacha 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Section moved to talk page for cleaning

This section was originally written by RJII and contains lots of POV, distortions and so on. Not only that, but it is bloated. I am moving it to this talk page. -- infinity0 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.

This article may contain citations that do not verify the text. Please check for citation inaccuracies. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Anarchism is seen as a form of individualist anarchism by many scholars. All of the classical individualist anarchists opposed profit-making and, hence, capitalism as it is commonly defined today. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalism, which has no opposition to profit, is sometimes regarded as a form of individualist anarchism in recent times. For example, contemporary individualist anarchist Daniel Burton, who believes that most modern day individualist anarchists are class war anti-capitalists, nonetheless says that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism Individualist anarchism vs. Anarcho-capitalism. Individualist Anarchist Laurance Labadie argued that Rothbard "upholds presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict." Wendy McElroy calls herself both an individualist anarchist and an anarcho-capitalist, and Italian anarcho-capitalist Guglielmo Piombini regards anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism (Per l'Anarco-Capitalismo). Historian Ralph Raico regards it as "a form of individualist anarchism" (Authentic German Liberalism...). Simon Tormey, in his book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide places no anti-capitalist restriction on being an individualist anarchist: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."

Some anarcho-capitalists argue that their philosophy is related to individualist anarchism. They believe a major difficulty in resolving the debate is due to the conflicting definitions of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism" as used by the two sides. The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to political movements that are both anti-statist and anti-capitalist. Conversely, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists most commonly use the term "anarchism" to refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (without specifications regarding economic systems). However, even this is disputed, as many anarchists argue that capitalism is inherently coercive.

Lysander Spooner's articles, such as No Treason and the Letter to Thomas Bayard, were widely reprinted in early anarcho-capitalist journals, and his ideas — especially his individualist critique of the state and his defense of the right to ignore or withdraw from it — were often cited by anarcho-capitalists. Spooner was staunchly opposed to government interference in economic matters, and supported a "right to acquire property as one of the natural, inherent, inalienable rights of men one which government has no power to infringe ". Like all anarchists, he opposed government regulation: "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest are arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor." He was particularly vocal, however, in opposing any collusion between banks and government, and argued that the monopolistic privileges that the government granted to a few bankers were the source of many social and economic ills.

Benjamin Tucker supported private ownership of the product of labor, which he believed entailed a rejection of both collective and capitalist ownership. He was a staunch advocate of the mutualist form of recompensing labor, which holds to "Cost the limit of price". He also advocated a free market economy, which he believed was prohibited by capitalist monopoly of credit and land backed by the state. He believed that anyone who wishes should be allowed to engage in the banking business and issue their private currency without needing special permission from government, and that unused land should not be restricted to those who wished to use it. He believed that if these and other coercive actions were eliminated that profit in economic transactions would be rendered nearly impossible because of increased availability of capital to all individuals and resulting increased competition in business. Accepting the labor theory of value and the resulting "cost principle" as a premise marks one of mutualism's main conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. Although his self-identification as a socialist and sympathy for the labor movement led to hostility from some early anarcho-capitalists such as Robert LeFevre, others, such as Murray Rothbard, embraced his critique of the state and claimed that he defined his "socialism" not in terms of opposition to a free market or private property, but in opposition to government privileges for business. However, individualists argue that capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of the state. For example, Kevin Carson argues, "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value — i.e., capitalism — cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist. It was for this reason that the free market mutualist Benjamin Tucker — from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow — regarded himself as a libertarian socialist." Tucker characterized the economic demands of Proudhon and Warren by saying, "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez-faire the universal rule."

Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes viewed by those sympathetic to it as a form of individualist anarchism, despite the fact that the original individualist anarchists universally rejected capitalism (i.e., they opposed profit, which is seen as a fundamental characteristic of capitalism). Organizations such as mutualist.org remain dedicated to "free market anticapitalism," while individualists like Larry Gambone explicitly state that all capitalism is state capitalism. Nonetheless, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy considers herself to be an individualist, while admitting that the original individualists were universally anticapitalist. In addition, historian Guglielmo Piombini refers anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, though he offers no support for this statement. Collectivist anarchist author Iain McKay and historian Peter Sabatini both argue that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally opposed to individualist anarchism.

The similarity to anarcho-capitalism in regard to private defense of liberty and property is probably best seen in a quote by 19th-century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros:

Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.

