Revision as of 14:02, 19 March 2006 editVision Thing (talk | contribs)7,574 edits →Is FAQ on Infoshop.org written from socialist perspective?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:03, 24 December 2024 edit undoMeistro1 (talk | contribs)57 edits →Anti-State & Libertarian: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | |||
{{featured|21031135}} | |||
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} | |||
{{Mainpage date|September 9|2005}} | |||
{{Controversial}} | |||
{{FAOL|Esperanto|eo:Anarki-kapitalismo}} | |||
{{Article history | |||
{{oldpeerreview}} | |||
|action1=PR | |||
{{controversial (politics)}} | |||
|action1date=June 24,2005 | |||
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1 | |||
|action1oldid=15827360 | |||
|action2=FAC | |||
|action2date=July 15,2005 | |||
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 1 | |||
|action2result=failed | |||
|action2oldid=18962743 | |||
|action3=PR | |||
|action3date=July 28,2005 | |||
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive2 | |||
|action3oldid=19831138 | |||
|action4=FAC | |||
|action4date=August 13,2005 | |||
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anarcho-capitalism | |||
|action4result=promoted | |||
|action4oldid=21163794 | |||
|action5=FAR | |||
|action5date=August 17, 2006 | |||
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism | |||
|action5result=kept | |||
|action5oldid=21031135 | |||
|action6=FAR | |||
|action6date=16:05, December 16, 2014 | |||
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1 | |||
|action6result=removed | |||
|action6oldid=636772107 | |||
|action7=AFD | |||
|action7date=02:26, 8 January 2016 | |||
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-capitalism | |||
|action7result=kept | |||
|action7oldid=698733791 | |||
|currentstatus= FFA | |||
|maindate=September 9,2005 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid|social=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
<!--Remember, scope is one that's broadly construed--> | |||
<!-- not in WikiProject Anarchism project scope --> | |||
{{archives |index=/Archive index |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=60 |collapsible=yes}} | |||
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
|counter = 28 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
|algo = old(60d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
== ´´The system of private property´´ == | |||
{| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
|- | |||
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>] | |||
---- | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|- | |||
|] | |||
|] | |||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
What exactly is ´´the system of private property´´? Is private property a ´´system´´? I think we need a reliable source for this nonsense. ] (]) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
== GDP in Somalia == | |||
RJII, you may be thinking of some other source. There is no mention of the text you claim in the current source. Please check and give the correct source if there is another. ] 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
:]: | |||
RJII, you can not compare these GDP figures. The CIA number are PPI adjusted, the others are not. ] 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
:{{quote|‘Private property’ refers to a kind of system that allocates particular objects like pieces of land to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others (even others who have a greater need for the resources) and to the exclusion also of any detailed control by society.<ref name="Waldron 2004 d468">{{cite web | last=Waldron | first=Jeremy | title=Property and Ownership | website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | date=2004-09-06 | url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/ | access-date=2023-11-12}}</ref>}} | |||
:::You mean PPP. Bad comparison ..deleted it. ] 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
:] in ''The Right to Private Property'': | |||
:{{quote|In a system of private property, the rules governing access to and control of material resources are organized around the idea that resources are on the whole separate objects each assigned and therefore belonging to some particular individual.<ref name="Waldron 1990 pp. 26–61">{{cite book | last=Waldron | first=Jeremy | title=The Right to Private Property | chapter=What is Private Property? | publisher=Oxford University Press | date=1990-11-08 | doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198239376.003.0002 | page=26–61}}</ref>}} | |||
:Hoskins and O’Driscoll on ]: | |||
:{{quote|A private property system gives individuals the exclusive right to use their resources as they see fit.<ref name="libertarianism.org c838">{{cite web | title=PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE KEY TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT | website=libertarianism.org | url=https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/property-rights-key-economic-development | access-date=2023-11-12}}</ref>}} | |||
:I am not sure why you think calling this a system is "nonsense", it's clearly a system: a set of enforced rules. In order to sustain private property claims, some sort of system is required. ] (]) 15:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Communism allows private property to an extent. Should the Communism article state ´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´? If not, why not? ] (]) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::This article is about anarcho-capitalism, not about communism. Communism seeks the abolishment of private property. Marx and Engels define communism as the abolition of 'bourgeois property', that is, private property in the means of production (as mentioned in the Communist Manifesto).<ref name="Sayers 2011 pp. 101–132">{{cite book | last=Sayers | first=Sean | title=Marx and Alienation | chapter=Private Property and Communism | publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK | publication-place=London | year=2011 | isbn=978-1-349-32517-7 | doi=10.1057/9780230309142_7 | page=101–132}}</ref> | |||
:::{{quote|(...) the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property<ref name="Marx Engels a677">{{cite web | last=Marx | first=Karl | last2=Engels | first2=Frederick | title=Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2) | website=Marxists Internet Archive | url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm | access-date=2023-11-13}}</ref>}} You can also read his manuscripts on . ] (]) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::If you can own a toothbrush in Marx´s communism then private property has not been completely abolished. Whether or not private property in the means of production has been abolished is another matter. Knives are means of production. Would all knives be collectively owned in Marx´s communism? If not then private property in the means of production has not been completely abolished. I think a better definition of communism, at least the one advocated by Marx would be: ´´the abolition of private property in higher order capital goods´´. ] (]) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::You can still own a toothbrush if the ''system'' of private property has been abolished. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about the difference between personal and private property, but you don't need a system to manage ownership of toothbrushes. To manage land and property ownership claims, on the other hand, yes. ] (]) 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::@] @] "System" I think means the ], which defines "property" and its modes of acquisition (e.g., ]) ] (]) 22:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Yes, that's exactly right. It's either a legal or political system – anything that defines the rules of how property is managed, how ownership claims are validated and how those rules are enforced. Per ''International Encyclopedia of Political Science'' by ] et al: {{quote|Private property cannot exist without a ] that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.<ref name="SAGE Publications, Inc">{{cite book |author1=Bertrand Badie |author2=Dirk Berg-Schlosser |author3=Leonardo Morlino |title=International Encyclopedia of Political Science |publisher=Sage Publications |year=2011 |isbn=978-1412959636 |page=2132 }}</ref>}} ] (]) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::If ´´politics´´ means the state that is laughably wrong. Private property is older than the state. The marxist distinction between ´´personal´´ and private property is completely unscientific and arbitrary. The ´private´´ in private property refers to '''private ownership''', as opposed to '''collective ownership'''. If something is both private and property, then by definition it is private property. This is basic logic. If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse. If someone steals my toothbrush I am allowed to take it back '''by force'''. This shows clearly that private ownership of toothbrushes is also enforced, just like any other private ownership. ] (]) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Your opinions and interpretations don't matter here. The ] are for discussing improvements to articles, not for political debates. If you have any quality sources showing that communism has a system of private property, feel free to go to the appropriate article and add that information alongside your references. Your "logic" is not sufficient here. You asked what a system of private property is, and I provided you with more than enough references, which I think are enough to help you understand the concept. I don't see what else needs discussing here. ] (]) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I have not stated any opinions so far. It would have been more honest if you had written ´´Your facts and reasoned arguments don´t matter here.´´ I do think this is (unfortuneatly) true. Facts and reasoned arguments and truth don´t matter on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages even has an explicit guideline which claims that Misplaced Pages is not about truth! The only thing that matters on Misplaced Pages is what the so-called ´´reliable´´ sources say. These so-called ´´reliable sources´´ are often not reliable at all, but are rather merely left wing propaganda. Do you seriously disagree with the following statement: ´´If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse´´? There is no doubt that this statement is true. This is not ´´my logic´´. This is just logic, period. The statement about private property has the same logical structure as the blue horse statement. If you accept one of them as being true then you must, by force of logic, also accept the other one. If you are unable to see this I don´t know how to help you. I still think private property is too basic to be called a ´´system´´. We can´t even imagine a society without private property. It is absurd to think that if there were no state then all private property would suddenly vanish. If you have a source which Misplaced Pages deems ´´reliable´´ then go ahead and add it to the article. But I don´t like you pretending that by doing so you have somehow ´´proven´´ something. That would be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. ] (]) 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like entertaining childish "logic" arguments. ''A horse which is blue is a blue horse, therefore property, which is private, is private property'' isn't an "argument" in any shape or form. It's just a ]. Tautologies are redundant statements, they don't bring anything to the table and just make you look silly. Wouldn't you agree that property, which is personal, is personal property? Surely that's "just logic, period"? Therefore, I'm right, ''haha''! ] A ] isn't actually black? ] are not made from ]? ]s are not ]s? What? ] Like I said, if you want to include anything in an article, provide sources to support your