While the claim is controversial, some scholars regard anarcho-capitalism as being a form of individualism anarchism. However, other scholars, and many individualist anarchists themselves, do not accept anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, individualist or not, as they assert that anarchism is fundamentally opposed to capitalism. As individualist anarchist Joe Peacott says:

Individualist anarchists have continued to espouse the labor theory of value, finding profit to be unnatural and exploitative. In the mainstream, however, the popularity of the labor theory of value of classical economics was superseded by greater acceptance of the subjective theory of value of neo-classical economics. Eventually, in the 1950s, Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" to define his anti-statist, laissez-faire capitalist philosophy.

Rothbard noted that while "strongly tempted," he could not call his ideology "individualist anarchism" because "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." Rothbard also supported unregulated banking, as Tucker and other individualists did, but believed that Tucker and Spooner had a flawed understanding of economics to believe that unregulated banking would eliminate profit from interest. Tucker says interest rates are ultimately determined by the time value of money, rather than the supply of money and that interest/profit would still exist in a free banking environment. He says: "it has been particularly distressing to me as an ardent admirer of Spooner and Tucker to find that their followers have emphasized and concentrated on their totally fallacious monetary views almost to the Rothbard suggested that individualist anarchists drop the labor theory of value which he believed to be erroneous and leading to a false conclusion that profit was exploitative or unnatural in laissez-faire. Rothbard sought to introduce Lockean property rights and marginalism into individualist anarchism:

Rothbard also rejected Tucker and Spooner's support of a system where there is no written law. He says, "There would be no rational or objective body of law which the juries would in any sense—even morally—be bound to consult, nor even any judicial precedents, since each jury would have the power to decide both the facts and the law of every case strictly ad hoc. With no guides or standards to follow, even juries with the best of will could not be expected to arrive at just or even libertarian decisions." Instead, he argues, "It would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures."}}

Individualist anarchist Laurance Labadie argued however:

However, this criticism is specific to Rothbard's suggested version of anarcho-capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists who oppose the existence of all statutory law, such as Morris and Linda Tannehill. Individualist anarchism is a broad philosophy with various theorists having their own suggested versions.

Spam

I am concerned with the sheer amount of spam of anarcho-capitalist sources. For some reason pro-ancap editors seem to think this "proves" that anarcho-capitalism is in the mainstream. This is not true. I am surprised and disgusted that people have this attitude. Why do you not spam anti-anarcho-capitalist sources? Because these do certainly exist. -- infinity0 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism are not from anarcho-capitalists. The sources do indeed include anti-capitalist anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims that anarcho-capitalist are not anarchism are very hard to come by because so few claims exist. Mainstream academia does not claim it is not a form of anarchism. Arguments about whether it is a form of anarchism seem to be mostly contained to people like us arguing on the internet.Anarcho-capitalism 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because you lot don't exist outside of a few right-wing colleges and the Internet, so the vast majority of anarchists ignore you completely. I could cite numerous books about anarchism that don't even mention "anarcho"-capitalism. It's funny, though, I've discussed wikipedia with a few people from a variety of points of view recently (I started editing just to see what it was really like), and the you and your kinds' constant POV-pushing is one of the best examples I can give about what's wrong with wikipedia. And, d'ya know what? They agree. Donnacha 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've come across several anarcho-capitalists but never anarcho-communists. Maybe I'm not in the right places. Maybe I need to hang out in abandoned buildings more.Anarcho-capitalism 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We are everywhere. Donnacha 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous web site. People in poor countries love global capitalism. They want more of it. Elitist rich country leftists have no clue what it's like to receive a desperately needed job imported from a rich country.Anarcho-capitalism 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Do you actually have any access to anything but your library of nonsensical right-wing claptrap? If people in poor countries love global capitalism, explain the election of Chavez, Lula, Morales and probably Rafael Correa. Explain the success of Grameen Bank and the Nobel Peace Prize award. Explain the mass mobilisations in India against Coca Cola, explain the MST, the Zapatistas. And that's just the left, if people in poor countries love global capitalism, explain Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, in Asia, in North Africa, explain the widespread hatred of the US and everything it stands for (particularly global capitalism). Explain why the World Social Forum movement is bigger in the Global South. Quite simply, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm an expert in international social movements. It's part of my job. You, on the other hand, come across like the economic equivalent of Creationists. Donnacha 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims that anarcho-capitalist are not anarchism are very hard to come by because so few claims exist. Mainstream academia does not claim it is not a form of anarchism. Arguments about whether it is a form of anarchism seem to be mostly contained to people like us arguing on the internet. - This is certainly untrue. Go read Chomsky, for a start. By "mainstream academia", you probably mean your circle of american right-wing intellectuals. -- infinity0 14:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is mainstream? *laugh* Anyway, Chomsky says it is a "strain of anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky has said in an interview that it's a strain of anarchism. That's not a good source, because he goes on to explain how it's not real anarchism and, in other interviews and, more importantly, in print, how it's libertarianism and inconsistent with anarchism as anarchism is anti-capitalist. As for him being mainstream, it doesn't get much more mainstream in academia than being a tenured professor in an Ivy League university. In comparison, the University of Nevada ain't quite as impressive, is it? Donnacha 01:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A third opinion