claims, don't use playground arguments. ] (]) 16:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Tell me, what is your ´´argument´´? What is your position based on? Your ridiculous position that a privately owned toothbrush is somehow not ´´really´´ private property. Is your argument ´´Because Marx said so´´? Who cares what Marx thought? Marx was a complete and utter crackpot and lunatic. I don´t give a damn about Marx´s opinion on any subject under the sun. ´´Because Marx said so´´ is not an argument. It is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. As for your other ´´argument´´, that can be easily disposed of as well. You seem to believe that only private property that is ´´enforced´´ is ´´really´´ private property. If I own a toothbrush I am allowed to employ violence to defend my ownership of it. If someone steals my toothbrush from me I am allowed to take it back '''by force'''. How is my ownership of the toothbrush then not enforced? I can also hire a third party to help me defend my ownership of the toothbrush. But a third party is not necessarily needed to enforce my ownership rights. If you enforce your property rights yourself, without help from anyone else, then they are enforced, no less than if they are enforced by a third party. I have now demonstrated that, even by your own standard, privately owned toothbrushes are private property. Even if your standard made sense (which it doesn´t) privately owned toothbrushes would STILL be private property! I want to move on from this debate. I am going to edit the article, unless you add a source which Misplaced Pages deems reliable. ] (]) 20:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::{{tq|If someone steals my toothbrush from me, I am allowed to take it back by force}} - allowed by whom? I don't have time for your twisted pretzel logic, you can edit any article you want and add content, ''as long'' as you have an adequate source supporting your addition. ] (]) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::I am allowed by a society that respects the idea of private property. Please don´t call logic twisted or put quotes around the word. If you have a problem with logical thinking, that is your problem. Don´t try to make it my problem as well. According to Misplaced Pages policy any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged can be removed. I have now challenged this content. So I am going to remove it unless you add a source which Misplaced Pages deems reliable. ] (]) 13:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::No, any content that is challenged ''on specific grounds'', such as lack of sourcing, can be removed. Not any content that you simply don't like or, int this case, not understand. Since I provided you with several sources, your objections seem to be a "you" problem, not a Misplaced Pages problem. ] (]) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::Do the sources you provided prove that private property is a system or do they merely assert it? ] (]) 15:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::The article talks about a system of private property, which is a thing that exists. The article is not making any assertions that a system of private property exists. The existence of it is ]. I provided you with multiple sources explaining what that means. Even ] . This is a very common term. I don't understand what else you need here. ] (]) 16:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::Also, can I draw your attention to this quote by ], the de-facto creator of anarchocapitalism, which is also included in the article: {{quote|The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms – self-ownership and "homesteading" – stem the justification for the entire '''system''' of property rights titles in a free-market society. '''This system''' establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles}} As you can see, it is pointless to argue about the usage of the word "system". ] (]) 15:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Which book is this quote from? Notice that he talks about the system of property rights titles, not the system of private property. You said that if I want the communism article to state:´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´, then I would have to add a source. If that is true, then it should also apply to this article. You can´t have this double standard. ] (]) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::Here you go: . The reason why you would need to add a source in the communism article is because what you're trying to add goes against all the other sources which say that communism would abolish private property. ] (]) 11:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to let you know that Marxist literature treats private property and personal property as completely separate concepts. Specifically, private property is something owned by an individual or corporation that generates capital (i.e rented-out houses, factories, a computer used for stocks, etc.) while personal property is anything else owned by individuals that doesn't generate capital (a toothbrush, personal home, dog, etc.). Therefore, private property would not exist in a communist society. ] (]) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Is Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia or a place for marxist nonsense? ] (]) 21:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Private property is entirely a system. If your definition of "system" is so myopic and narrow that you can't apply it to how power & wealth is distributed in modern society then it's entirely meaningless. Private property was preceded by feudalism, which was preceded by various tribal and classical forms of economic production & distribution, including early slave and palace economies. These are all '''systems''' of managing and distributing wealth. Privately held capital is simply the latest iteration. ] (]) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::To say "private property was preceded by feudalism" is itself inherently leftist idology, and stems from marx's theory of history. | |||
::And saying this as some sort of fact in the context of anarcho-capitalism article is just dishonest. | |||
::Private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals, not a "system of power". | |||
::Treating it as so is using the definitions of the opponents of libertarianist to define a libertarian ideology ] (]) 05:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You say "private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals", but you don't define ownership or explain how ownership is determined - this is the system we are talking about. ] (]) 11:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Ownership means control. ] (]) 16:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Reflist-talk}} | |||
==Anarcho-capitalism mentioned in MS Encarta Encyclopedia article on Anarchism== | |||
"''Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism.''" This is in the UK version of the Encyclopedia. ] 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
==´´Similar to a state apparatus´´ == | |||
==Two Anarchisms== | |||
Everyone should look at this proposal on the anarchism page and discuss it on both this talk page and the anarchism one. I support this proposal because we need to end this argument/edit war. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anarchism#Two_Anarchisms ] 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
I would say these words are a clear violation of the NPOV policy. I'm pretty sure that anarcho-capitalists would not agree that they advocate something that is ´´similar to a state apparatus´´. ] (]) 22:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Anarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism== | |||
:I agree. This seems to not be included in the source and likely an editor's opinion, even if one could agree with it. ] (]) 08:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
I added a very small subsection on anarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism. I think that it should be fair to both sides. --] 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Unfortunatly, it completely duplicated the point made in Anarchisim and Anarcho-Capitalism (in fact, it is the point of having this section.) I moved the header so more people realize this ] 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Anti-State & Libertarian == | |||
==Anarcho-capitalism in the old Wild West== | |||
I added an interesting link about anarcho-capitalism in the old Wild West in the U.S.: ] 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
If the only sources of these claims are from Anarcho-Capitalist pundits I'm not sure it is best to advertise them as central to the ideology. For example, if Stalinists claimed that their ideology was democratic we wouldn't uncritically add "democratic" to the first line of the article. | |||
== The An-cap FAQ == | |||
The degree to which Anarcho-Capitalism is truly libertarian and anti-state is extremely contentious. It seems to me to be giving the Ancap pov undue authority in the article to start with the such major concessions. ] (]) 12:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
When making a list of anarchist links, I noticed that there was no anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Sure, there's a wonderful Anarchist Theory FAQ by Bryan Caplan, but that's about anarchism in general. So, drawing upon my Misplaced Pages experience, I created one. Please make comments or suggestions on my Talk page. Behold! I give you ... | |||
:While the source in the lead is from a site that is likely at least sympathetic to Anarcho-Capitalism, there are at least some sources describing it as anti-statist in the body that are definitely not Anarcho-Capitalist pundits, like ] writing in ] (who puts scare quotes around “free market”, but not anti-statist), or ], who is a scholar who generally studies more traditional anarchism, or the big list of citations in the classical liberalism section. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to tweaking the lead despite this ("state" and "libertarianism" are complicated and just because something is citable in the body doesn't mean it's suitable for defining the topic in the first sentence) - but we would need something to replace it with, preferably some core definition used by a bunch of high-quality sources. Did you have something in mind? Another option, if you have sources supporting the idea that {{tq|the degree to which Anarcho-Capitalism is truly libertarian and anti-state is extremely contentious}}, is to just add those sources; depending on how clear the dispute is, the relative quality of the sources, and where the balance point is weight-wise we could then cover the disagreement in that regard. But we'd need those sources to even start, both to support the existence of a dispute and in order to articulate ''how'' they disagree. --] (]) 05:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:How is being in favor of abolishing the state not anti-statist? The anti-statist views of anarcho-capitalists are well documented. ] (]) 10:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
<center><font size="5"></font></center> | |||
I take issue with "In the absence of statute". Under the Rothbardian system at least, there would be a codified body of law. So statutes would exist. | |||
:Surely there would be multiple competing bodies of law? ] (]) 00:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Not the way Rothbard saw it. David Friedman on the other hand had a different point of view. ] (]) 13:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Rename to Paleo Propertarianism. == | |||
] 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Proper name of this tendency. ] (]) 21:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Infinity deleting sourced information== | |||