What a mess is this! As far as I've understood what's happening here, what I see is that there is a lack of a straight definition of the word "anarchy". As I see, some are saying that anarchy implies ant-capitalism, so an-cap is not a kind of anarchy, while other argue that an-cap is an individualist anarchy. Am I right or should I read the whole talk and article again? According to the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Dictionary says about anarchía (= "anarchy"), the word means lack of head = leader, lawlessness, etc. As far as I know, in anarcho-capitalism, there's no head; the economic flux should move the whole thing without the existence of state at least on economic topics, so it should be a kind of anarchy... or not? --Neigel von Teighen 20:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just as legitimate a form of anarchism as any other, even more so as far as I'm concerned. The collectivists won't admit it because, economically, it goes against what they believe in. I, on the other hand don't believe there's any such thing as communist-anarchism. The notion is ludicrous to me. :) Imagination débridée 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there cannot be a communist-anarchism: communism wants the State to take anything on its hands! No, anarchism is, according to the etymology, any ideology that wants the lack of any head nor leading (an-archía) and anarcho-cap wants that for economical reasons. Then, this article must be rewritten so the differences between left-anarchism and an-cap are clearly and accurately stated; the difference is not in that one is anarchism and the other is not, but the reasons why state should be abolished (anarchism, because considering state as a repressor of social & moral individual liberties and an-cap, because of an exaggeration of Adam Smith's doctrines). --Neigel von Teighen 01:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

God some of you people talk rubbish. Communism has nothing to do with the state, not even in Marxist doctrine. You really haven't got a clue, do you? Go read Kropotkin, Goldman or Berkman before spouting off. Capitalism requires owners of capital and bosses, who count as leaders, thus it is inconsistent with anarchism - get it? Libertarian communism, the most extreme form of anarchism, has equality of ownership, thus the greatest freedom possible for all, not the elite minority that would have freedom in the oppression that "anarcho"-capitalism would bring about. Donnacha 01:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Communism, whether the state form or that anarcho form, is authority over the individual. Deciding on one's own free will to work as an employee of someone else is not inconsistent with anarchism. Not everyone wants the hassle of running their own business. To oppose the right of contract, which anarcho-communists do oppose, is very anti-freedom.Anarcho-capitalism 02:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Two words - voluntary cooperation. Anarchist communists don't oppose contracts, we, living in the real world, recognise that most people would rather be free than someone else's slave. Contracts enforced by private security without any legal or state framework of defence against exploitation is what exists in most of Brazil and it's a brutal, murderous situation. You propose a return to the worst abuses of the early industrial revolution. I propose freedom, freedom to associate voluntarily or chose not to. Freedom to cooperate or to do you own thing. Contracts are control, control backed by force is coercion, "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Donnacha 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Brazil is nothing like anarcho-capitalism. So enough of that. If you propose freedom, then you have to allow contracts and trade, and not expropriate (steal) the product of labor of others.Anarcho-capitalism 02:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