Infinity, stop deleting sourced information for anarcho-capitalism being individualist anarchism. I gave 4 sources. You need to realize that "individualist anarchism" is not one kind of anarchism. It's a broad category. If someone says they're an individaulist anarchist, they could be an anarcho-capitalist, a mutualist, a voluntaryist, etc. Some anarcho-capitalists don't refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but simply individualist anarchists --for example, Wendy McElroy. Don't force me to add more than 4 sources. This is ridiculous. ] 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Is there a neo-propertarianism? ] (]) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hard pass.] (]) 01:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:That is POV. I could find thousands of sources saying anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism. It is only a minority that supports what you are trying to add. So, by default, you do not add it. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 20:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== slavery == | |||
::No, it's not POV. All it says is that it's another term used for anarcho-capitalism. That is not POV. It's TRUE. ] 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
@]: The status quo has been "voluntary slavery" since in mid-September. ] is a separate article so it's not jargon or a euphemism. Not including the word "voluntary" is misleading, akin to saying that somebody who is pro-abortion rights is pro-abortion. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 21:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
When you assert "it is used" it is taken to mean "commonly used". Add it in, but only if you include "rarely used, and disputed" in brackets. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:None of the names listed are "commonly used" except for "free market anarchism." I'll just make it clear in the sentence presenting the list that these terms are "sometimes" used. I'm not going to put "disputed" in there unless you can find a source disputing that it's sometimes called individualist anarchism, which you'll never find. ] 21:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:A SPA changed it from where it was and it took a while for anyone to notice. The status quo is what it was before it got changed, obviously. | |||
:"Pro abortion"? That's one hell of a comparison. | |||
"It's sometimes called ind-anarchism" is POV, because it fails to mention that many people don't think of it that way at all. Besides, it's called a type of ind-anarchism, not synonymous with it. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:"''Voluntary'' slavery" is, at best, a poorly-defined subset of slavery, but that's being pretty generous. The term as used here would be libertarian jargon (although even Rothbard recognizes that it's an oxymoron). Misplaced Pages articles should not obfuscate words by using jargon. | |||
:Further, neither of the sources for this in the lead are strong enough to legitimize the fringe concept of "voluntary slaver". | |||
:You're wrong. It's not POV. And, it is synonymous with it as well. Some of the sources I provide use the term interchangeably. There is nothing POV about it. There is no shortage of sources. 4 is enough. Here is another --maybe no a citable source, but just to let you see that "individualist anarchism" is a broad term that includes all individualist philosophies that oppose the State. ) ] 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That the concept itself has an article doesn't make it any less fringe, nor does it make this any more or less euphemistic or jargon-like in any way. We have countless articles for jargon terms, after all. | |||
:Also, look at ] and that article's sources. It's a hot mess which fails to even properly define the concept as a topic. I do not see how linking to that article here is going to provide readers with a better understanding of this topic. ] (]) 02:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Yes, well done. Ind-anarchism can be argued to include a-capitalism. But there is no way you can possibly argue that a-capitalism is synonymous with it. See ]. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The slavery sentence was first added in February of this year, and was also removed from late June to early August, so not a long-standing consensus. I've never heard an argument to avoid linking to a more specific article because of its quality (we link to stubs, for example). Regardless, I suggest a couple compromises: | |||
::# Change it to either {{xt|a voluntary form of slavery}} or {{xt|"voluntary slavery"}} with quotes. | |||
:Yes I can argue that it is synomous with it. Some people that you would call anarcho-caitalists don't use the term for themselves. I gave you the example of Wendy McElroy --she calls herself an individualist anarchist. Also, you gave that useless rag "Anarchist FAQ" as a source for disputing that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism. I don't see them making that claim in there. Nevertheless, it needs to be noted that the FAQ was written by communists that reject individualist anarchism --a useless source. I noted that in the article. ] 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::# Keep {{xt|voluntary slavery}} but only link ]. | |||
::My goal here is simply to avoid giving the reader the impression that anarcho-capitalists are fine with slavery as it existed in early-1800s America, which is I think what many assume when they hear "slavery" with no qualifications. <span class="nowrap">–]</span> (] • ]) 23:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'm considering taking out your Anarchist FAQ source and dispute. Those communists are saying that the labor-value individualists, like Benjamin Tucker are not capitalist. They're not saying there they they think that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. I think you need to find a source that disputes that anarcho-capitalism is a kind of individualist anarchism. ] 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The word voluntary in ''voluntary slavery'' refers to the fact that the individual voluntarily signed the contract. Voluntary slavery is not voluntary in any other sense. And Walter Block wouldn't claim that it is voluntary in any other sense. So in reality, there is no disagreement. ] (]) 22:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
The article says ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Ok, you deleted it again. The next step is dispute resolution to keep you from censoring this. ] 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Resources relating Anarcho-Capitalism to Individualist Anarchism== | |||
By Anarcho-Capitalists: | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* (extensive individualist anarchist resources) | |||
* | |||
By Individualist Anarchists: | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
And finally, the - 20,900 hits. Though admittedly, a few of these are attempts at distinguishing the two rather than relating them, so this may not be convincing. | |||
--] 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
A couple more.. | |||
By Socialists or anti-capitalists: | |||
* by Mario Ferrero | |||
* ''Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide'' by Simon Tormey: "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." | |||
By mainstream reference works: | |||
* by Carl Levy, MS Encarta Encylopedia. UK version. | |||
Note that most of these sources, including from Academician, not only "relate" anarcho-capitalism to individualist anarchism but refer to anarcho-capitalism as individualist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism IS individualist anarchism. There are various kinds of individualist anarchism, such as Stirnerism, Mutualism, Voluntaryism, and Anarcho-capitalism. Of course there's always going to be people saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, but that's besides the point. The little box in the article is about ''terminology''. ] 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
RJII, the box says ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. The FAQ argues that a-capitalism isn't ind-anarchism. I thin k it's implied by ] that it also disagrees whether ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 17:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Infinity is trying to use the "Anarchist FAQ" as a source disputing that the term "individualist anarchism" can be applied to anarcho-capitalism. The FAQ is not arguing that. I demand a quote from that source indicating otherwise. ] 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:RJII, why are you adding the dispute tag? ]. If A is a subset of B, and P claims B, then P also claims A. | |||
:"a-capitalism is (a type of) ind-anarchism" is clearly a subset of "a-capitalism is a type of anarchism". -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 17:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Where's a quote from the source arguing that individualist anarchism is not a word, or should not be a word, for anarcho-capitalism? ] 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Did you read what I wrote? When someone claims B, they are also claiming all the subsets of B. It is implied. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::A, B, P, Q, whatever. I demand a quote. ] 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:"All atoms contain protons". I DEMAND A SOURCE THAT THIS ATOM IN MY HAND CONTAINS A PROTON. See my point? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::No I don't see your point. I demand a quote. Synthetic arguments are "original research." ] 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's not a synthetic argument. It's an argument extended completely logically and with no mathematical fault whatsoever. Ie. it's objectively true. Are you going to disprove set theory? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm done with arguing with you. Provide a quote. ] 18:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Two whole sections of the FAQ are arguing against a-capitalism being a type of anarchism at all. By logic: | |||
:#The FAQ argues a-capitalism is not anarchism. | |||
:#Ind-anarchism is a type of anarchism, and the FAQ acknowledges this. | |||
:#Therefore, FAQ argues that a-capitalism is not a type of ind-anarchism. (IA is a subset of A, AC is NOT a subset of A, therefore AC is NOT a subset of IA). | |||
:#The article claims that ind-anarchism is another word used for a-capitalism (IA equals AC) | |||
:#Positions 3 and 4 are opposed (ie. 4 is disputed by 3, like it says in the article). | |||
:What's wrong or even remotely POV about this deductive logic? | |||
:''And this is the case with "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology).'' | |||
:-- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Provide a quote saying that the term "individualist anarchism" should not be applied to "anarcho-capitalism" ] 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Read the above step-by-step logic. Also, the above quote in italics says it quite nicely, albeit in a roundabout way. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::In other words, it's a bad source. Don't put it back in. ] 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It's a good enough source. You're being stubborn - that quote above says the point perfectly. What's wrong with it being not direct? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is not the same thing as saying that the term "individualist anarchism" should not be used for "anarcho-capitalism." Such as argument would be like arguing that the term "anarcho-capitalism" should not be used for "anarcho-capitalism." The box is about ''terminology'' --not whether anarcho-capitalism is "true anarchism." ] 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
The quote above says " ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism... even individualist anarchism". They believe the two are "at odds" with each other. So, they are disputing that ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Sure, they say that anarcho-capitalism isn't true anarchism, but they don't say that the term "individualist anarchism" should not be used to refer to "anarcho-capitalism." ] 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
They believe the two are "at odds" with each other, and take two sections to explain why. Why would they feel the need to explicitly state "individualist anarchism cannot be used to describe a-capitalism"? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Saying they are at odds with each other is not the same thing. They say that anarcho-capitalism is at odds with anarchism, but I don't see them saying that anarcho-capitalism should not be called anarcho-capitalism. Likewise, they never argue that anarcho-capitalism should not be called individualist anarchism. ] 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Your logic makes no sense. They in fact do put "anarcho" in quotes much of the time, showing their dislike of that terminology. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Sure they dislike the terminology "anarcho-capitalism," but don't have any other name for it. They never make an argument that anarcho-capitalism should not be called individualist anarchism. ] 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
They call anarcho-capitalists "libertarian capitalists" in the introduction and at many other places. They don't explicitly state "individualist anarchism cannot be used to describe a-capitalism" because they have already written two sections on their differences. They believe the two are "at odds" with each other. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:So you admit that "they don't explicitly state "individualist anarchism cannot be used to describe a-capitalism" Case closed. The don't say that. It's a not a proper source. ] 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why not? They explicitly state "anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism". -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:You're making that up. Give us the link where they state "anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism." ] 20:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
" ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism... even individualist anarchism" - is that explicit enough for you? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:No, it's not. And, please, do not fabricate any more quotes. ] 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why not? That quote explicitly says a-capitalism and individualist anarchism are dissimilar, meaning they're not the same thing. And how is that "fabricating quotes"? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:You said just above: "They explicitly state "anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism"". You made that quote up. It's not in that FAQ. ] 21:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Yes it is. ''"And this is the case with "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology)."'' is the full quote. . -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:That's not saying that anarcho-capitalism should not be called "individualist anarchism." The box in the article is about terminology --the quote you're giving isn't. ] 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
I'm sorry to break up this little tiff, fellas, but are we suddenly using the Anarchist FAQ as ''the'' primary authority on individualist anarchism now? IIRC, it was not written by individualist anarchists. And let me know, this little back-and-forth between you two is not helping and is not resolving anything. | |||
The box originally stated (when I entered the fray): "Other terms sometimes used for this philosophy include:" This is not saying that individualist anarchism is identical with anarcho-capitalism - it is just saying that the term is sometimes used. I've heard numerous modern anarcho-capitalists calling themselves individualist anarchists - and good source material (as I linked above) supports that usage - so why are we having this debate? Isn't this pretty darn trivial? --] 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with you that "anarchist FAQ" is a not a good source anyway. Those who wrote it openly say they are "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" who "reject individualist anarchism." At least they're honest and make their bias known: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." ] 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::RJII is arguing that the Anarchist FAQ source does not actually argue that individualist anarchism is not another word for anarcho-capitalism. The FAQ argues that they are at odds with one another, so it is clearly implied. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I agree with you, Infinity0, that this is what the Anarchist FAQ implies. So what? --] 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Well, RJII was disputing that that was a good source for "but the applicability of this claim is disputed" and put a {{tl|dubious}} tag next to it. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;">]</span> 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Infinity, you're ignoring the body of thought that suggests that any sort of control mechanism isn't pure anarchism, and anything but true free-market economics has controls in place? I'd say that this argument pretty clearly shows that a-c is a type of anarchism, and that it is a highly individualist form of such, so can quite reasonably be described that way. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 20:37, 13 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:I'm not arguing whether acapitalism is anarchism or not. I'm just saying that there are anarchists who dispute it. -- ]''']''' 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::So all you are saying, really, is that some people don't think a-c is anarchism despite the fact that it is? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 22:14, 13 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
LOL. Let me point you to . -- ]''']''' 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The quote " There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement, Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist!" from that source makes me slightly dubious as to it's validity. So what if Tucker claimed an anarchist couldn't be a communist? I agree completely. What if Kropotkin was happy to include such a person with such a view in his idea of anarchism/anarchists - it just goes to show that 1) T agreed with anarcho-capitalist thought (in at least some forms) that communism was not compatible with anarchism, and 2) that K thought this was a perfectly reasonable point of view for an anarchist to hold. In fact, it undermines the 'irony' of Caplan's attempts. | |||
As it there are plenty of much more reliable sources than that link that put forward quite clear and supported arguments for not only anarcho-capitalism being a valid form of anarchy and communism being an incompatible ideology in regards to anarchism, but also several solid arguments that would support the idea that a free market is necessary to a truly anti-authoritarian system such as anarchism. Just as an example, how can you be said to be truly free to act with liberty and outside of state interference if you aren't allowed to trade goods/labour for what you can get for them? | |||
I'm sorry, but your reliance on that one source is detrimental to your argument, as it is by no means an infallible source (I would personally call it a fairly baised and poor source, and I'd no doubt be crucified if I ever used it as the main point of reference for any serious writing). If you are so sure you are right and it is the majority that agree with you then you shouldn't have trouble finding an overwhelming number of different, valid, and respectable sources to support that claim, rather than point-of-view from a single baised source, which strangely enough was what you seemed to be objecting to in the first place. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 22:52, 13 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:I was only returning the arrogance I received from you. ''"despite the fact that it is?"'' - all I can say is WOW. Sorry, but I'm really not interested in having this argument. -- ]''']''' 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I was asking for clarification of your previous comment, where you seemed to be saying that you didn't dispute whether anarcho-capitalism was a form of anarchy or not but some people do - it sounded like you were saying that you thought it was yet were supporting those who didn't, which struck me as odd. If you think asking for clarification an act of arrogance then, well, you may be mistaken. Perhaps if you addressed my points in my previous response I'd have a clearer idea of what you think and why you are arguing as you are, but if you are unwilling to address them for whatever reason then it could be you are expecting too much from others to address your own concerns regarding whatever topic is up for debate. You are, of course, free to continue jumping to conclusions if you so wish, but perhaps more credence would be given if you spent that time responding to people's points clearly and calmly. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 23:01, 13 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:::Then you should have said "even though ''you think'' it is?". I can't be bothered arguing whether it really is or not, because I don't think it's worth my time. -- ]''']''' 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Yet you dispute it enough to delete or dispute other's efforts? More over, you call <i>me</i> arrogant? Suit yourself. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 23:30, 13 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:::To me, what's on the article is more important than what you personally think. -- ]''']''' 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not talking about what I think, I'm talking about the schools of thought and the inherent definitions of what we're talking about - an anarchistic system with even less 'state' (in whatever form) control than others, yet some people dispute as being anarchistic at all. It would seem that there is a much stronger argument for putting in the fact that it is often accepted as being true, but there are some groups who disagree, although their justification for doing so is disputed, rather than the original suggestion that it is as having a disputed marker next to it. My only purpose in commenting here (I am still very new here, so I'm keeping myself to the background discussion rather than the actual article writing for the moment) is to put whatever weight I can (through argument and reasoning) behind what I would strongly suggest is the correct nomenclature and reasoning. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 00:24, 14 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:::In fact, having read more of that link my opinion of it has fallen further - "Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery." suggests that slavery is compatible with equality, which is clearly nonsense as slavery is practically one of the defining examples of inequality. Also, from a more socialist/communist standpoint you could easily (in theory) have equality without liberty, so long as you have sufficient compassion. The fact that shortly after that comment it claims that all anarchists view capitalism as usury just goes on to compound the support for the bais of the site. | |||