From Communism "Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. " All I can say is ugh, barf, you gotta be kiddin' me and no thanks. Having a dictatorship of any kind doesn't sound like freedom to me. Did it ever occur to you commies that majoritarianism would be a nightmare? Having a bunch of people tell me how I can live my life, what I can say, think, do..where I can work whether I can open a store or have my own small family farm or not, is not freedom but just another form of authoritarianism and oppression? Fuck that. And sorry, but again, Americans don't give a rat's ass what Europeans think about anything. Just the way it is. We don't have the reverance for Europeans that they have for themselves. (Something, btw, that has been going on for a long, long time..that enormous ego that Europeans have and how highly they think of themselves.) No one cares. Imagination débridée 06:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, yeah, and you really need to read American history before you go spouting off. I did read a book by Berkman, a long time ago. He was the most obnoxious author I have ever read. I hated him. Imagination débridée 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, hello there, wolfster, how very recognizable. Blocked indefinitely as an obvious Thewolfstar sock. Go away.Bishonen | talk 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

you have to allow contracts and trade, and not expropriate (steal) the product of labor of others. - Wage labour is theft in disguise under the system of money which distorts perceptions of value. Money is a restriction on trade. You want free trade? How about swap everything for nothing? That's free trade. -- infinity0 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Money is a restriction on trade." Never taken economics 101 have you? Money facilitates trade. It relieves us of the need to barter. And it doesn't "distort perceptions of value", whatever that means. Value is always in the eye of the beholder. No one's labor is worth one cent more than what someone is willing to pay for it. Apparently you have a Marxist background and hold the mystical "labor theory of value" but it's nonsense.Anarcho-capitalism 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a dictatorship of any kind doesn't sound like freedom to me. - Dictatorship of proletariat is not what Marx wanted as an end goal, but what he thought would happen as a result of the situation in his time. What he really wanted as an end goal was this: (from the Communist Manifesto) - "Instead of the old bourgeois society, with its class antagonisms and contradictions, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. -- infinity0 15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Back onto ideological discussions? First: this is an encyclopedia, not a political forum! The article must be "scientifically" written... I return to the etymology: anarchy is any form of lack of leadership, not necessarily regulation (some one mentioned contracts as a way of control, but these are internal regulations and thus can be internally broken). The question is very simple: what want anarcho-caps? The lack of any state that regulate society because economy will do its work by itself. If this is not an anarchy form, then I don't know what the hell it is. On the other hand, a coherent form of anarcho-communism is contradictory because communism talks about proletarian dictatorship and a popular state authority over capitalists... No, "standard" anarchism wants the elimination of state as it is a form of external repression of individual liberties. But the result of both anarchism and an-cap is the same: no state; the reasons are the difference and this should be the article about! --Neigel von Teighen 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article cannot be scientifically written. All that can be done is to write out what people's opinions are. In the end, there is no "truth" on whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism or not. I myself really don't give a shit, it's just a word. When I use anarchism, I implicitly mean anti-social hierarchy, which includes capitalism, but other people will think differently.

In short, your statement "if this is not an anarchy form, then I don't know what the hell it is" is extremely unscientific, and just your opinion. There is no correct answer to "is ancapism anarchism?" (if you start with capitalist assumptions, you get yes; if you start off with collectivist assumptions, you get no; and the correctness of these assumptions is outside the scope of this article) and we should not portray that there is a correct answer in this article. -- infinity0 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

the result of both anarchism and an-cap is the same: no state; - this I disagree with. Anarchism is about government, of which the state is only one type of. (see many modern dictionaries as well as etymological def). The result of anarchism is not being governed. Most anarchists, and myself, would say this includes capitalism (private MOP, wage labour, etc etc). -- infinity0 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"On the other hand, a coherent form of anarcho-communism is contradictory because communism talks about proletarian dictatorship and a popular state authority over capitalists..." - That's Marxism, not libertarian communism. Jesus, don't talk politics if you don't even understand the concepts. Anarchist communism is based on voluntary cooperation and free association, no dictatorship, no state. Christ, you do realise the origins of political anarchism are in the disagreement between Bakunin and Marx over these very issues. Donnacha 15:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now I understand the concepts a bit better and recognize "state" is not the word; let's leave it on "leadership" (=archía), thus, government. Thank you all!