::You're trying to make out that a-capitalism is a major school of anarchism - it isn't; most anarchists denounce a-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist views are fringe. ''"correct nomenclature and reasoning"'' is also your own POV. ''"it is often accepted"'' - no, it's not. Most anarchists are ''against'' anarcho-capitalism and ''dispute'' that interpretation. -- ]''']''' 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm trying to support the argument that you are wrong in saying a-c isn't comparable or a form of i-a. Anyway, I wasn't aware that any school of anarchism was 'major', assuming you discount the mid-teens rallying against authority simply because that is what they do. Anarchism itself is a relatively fringe movement these days, and anarcho-capitalism (at least from the areas I've seen of it) isn't significantly smaller than many other 'accepted' forms of anarchism. If you look carefully at the reason many people dispute a-c's validity it isn't on what are claimed to be anarchistic/liberty principles, but generally (if not exclusively) on socialist/communistic grounds, and such people are better referred to as socialist-anarchists or socialist-libertarians than true anarchists, as they still promote the idea of enforcing economic controls on the individuals within society. How can you say that something is true anarchism if it won't allow someone to choose to offer services or goods for a price, and others to choose to accept or refuse those same things? This is not POV stuff any more than <i>any</i> political ideology is POV - what is best for whom, and how should it be achieved, in <i>my</i> opinion is the unspoken qualifier that goes as taken before any political viewpoint is argued for or outlined. | |||
::I was originally drawn to this article as a source of information for a presentation I have to give tomorrow, and thought the discussion behind it might be equally or more useful. I felt the need to step in and put forward these points because I was rather distressed to read that someone was deleting/disputing what is, after a fair amount of reading, a perfectly fair statement. You consistently say 'some people disagree' or 'read this single baised source I like', but won't respond to the arguments I (or anyone else, it seems) put forward to support our argument. That is not sufficient reason for the changes you make/desire to be made actually occurring, and it would be a terrible shame for such a good source to lose integrity through someone unjustifiably tampering with definitions for what appear to be personal preference reasons. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 17:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:''"If you look carefully at the reason many people dispute a-c's validity it isn't on what are claimed to be anarchistic/liberty principles"'' - that's not true. Criticims of a-capitalism that it's contradictory is mainly because capitalist structures are authoritative and oppressive, and restricts liberty. | |||
:What source is losing "integrity"? What is a "definition", and how is it being tampered with? -- ]''']''' 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Those criticisms could be levelled at any socialist or communist form, too. A freedom to partake in a free market if one so wishes is part of having true liberty. Do you dispute the fact that these leads to the conclusion that a system which allows that choice is freer than one which doesn't? If you do dispute it then I'd be <i>really</i> interested in seeing the reasoning behind your argument. If you don't then I can't see how you can defend your position with coherent arguments. | |||
It also ignores the fact that heirarchy is not only natural but unavoidable to some extent in any society, be it in the form of an oppressive state that is clearly divided from society, or as the inherent superiority over the opposition that will be found in any clear majority or vastly better equipped minority. Of course an anarchistic system wants to remove implicit control and any authoritarian structure, right? So it would seem the ultimate anarchistic society would be where people could choose to live in commune or to partake in a free-market economy as individuals or groups, so long as they don't impinge the freedom of others to choose otherwise. | |||
The article in question here (surprisingly...) is the one that would lose integrity if it were to fall into the same trap as many other anarchist resources by being taken over by strong leftwing politics, thus becoming terribly biased and less useful and respectable than they otherwise would have been. If you want a discussion on etymology or linguistic definition then I suggest you go elsewhere, as it isn't relevant to this discussion unless you happen to be working from an entirely different set of language assumptions and rules than everyone else. | |||
I do have a slight hope that you might respond to some of the questions and arguments presented to you, but this may well be rather misguided in origin. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 18:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:Those criticisms exist, and so they must be mentioned. Saying "ind-anarchism" IS another word for "a-capitalism" is completely POV. Also, I do not wish to have an argument with you about whether a-capitalism is actually anarchism or not, because it would be a waste of my time and it will accomplish nothing. No offence, but I have other, more productive things I can be doing. -- ]''']''' 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Those criticisms should be mentioned, I completely agree. However, they are not by any means comprehensive or fool-proof (in fact, I don't see how they are even that persuasive, for reasons I've already given and more) so do not justify actually saying a-c isn't anarachist at all. I'm glad you have a very busy and important timetable, but I do feel sorry for you if it precludes you from spending a couple of minutes from time to time actually supporting your claims with unbaised and coherent references and arguments. And I thought I was busy... -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 19:58, 14 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:Oh, I could put apart the time to argue with you, but I don't see much point. Also, there's no need to imply that source is biased or incoherent. -- ]''']''' 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, there is every point to imply it, because that is just what it is - biased and incoherent. As such it not only fails to support your argument, but actively undermines it. As I said, if I ever used it for referencing for anything serious I'd get a slap. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 21:16, 14 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
::Offering this kind of summary editorial judgment on sources of criticism is explicitly not the purpose of WikiPedia. Cf. ]. If you want to note the suggestion that the Anarchist FAQ is dubious or incoherent you'll need to provide a source other than your own thoughts on the matter or this Talk page. But please don't bother, because this is not an article ''about'' the Anarchist FAQ. ] 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Whatever. The facts speak for themselves - it's hosted/mirrored on 20+ websites and is one of the most cited online anarchist sources. -- ]''']''' 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
And Big Brother is one of the most watched programs on television - what is your point? The fact is I've given examples of how it contradicts itself or common sense quite clearly (equality being compatible with slavery being just one of the more stupid examples). Popularity does not insure accuracy, and if you are going to cling so to a source simply because some people like it (and perhaps you should think why that is - to support their own ideas, despite the incoherence of them) then you are liable to remain incorrect on various matters. Without trying to sound rude, you come across as quite young, and perhaps a tad idealised. You will find, though, as you progress through education/work that relying on one source simply because you like it is a terrible mistake, and that sources that are clearly biased are also often highly dubious in usefulness 'across the board', as it were. | |||
So, the facts that do speak for themselves are that despite your appeal to popularity/majority opinion for the site (or perhaps it's own) the site contains contradictory/nonsense information, and is clearly heavily left-wing biased. I suggest reading some books on political ideologies not written by the theorists in an area but analysing an ideology or school of thought, as they are extremely useful for highlighting logical inconsistencies within the orginal outline or suggestions, rather than sites that clearly have an agenda to support. When I've sorted out the tip in my room I'll try and dig out a couple of the better ones to suggest, if you're interested. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 22:42, 14 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:You are assuming that BB and AFAQ get their popularity from the same thing - this is false. BB gets its popularity from entertainment; you cannot make the same claim for the AFAQ. | |||
:If you think that AFAQ says equality is compatible with slavery, then you obviously have not fully understood it. My guess is that you're so hell-bent on discrediting that source (that has been your main point ever since you started posting) that you have built up an inherent prejudice against it, and therefore cannot process any of the arguments it makes neutrally. The other explanation is that you're distorting its words on purpose, but I am trying to ]. | |||
:If you think being anti-authority is "clearly heavily left-wing based", I cannot change what you think. -- ]''']''' 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not assuming that at all, I was merely highlighting the fact that popularity does not always indicate quality. I thought the comparison was clear, but evidently not - I hope it is clearer now. | |||
::The AFAQ implies that equality is compatible with slavery, as I have shown with a quote (which I shall give here <i>again</i> for clarity): "Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and <b>equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery</b>." (emphasis mine). If you can see some way in which saying that 1) something that <i>is</i> equal can also 2) be a justification for slavery <i>doesn't</i> justify slavery then I will retract my claim, but until then my point stands entirely reasonably. I'm not hell-bent on discrediting the source, as there seems to be much useful information there. However, any unbiased source would say that yes, there are those who claim a-c isn't anarchism, but that none of the arguments are conclusive and there isn't any other area of definition that it would fit under. It would also, of course, not make blundering and verifiably false or nonsensical statements such as the one quoted. I don't see how I could possibly have developed an inherent hatred for something that until you linked me to it I'd never come across before. No distortion of words is necessary, but if you need the above explanation for why the quote implies what I claim it implies I will be happy to provide it. | |||
::I'm afraid it appears that it is you not understanding me - I haven't said that being anti-authority is being left-wing biased, I said that being socialist/communist is clearly a left-wing bias, which is what that site is clearly heavily leaning towards. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 17:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:The comparison is invalid. The AFAQ gets its popularity from its quality - what else? | |||
:"equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery" - please explain your logic, step by step, why that sentence means "equality is compatible with slavery". I would have thought "impossible" explicitly states incompatibility. | |||
:The site makes anti-capitalist argments because it thinks capitalist structures are authoritative and anti-anarchist, not for the sake of being anti-capitalist. It is a fact that most anarchists, and the main anarchist movement is left-wing, and you would expect an "unbiased" anarchist site to reflect that. The FAQ cites from and tries to represent all schools of anarchism, even though it does not agree with them all. -- ]''']''' 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
You don't think there is any other reason that something that isn't for entertainment purposes could derive popularity other than quality? Think about it - if a school of thought wants to push it's agenda and discredit the opposing schools of thought, would it not perhaps reference biased sources to support itself? | |||
Okay, here goes the reasoning for that - | |||
:::"equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery" if broken down forms 2 explicit claims, firstly that <i>equality without liberty is impossible</i>, which alone would say that you cannot be equal without being free. It doesn't say what level of freedom is required to make it impossible, or what level of equality is prevented when this level is not achieved, so let us assume that it means when the amount of freedom being restricted outweighs the practical equality evident in society, equality is in effect non-existent. Anything less than such would be 'fairly equal' or 'free-ish' (bearing in mind that total freedom in any society is impossible and that true equality can only come around through being given choices and the freedom to act on them, not through coercive efforts to 'level the playing field' and forced choice). | |||
:::So, if part one says that without a certain level of freedom you cannot have equality, what does this mean for part two, which states that <i>in combination</i> (not either/or, but 'and') with this, not only is equality without a set degree of freedom (whatever level, but as defined above for the sake of this argument), but it is also a justification for slavery. Here we have a claim which goes "Equality can't occur without liberty, but if it did it would justify slavery". This means either the statement is meaningless (this will never happen but if it does we can blindly guess that X might happen) or that 'equality' as defined by the writer is considered itself to be meaningless unless you have the freedom to exercise it to it's fullest potential (which I'm sure you'd agree is the most likely standpoint for any form of anarchist or libertarian to take on the matter). However, if being equal means all have the same potential choices and are treated the same, how can this ever - impossible or not due to restriction of freedom by the state (although you could potentially have a system without a state where individuals restrict one another in equal ways - I'm not really buying the equality requires total automnity) - that can never be said to justify slavery. | |||
:::If anything, the quote should be reworded to say that "With slavery equality is impossible, and a justification for the restriction of freedom" or even "With slavery freedom is impossible, and a an end to equality". As it stands it at absolute best is meaningless rhetoric that states if something that can't happen happens something else bad will happen - I don't see why the writer would want to do this, to be honest, as it is a waste of time. However, what does seem more likely is that the writer is saying that in a society with a state and a modicum of equality (i.e. the same laws apply to everyone but the state weilds more power than the populace, as in modern western states) not only is it a rather hyperbolic claim, but also a profoundly stupid one, as you cannot reconcile 'equality' with 'slavery' in any context, be it theoretical or otherwise. | |||
I appreciate that the majority of anarchists are leftwing, but I would expect an un-biased site to reflect all schools of thought objectively, simply stating what they are, the arguments for and against, the major thinkers, and then a comment indicating how popular it is. I would not expect to see sections which take opinion (a-c isn't anarchism at all) and state it as fact. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 18:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:If a school of thought wants to push its agenda then there would be heavy resistance and denounciation from the opposing schools. I have not found any major criticisms against the whole FAQ - only a few scattered bits and pieces against a few sections of it, mostly the anti-anarcho-capitalist ones. Also, I myself see no misrepresentation within the AFAQ - ie. saying ind-anarchists think something when they don't. | |||
:Three paragraphs, 516 words to explain an evaluation of one sentence? Logic is supposed to be concise, could you at least condense it down into bullet points? I did say "step by step". | |||
:AFAQ doesn't state it as fact - it backs it up with quotes. It even acknowledges opposing views. Its arguments are clear and succinct. Obviously, it is trying to convince the reader that a-capitalism isn't anarchism. That's the origins of the FAQ. Of course it has some bias. But that doesn't make it a bad source, or incoherent in its line of argument. -- ]''']''' 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::So you say that there'y be resistance from the opposing schools, and then state that the criticism you do see tends to all be from one particular school (a-c)? | |||
::Sorry, I didn't realise you were one of those people who can't follow descriptive language. Allow me to simplify it for you. I assume that as you didn't raise any actual issues with it my points about freedom and equality were reasonable enough? I will use them again here, to save redefining them all over again. Of course, I have a sneaking suspicion you're just trying to avoid answering the points (again), but if you genuinely have trouble reading short disections of a single sentence and would like it spelt out point by point then here goes.... | |||
:::1)Equality requires a minimum value of liberty. | |||
:::2)Without this requirement being met, equality is impossible. | |||
:::3)Equality in such a state is a justification for slavery. | |||
:::That is what the argument states, correct? Equality, when in an impossible situation, justifies slavery. | |||
:::4)The writer either intended to say that without liberty he didn't see equality as having true practical value, OR that you implicitly can't have equality without liberty. | |||
:::5)In conjunction with the end of the quote, this means he either felt that you could have theoretical equality in combination with slavery, OR that if an impossible situation were to occur (equality without liberty) slavery would be compatible and justified. | |||
:::6)The writer either thinks equality in theory can be reconciled with slavery, OR is speculating over scenarios that will never occur. | |||
:::The only other way that comment could be read would be "Without equality you can justify slavery", which is such an obvious and pointless statement (as well as being incorrect, as you can have moral values that prevent slavery even in an unequal system) that I'd have to ask why it was not only mentioned, but also why on Earth it was phrased so badly. | |||
::If the above doesn't make a huge amount of sense then I apologise, as I've had very little sleep in the last 24 hours. | |||
::Any source should strive to be unbiased, and the AFAQ fails miserably in that, being highly biased. A highly biased source is a bad source in nearly all circumstances, especially concerning areas such as politics. You defend this bias, yet come on here and complain about what you see as bias on a page concerning the very area you find bias acceptable over on your own source? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 19:43, 15 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:Yes - if the FAQ is as bad as you say it is, then individualist anarchists would criticise it for misrepresenting their views. I haven't seen such criticism. | |||
:Point 5 is invalid. The points are "equality without liberty is impossible" and "equality without liberty is a justification for slavery". "Impossible" and "justification for slavery" are separate objects of the verb "are". | |||
:I highly doubt any anarcho-capitalist author is unbiased. Of course I complain that this page is biased. ]. AFAQ can be biased as it is only being used as a primary source. -- ]''']''' 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm saying that anarcho-capitalists criticise it for doing that, which you admit you have seen. Is it always this hard for you to follow an argument, or are you being deliberately obtuse? | |||
::Right, so 'X without Y is Z' where Z is an impossiblity, and 'Z is a justification for A'? Either equality without liberty is impossible AND a justification for slavery, OR equality without liberty is impossible and that impossible situation would be a justification for slavery. If the latter (assuming it means truly without liberty, rather than with merely limited liberty) then it is an irrelevant statement, if the former then it is saying that in some situations there is something that can be described as equality which can co-exist with slavery. | |||
::I'm not claiming that any anarcho-capitalist authors are unbiased - where did I state anything of the sort? You can complain this page is biased, but if your justification for doing so is by using a biased source then you have no argument to support you. If you find primary sources that are biased as a reasonable <i>sole supporting source</i> for calling what they are biased against biased a reasonable line of argument then perhaps you may want to reassess your referencing standards. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 21:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:It doesn't surprise me that a-capitalist criticise it. But since that is the point of the FAQ, it is to be excepted. What would make this FAQ bad would be if they failed in their objectives. They try to represent most schools of anarchism fairly, inc ind-anarchism. I haven't seen any ind-anarchist critique of the FAQ. | |||
:No. It's "X without Y is A and B." B is "justification for slavery". The "justification for slavery" applies to "equality without liberty", not "impossible". | |||
:No, I complained this page was biased, THEN included AFAQ as a source to give multiple viewpoints. Inclusion of AFAQ was my RESPONSE to the bias, not the justification for claiming the page is biased. -- ]''']''' 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Right, so "X without Y is A <i>and</i> B". That's fine. However, as A is 'impossible' B is irrelevant - if X without Y was B and was possible then it would be relevant, but in light of X without Y also implying A, which is an exclusive statement precluding any other elements. | |||
Yes, you complained that this page was biased and then justified your position by referencing a single biased source. If you did that in a report, essay, or evaluation you'd be torn apart - it is easy to find things supporting your claims of bias from opposing sources that are themselves biased against that you wish to criticise. It matters not whether it was the reason or the response, it still fails to meet the requirements for justifiably supporting your claims, and as such they remain just that - unsupported claims. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 21:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:You cannot have true X without Y, but some people may use "X without Y" to justify slavery. | |||