Anyway, my opinion doesn't change very much: anarchy should be any form of ideology that wants the elimination of government and clearly, as infinity says, anarcho-cap is a form of anarchy. About libertarian communism, I've been reading a bit (maybe what I needed to do before) and say that it is a form of anarchy, Donnacha, you were right... Thank you, also! --Neigel von Teighen 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm right, but you're still wrong. History and the vast majority of anarchists disagree that anarchism is just anti-government. "Anarcho"-capitalists are a minority sect of libertarian wreckers who are seeking to discredit anarchism by associating it with its opposite (capitalism). Or maybe that's giving them too much credit, perhaps they're just just intellectually the children of the Reagan era where, as Michael Franti put it:

"most people think Central America means Kansas, socialism means unamerican, and apartheid is a new headache remedy"

Donnacha 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand no one is just anti-government, but the abolition of leadership is the nucleus of the anarchist ideology. From what I understand, anarchist believe in a social contract (based in Rousseau) individually accepted to preserve order and that no entity like government should impose order. Anarcho-capitalism states the same, but not through a social contract, but by economic contracts... or what?? --Neigel von Teighen 12:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How does one enforce an economic contract? The social contract is a voluntary one, any individual is free to cooperate or not to - at any point in the process. Economic contracts, particularly when, as in capitalism, the means of production are owned by individuals, is an hierarchical relationship. One person owns the factor and contracts others to work for him. If they breach the contract, what then? "Anarcho"-capitalists support private security and, presumably, enforcement of contracts by them. That's a coercive relationship - do this or else... Thus, it's inconsistent with anarchism, which is fundamentally opposed to coercive authority in nearly all its forms (some exceptions, such as Chomky's example of the parent who uses force to stop their child running into the street). It's also an irrational proposition from the point of view of capitalists - the origins of the bourgeois state are in the realisation of capitalists that providing these services could more effectively be done by a centralised state that charged the workers (through taxation) to pay for them. That's what the police are - defenders of the capitalist system. What capitalists dislike in government is not its existence, it's how social pressures have forced governments to make limited concessions to the people and put limited controls on the freedom of capitalists (environmental controls, labour laws, etc). Donnacha 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, are you confused. You couldn't be further off-base. Wrong. Doctors without suspenders 16:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For our purposes here, it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong. He has nicely articulated an important strain of anarchist thought about the nature of freedom and authority. Nearly all anarchists agree that "force and fraud" are wrong, but there is a lot of disagreement about what preconditions are necessary for a free, unforced contract. Libertatia 17:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does matter. The only thing that has been articulated here is a skewed, biased, and misinformed outlook on a laissez-faire economy. It would nice if people didn't say things like "anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron" and then spout a complete lack of understanding of it. That statement was full of propaganda and lies. Let's just try and keep this factual and neutral. Doctors without suspenders 19:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the statement was an argument against an oxymoron by someone grounded in real anarchist theory. "Propaganda" as you call it is anarchist analysis of capitalism that has been consistent for over a century. Lying, of course, is turning up regularly with a new name after being block - so, who are you, Hogeye or thewolfstar? Donnacha 19:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to your post, Donnacha, what I see is that the problem to see whether something is anarchism is if it defends the abolition of social hierarchy. You say, then, that anarcho-capitalism bases itself on economic contracts and these are always hierarchical (hierarchy is etymologically "the government of those having divine power" > "gov. of the superior"), how do you or anarchism analyze the situation of two successful traders making a business? I'd like to tell you that I'm asking you these things because I want to fully understand what is discussed here before I try to edit the article... Excuse me if I bothered you too much. --Neigel von Teighen 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-communists think working for someone else is coercive even if it's voluntary. Go figure.Anarcho-capitalism 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Anarcho-communists know that working for someone with more economic strength than you is an unequal arrangement, thus not a free choice. If you own the factory and I do not, then I have little choice about working for you if I wish to work in the factory. Donnacha 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The economic contracts part of "anarcho"-capitalism isn't the main problem, it's its support for the ownership of the means of production combined with economic contracts. What you suggest, the situation of two successful traders, is not so much an issue if they are trading that which they made themselves. If, on the other hand, they are trading that which was made in their factory with their tools by people in their pay, then the point is that the hierarchical problem is not between the two, but between each and their workforce - those who they exploited to become successful traders. Fundamentally, the argument is not so much about what system would be in place in an anarchy - every suggestion or theory is guesswork (as most theorists acknowledge) due to the impossibility of knowing what people would decide to if they were truly free. The fundamental problem with "anarcho"-capitalism is that, in defending the continuation of private ownership of the means of production, the result of the removal of the state would be an extreme oligarchy, not anarchy. Anarchy is about the maximisation of freedom for the all, thus it necessitates redistribution because freedom is inconsistent with inequality. How can a person be free when the system demands that they sell their labour to survive? Currently, the state provides a safety net in most developed countries, but take a look at the situation in Brazil or India where slavery continues to exist. "Anarcho"-capitalism would lead to a situation such as that which exists in rural Brazil - you should read about the history of the MST for more details (individual ownership of massive tracts of land, murderous private security firms, widespread poverty and homelessness, etc.). The aim of true anarchism is to tear down everything that prevents true freedom, all hierarchies, all oppressive infrastructure and then allow humanity to develop its own system with that freedom. The prediction is that, in this situation, a new society would be one that would not develop into new hierarchies. The flip-side of this prediction is that the tearing down necessary for anarchy to develop would have to be broadly based and broadly supported by the majority of people, thus creating the base needed for the new society to be truly free and equal. If this did not exist, anarchy can never be created by a minority without mass support. I hope that's clear, feel free to query any bits that are not. Donnacha 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I sympathize with what you're saying, there is a basic flaw in all of this theorizing. It leaves out the question of what happens when groups spring up, who through greed, conspire to take power. Human nature being what it is, in all it's complexity, there will inevitably be those who will want more and will do just this. In the end, the same thing that happened thousands of years ago, would easily happen again. Radiant hedgehog 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a flaw, its a potential danger. What stops that happening now? Nothing more nor less than the current oppressors. I'm more confident in an evolutionary anarchism rather than a revolutionary one as I history tends to show that something born of violence dies in violence. What will stop someone taking over? Well, if you dismantle armies and police and every other armed force of oppression, they'll be lacking the machinery to impose their will. Thus, if people have created an anarchy and believe in an anarchy, they will fight tooth and nail to maintain it, as they have done elsewhere. Maybe they'll win, maybe they'll lose, but that's the danger with any attempt to change society. Donnacha 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Freedom is inconsistent with inequality." The "anarcho"-communist position is absurd. Freedom enables inequality. Inequality is the natural result of liberty. As Benjamin Tucker said, ""If I go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it certainly will make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living." Murray Rothbard was right when he said that at the root of "anarcho"-communism, "lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism," an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity." The individualist anarchist Max Stirner would also agree.Anarcho-capitalism 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Freedom and equality are not synonomous. A mistake made by many. That was well put. Radiant hedgehog 01:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said they were? Congratulations on reading through something without actually paying attention to what it says. A precondition is not a synonym. Freedom for all is impossible with the extremes of economic inequality presented by private ownership of the means of production. To argue that inequality is the natural result of liberty when referring to economic relations is the height of elitism. No man can create wealth on his own, it can only be created through exploitation of one form or another. This is why anarcho-communists argue for a non-monetary system, as the monetarisation of everything is a barrier to freedom. Donnacha 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom requires equality and equality requires freedom. // Liftarn