:Of course I did. Biased means from one point of view only. So I provided an source with the opposite view, justifying my claim that the page is biased, since the page did not contain that opposite view, but instead stated the first view as a fact. -- ]''']''' 22:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Either people are equal or they aren't though - you can't be 'a bit equal'. Within reasonable definitions of equality, if there is not a reasonable level of liberty (X without Y) you <i>can</i> justify slavery is an entirely different claim to "if not Y then X is impossible, so Z" as it implies that you could have an equal society without freedom but with slavery. If you want to put it clearly (which you must in political ideological debate, otherwise people will jump all over your theory) it should say something along the lines of "If you wish to have as unequal a society as possible you must have as free a society as possible, as without such you may end up facing slavery and oppression". This - as I hope you can clearly see - is entirely different in tone and jist to "Equality without liberty is impossible, and a justification for slavery". | |||
::Biased means not only from one point of view only, but misrepresentative of an objective look at the whole picture. Using biased sources to support an argument is not a wise move. I can't understand why or how you can think it is. -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 01:18, 16 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
:::Look, ConcretePeanut, you're being obtuse. It's well known (by capitalist libertarians, among others) that phoney pleas for "equality" under a statist order have been used to justify appalling forms of totalitarianism, up to and including the literal slavery of the gulag. The folks making these pleas claimed that "equality" could come about through totalitarian statist control and massive expropriation from, among others, innocent workers. Thus "equality" was used as an excuse for slavery. But what happened was not in fact equality in any genuine sense of the word (since genuine equality requires liberty). So it was used as an excuse while the people using it as an excuse made its real implementation impossible. This seems a rather straightforward reading of the point that the AFAQ authors were trying to make. | |||
: | |||
:] 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
ConcretePeanut, I refer you to ]. --] 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Point taken, but considering this is an article about anarcho-capitalism surely the minority view is that being represented, so in the area under discussion it isn't really a minority opinion at all (in the same way as, for example, a discussion about the political importance of Portugal would represent the thoughts and forces within that area, as opposed to the relatively insignificant scope and importance they'd be assigned in any discussion on world politics in general)? -- ]<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span> 02:15, 16 March 2006 (GMT) | |||
::::Good points, as well, but I wasn't perhaps clear in indicating that I was referring to anarcho-capitalism's relation to individualist anarchism. It is a minority view (if not even an extreme-minority view) that anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are synonymous, as this article suggests. --] | |||
:::::"A minority view" among whom? The general populace? Anarchists? Individualist anarchists? Anarcho-capitalists? Academics who study anarchism? Somebody else? Help me out here. ] 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Minority view amongst anarchists. -- ]''']''' 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Infinity, (1) how did you determine that it's "a minority view amongst anarchists"? (2) Are you including anarcho-capitalists in the group of "anarchists" whose views you're considering? —] 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The number of anarcho-capitalists compared to the number of anarchists, including a-capitalists or not, is very small. Ask anyone. Outside the net, anarcho-capitalism is unheard of. -- ]''']''' 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Aaron - I'd say that in a field as small as anarcho-capitalism all views are going to be minority views. In addition to this I don't think there are many a-capitalists who don't consider themselves ind-anarchists. It would be reasonable, I think, to say that all anarcho-capitalists are individual-anarchists, but not that all individual-anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. From how I've read the article and this argument, it seems to me that it isn't claiming the latter and is in fact pretty clear about the former. | |||
::::Infinity - the article is about the anarcho-capitalist theory and arguments, right? As this isn't what I would see as a particularly minority view within anarcho-capitalists, in part for the reasons I gave Aaron, I don't think the same issue arises. If this was a general article about anarchism, or even individual-anarchism, I would agree, but it isn't. I would think that most of the main anarcho-capitalist thinkers would class themselves as individual anarchists, even to the point of saying that without a free-market you cannot truly be anarchistic or individual. Other articles state (such as social or communist anarchism) that capitalism is heirarchical and coercive in ways that seem like fact because from that point of view it is generally held to be so. I don't see any different standards being applied here. ] 19:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::This article is on an encyclopedia, so it must represent all views, especially since this is a minor view, and so utterly disputed. They might call themselves ind-anarchists, but to say their thought is synonymous to another school's thought is complete POV, and must be balanced, since this involves ''another school'', not just an issue. -- ]''']''' 19:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Picture == | |||
Picture looks horrible, is POV, is uninformative to the reader, is uncited original research. -- ]''']''' 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Are you refering to ]? Then I agree. // ] | |||
I put it up for deletion a few days ago: ] -- ]''']''' 17:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Is FAQ on Infoshop.org written from socialist perspective? == | |||
In section A.1.4. of FAQ it's stated that all anarchists are socialists and anti-capitalist. Because of that I would say that Infoshops "An Anarchist FAQ" is FAQ written from perspective of social (leftwing) anarchists. -- ] | |||
:Even individualist anarchists such as Tucker and mutualists such as Proudhon called themselves socialists. The only "capitalist" (right wing) anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. ] redirects to this article. -- ]''']''' 12:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Does that mean that you are supporting my claim? -- ] 12:49, 19 March 2006 (GTM) | |||
:Bryan Caplan's is more fair and balanced. ] 12:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Bryan Caplan is a lone nutcase with a website. To call his "FAQ" "fair and balanced" is a joke. // ] | |||
:It means your claim is redundant. Anarchists are anti-capitalist. Bryan Caplan's FAQ is not more fair or balanced - he is a libertarian <del>historian</del> economist (wow, he's not even a historian), not even an anarchist, and An Anarchist FAQ replies to "errors and distortions" in his FAQ in . -- ]''']''' 12:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::To you who are anti-capitalist my claim is redundant. To me it's not. If this is going to be balanced article, in footnotes that direct to Infoshop.org FAQ must stand that it's written from socialist (leftwing) perspective. -- ] 13:09, 19 March 2006 (GTM) | |||
:It's not written from a left-wing perspective, though. The FAQ tries to represent all schools of anarchism except a-capitalism. -- ]''']''' 13:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Where are your arguments for claim that it's not written from a leftwing perspective? All schools that FAQ tries to represent are socialist schools (or that is what Infoshop claims). -- ] 13:36, 19 March 2006 (GTM) | |||
:LOL. Obviously you have not read any of the FAQ - the FAQ tries to represent individualist anarchism and many lesser known schools such as anarcho-primitivism. It's all detailed in the "what types of anarchism are there" section (section B IIRC). If those sections were biased, I would expect criticisms from individualist anarchists or anarcho-primitivists denouncing the FAQ. I have found no such complaints. -- ]''']''' 13:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
:"Are anarchists socialists? Yes." is pretty clear about that issue. -- ] 13:59, 19 March 2006 (GTM) |
Latest revision as of 13:03, 24 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anarcho-capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Anarcho-capitalism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
´´The system of private property´´
What exactly is ´´the system of private property´´? Is private property a ´´system´´? I think we need a reliable source for this nonsense. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
‘Private property’ refers to a kind of system that allocates particular objects like pieces of land to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others (even others who have a greater need for the resources) and to the exclusion also of any detailed control by society.
- Jeremy Waldron in The Right to Private Property:
In a system of private property, the rules governing access to and control of material resources are organized around the idea that resources are on the whole separate objects each assigned and therefore belonging to some particular individual.
- Hoskins and O’Driscoll on Libertarianism.org:
A private property system gives individuals the exclusive right to use their resources as they see fit.
- I am not sure why you think calling this a system is "nonsense", it's clearly a system: a set of enforced rules. In order to sustain private property claims, some sort of system is required. BeŻet (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Communism allows private property to an extent. Should the Communism article state ´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´? If not, why not? Liberty5000 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- This article is about anarcho-capitalism, not about communism. Communism seeks the abolishment of private property. Marx and Engels define communism as the abolition of 'bourgeois property', that is, private property in the means of production (as mentioned in the Communist Manifesto).
You can also read his manuscripts on Private Property and Communism. BeŻet (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC) BeŻet (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)(...) the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property
- If you can own a toothbrush in Marx´s communism then private property has not been completely abolished. Whether or not private property in the means of production has been abolished is another matter. Knives are means of production. Would all knives be collectively owned in Marx´s communism? If not then private property in the means of production has not been completely abolished. I think a better definition of communism, at least the one advocated by Marx would be: ´´the abolition of private property in higher order capital goods´´. Liberty5000 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can still own a toothbrush if the system of private property has been abolished. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about the difference between personal and private property, but you don't need a system to manage ownership of toothbrushes. To manage land and property ownership claims, on the other hand, yes. BeŻet (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @BeŻet @Liberty5000 "System" I think means the legal system, which defines "property" and its modes of acquisition (e.g., accession) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly right. It's either a legal or political system – anything that defines the rules of how property is managed, how ownership claims are validated and how those rules are enforced. Per International Encyclopedia of Political Science by Bertrand Badie et al:
BeŻet (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) BeŻet (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.