"Freedom without opportunity is a devil's gift" - Noam Chomsky.

Anarcho-communists think working for someone else is coercive even if it's voluntary. - No. Arguments against capitalism is that wage labour is NOT voluntary, but subtly coerced due to economic inequality between the worker and the boss. The worker needs the job more than the boss needs the worker. That is, the money paid is worth more to the worker than to the boss, exposing a huge flaw in the supposed standard of "value" that we call money. -- infinity0 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The job is worth to the worker whatever he is willing to pay for that job. If you are hungry, you are willing to pay more for a hamburger than when you're not hungry. That doesn't mean that when you purchase a hamburger when you're hungry that the payment is involuntary. It just means your value judgement changed. Your purchase of a hamburger is voluntary whether you're hungry or not.Anarcho-capitalism 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Money facilitates trade. It relieves us of the need to barter. - This is what you have been indoctrinated with. Look at what you have been taught, and see through the contradictions. Money poses as a standard of value. BUT value is subjective. (Again, see point above about money being worth different amounts to different people.) This creates distortions in perceptions of value and causes people to judge things differently than they would otherwise, because now they are pressurised to considering "money" as something with "value". Now, unlike everything else in the world which has "value", money is just a concept, so it can be increased whenever people (usu. those who control the money) feel like it, resulting new value being created out of nothing, which can be used, paradoxically, to obtain something.

Now, the more amount of money there is, the greater these distortions are. But what is money? Nothing. It's a concept. Humans invented it as a concept, but they never sat down to think of its consequences. All human progress has come about through human activity - that is, labour. Not through the spread and growth of an abstract idea.

I emphasis again that money restricts trade. Why? Simply because of these distortions. Because money is an absolute system used to represent a relative concept, it interferes with the process of trade and creates value out of nothing and destroys value to nothing.

Apparently you have a Marxist background and hold the mystical "labor theory of value" but it's nonsense. - In fact, I agree that value is subjective, if you took the time to read my user page. I'm a philosophical relativist. -- infinity0 15:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Money has tremendous value. It has value in simplifying trade. Without money, you have to find people will goods that you want that simultaneously want goods that you have. The value of money is its ability to facilitate trade by eliminating the need to barter. It's laugable that you say "money restricts trade." Why do you think people use money? Even the most primitive societies in the jungle use money, whether it's shells or something else. Very few people barter, because barter is much more difficult. On the labor theory of value, you say you don't have a labor theory of value, but obviously you have some kind of objective theory of value if you think that someone can receive a lower wage than he "should" be receiving. If you thought value was subjective then you would be fine with a person working for peanuts, because you would be in no position to judge whether his wage was proper.Anarcho-capitalism 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam

A-c, why do you keep reverting my attempts to clean up the article? The list of 20 sources is not necessary. -- infinity0 15:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A-c, you say "claims that are heavily constested by POV wikipedians need ample sources to show that the claim is true." - That the claim is true is YOUR OPINION. Misplaced Pages has a Neutral Point of View policy. You do not hold a monopoly over the truth; please do NOT claim your opinion to be the truth. Even if you think it is, the article is NOT an appropriate place to express it.

As it stands atm, the 20 sources are all overwhelming in favour of one POV. Not only that, but it is VERY bloated. Therefore it is best to remove most of them. You'll notice I did not remove the statements, nor did I remove all of the sources. -- infinity0 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The article is weighted in favor of the extreme minority POV that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. On Misplaced Pages, claims that are heavily contested by POV Wikipedians need ample sources to show that they are true. Anarcho-capitalism is considered a form of anarchism by almost all scholars of history, anarchism, political science, etc.Anarcho-capitalism 15:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, "anarcho"-capitalism isn't considered at all by the vast majority of scholars of history, anarchism, political science or anything else you can come up with. Donnacha 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of POV claims like that, we need a lot of sources.Anarcho-capitalism 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not POV, that's a statement of clear fact. There are thousands of books about politics that make no mention of "anarcho"-capitalism. Most make little or no mention of anarchism either. It doesn't matter how many sources you collect, they'll still be a drop in the ocean of books on these topics. I read many a book on anarchism and I've rarely encountered mentions of you oxymorons. Donnacha 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchisms and now eco-anarchisms. These varieties are not particularly well characterized. They are by no means mutually exclusive. So far even a satisfactory classification is lacking. Usually something of a ragbag is offered. Textbooks single out a few varieties for scrutiny, invariably leaving out others that are as important." Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231

I repeat: "It doesn't matter how many sources you collect, they'll still be a drop in the ocean of books on these topics. " Donnacha 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The sources provided in this article saying anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism are just a drop in the bucket out of all the sources out there that say it is.Anarcho-capitalism 19:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately dense or just plain stupid? I've had enough. Donnacha 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004.
2. Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979.
3. Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
4. Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
5. Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
6. Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.
7. Ostergaard, Geofrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pedge Union Publications
8. quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, "Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame", pp. 116-30, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 124
9. Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) Society Without A State (pdf) Libertarian Forum newsletter (January 1975)
10. Cite error: The named reference anarchist-coercive was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Spooner, Lysander (1843) Constitutional law, Relative to Credit, Currency, and Banking Retrieved 19 May 2005
12. Spooner, Lysander (1846) Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Cure Retrieved 19 May 2005
13. Tucker, Benjamin (1888) State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ Liberty 5.16, no. 120 (10 March 1888), pp. 2-3.Retrieved 20 May 2005
14. Yarros, Victor Our Revolution; Essays and Interpretations p.80
15. 1) Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004. 2)Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979. 3) Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004. 4) Levy, Carl. Anarchism, MS Encarta Encyclopedia. 5) Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994.
16. "Anarchism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006
17. Carson, Kevin A. (2001) "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" Red Lion Press
18. Peacott, Joe "An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought" (Libertarian Alliance (2003) ISBN 1-85637-564-1
19. ^ "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View"
20. (quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, "Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame", pp. 116-30, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 124)