- If ´´politics´´ means the state that is laughably wrong. Private property is older than the state. The marxist distinction between ´´personal´´ and private property is completely unscientific and arbitrary. The ´private´´ in private property refers to private ownership, as opposed to collective ownership. If something is both private and property, then by definition it is private property. This is basic logic. If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse. If someone steals my toothbrush I am allowed to take it back by force. This shows clearly that private ownership of toothbrushes is also enforced, just like any other private ownership. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your opinions and interpretations don't matter here. The talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for political debates. If you have any quality sources showing that communism has a system of private property, feel free to go to the appropriate article and add that information alongside your references. Your "logic" is not sufficient here. You asked what a system of private property is, and I provided you with more than enough references, which I think are enough to help you understand the concept. I don't see what else needs discussing here. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have not stated any opinions so far. It would have been more honest if you had written ´´Your facts and reasoned arguments don´t matter here.´´ I do think this is (unfortuneatly) true. Facts and reasoned arguments and truth don´t matter on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages even has an explicit guideline which claims that Misplaced Pages is not about truth! The only thing that matters on Misplaced Pages is what the so-called ´´reliable´´ sources say. These so-called ´´reliable sources´´ are often not reliable at all, but are rather merely left wing propaganda. Do you seriously disagree with the following statement: ´´If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse´´? There is no doubt that this statement is true. This is not ´´my logic´´. This is just logic, period. The statement about private property has the same logical structure as the blue horse statement. If you accept one of them as being true then you must, by force of logic, also accept the other one. If you are unable to see this I don´t know how to help you. I still think private property is too basic to be called a ´´system´´. We can´t even imagine a society without private property. It is absurd to think that if there were no state then all private property would suddenly vanish. If you have a source which Misplaced Pages deems ´´reliable´´ then go ahead and add it to the article. But I don´t like you pretending that by doing so you have somehow ´´proven´´ something. That would be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like entertaining childish "logic" arguments. A horse which is blue is a blue horse, therefore property, which is private, is private property isn't an "argument" in any shape or form. It's just a tautology. Tautologies are redundant statements, they don't bring anything to the table and just make you look silly. Wouldn't you agree that property, which is personal, is personal property? Surely that's "just logic, period"? Therefore, I'm right, haha! Oh hang on a minute, terms have definitions and meanings? Etymology exists? How bizarre! A black box isn't actually black? Buffalo wings are not made from buffalo? Koala bears are not bears? What? But it's logic! Like I said, if you want to include anything in an article, provide sources to support your claims, don't use playground arguments. BeŻet (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Tell me, what is your ´´argument´´? What is your position based on? Your ridiculous position that a privately owned toothbrush is somehow not ´´really´´ private property. Is your argument ´´Because Marx said so´´? Who cares what Marx thought? Marx was a complete and utter crackpot and lunatic. I don´t give a damn about Marx´s opinion on any subject under the sun. ´´Because Marx said so´´ is not an argument. It is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. As for your other ´´argument´´, that can be easily disposed of as well. You seem to believe that only private property that is ´´enforced´´ is ´´really´´ private property. If I own a toothbrush I am allowed to employ violence to defend my ownership of it. If someone steals my toothbrush from me I am allowed to take it back by force. How is my ownership of the toothbrush then not enforced? I can also hire a third party to help me defend my ownership of the toothbrush. But a third party is not necessarily needed to enforce my ownership rights. If you enforce your property rights yourself, without help from anyone else, then they are enforced, no less than if they are enforced by a third party. I have now demonstrated that, even by your own standard, privately owned toothbrushes are private property. Even if your standard made sense (which it doesn´t) privately owned toothbrushes would STILL be private property! I want to move on from this debate. I am going to edit the article, unless you add a source which Misplaced Pages deems reliable. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
If someone steals my toothbrush from me, I am allowed to take it back by force
- allowed by whom? I don't have time for your twisted pretzel logic, you can edit any article you want and add content, as long as you have an adequate source supporting your addition. BeŻet (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)- I am allowed by a society that respects the idea of private property. Please don´t call logic twisted or put quotes around the word. If you have a problem with logical thinking, that is your problem. Don´t try to make it my problem as well. According to Misplaced Pages policy any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged can be removed. I have now challenged this content. So I am going to remove it unless you add a source which Misplaced Pages deems reliable. Liberty5000 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, any content that is challenged on specific grounds, such as lack of sourcing, can be removed. Not any content that you simply don't like or, int this case, not understand. Since I provided you with several sources, your objections seem to be a "you" problem, not a Misplaced Pages problem. BeŻet (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Do the sources you provided prove that private property is a system or do they merely assert it? Liberty5000 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- The article talks about a system of private property, which is a thing that exists. The article is not making any assertions that a system of private property exists. The existence of it is WP:BLUESKY. I provided you with multiple sources explaining what that means. Even Milton Friedman talks about the "system of private property". This is a very common term. I don't understand what else you need here. BeŻet (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, can I draw your attention to this quote by Rothbard, the de-facto creator of anarchocapitalism, which is also included in the article:
As you can see, it is pointless to argue about the usage of the word "system". BeŻet (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms – self-ownership and "homesteading" – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles
- Which book is this quote from? Notice that he talks about the system of property rights titles, not the system of private property. You said that if I want the communism article to state:´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´, then I would have to add a source. If that is true, then it should also apply to this article. You can´t have this double standard. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Here you go: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. The reason why you would need to add a source in the communism article is because what you're trying to add goes against all the other sources which say that communism would abolish private property. BeŻet (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Which book is this quote from? Notice that he talks about the system of property rights titles, not the system of private property. You said that if I want the communism article to state:´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´, then I would have to add a source. If that is true, then it should also apply to this article. You can´t have this double standard. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Do the sources you provided prove that private property is a system or do they merely assert it? Liberty5000 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, any content that is challenged on specific grounds, such as lack of sourcing, can be removed. Not any content that you simply don't like or, int this case, not understand. Since I provided you with several sources, your objections seem to be a "you" problem, not a Misplaced Pages problem. BeŻet (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I am allowed by a society that respects the idea of private property. Please don´t call logic twisted or put quotes around the word. If you have a problem with logical thinking, that is your problem. Don´t try to make it my problem as well. According to Misplaced Pages policy any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged can be removed. I have now challenged this content. So I am going to remove it unless you add a source which Misplaced Pages deems reliable. Liberty5000 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Tell me, what is your ´´argument´´? What is your position based on? Your ridiculous position that a privately owned toothbrush is somehow not ´´really´´ private property. Is your argument ´´Because Marx said so´´? Who cares what Marx thought? Marx was a complete and utter crackpot and lunatic. I don´t give a damn about Marx´s opinion on any subject under the sun. ´´Because Marx said so´´ is not an argument. It is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. As for your other ´´argument´´, that can be easily disposed of as well. You seem to believe that only private property that is ´´enforced´´ is ´´really´´ private property. If I own a toothbrush I am allowed to employ violence to defend my ownership of it. If someone steals my toothbrush from me I am allowed to take it back by force. How is my ownership of the toothbrush then not enforced? I can also hire a third party to help me defend my ownership of the toothbrush. But a third party is not necessarily needed to enforce my ownership rights. If you enforce your property rights yourself, without help from anyone else, then they are enforced, no less than if they are enforced by a third party. I have now demonstrated that, even by your own standard, privately owned toothbrushes are private property. Even if your standard made sense (which it doesn´t) privately owned toothbrushes would STILL be private property! I want to move on from this debate. I am going to edit the article, unless you add a source which Misplaced Pages deems reliable. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like entertaining childish "logic" arguments. A horse which is blue is a blue horse, therefore property, which is private, is private property isn't an "argument" in any shape or form. It's just a tautology. Tautologies are redundant statements, they don't bring anything to the table and just make you look silly. Wouldn't you agree that property, which is personal, is personal property? Surely that's "just logic, period"? Therefore, I'm right, haha! Oh hang on a minute, terms have definitions and meanings? Etymology exists? How bizarre! A black box isn't actually black? Buffalo wings are not made from buffalo? Koala bears are not bears? What? But it's logic! Like I said, if you want to include anything in an article, provide sources to support your claims, don't use playground arguments. BeŻet (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have not stated any opinions so far. It would have been more honest if you had written ´´Your facts and reasoned arguments don´t matter here.´´ I do think this is (unfortuneatly) true. Facts and reasoned arguments and truth don´t matter on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages even has an explicit guideline which claims that Misplaced Pages is not about truth! The only thing that matters on Misplaced Pages is what the so-called ´´reliable´´ sources say. These so-called ´´reliable sources´´ are often not reliable at all, but are rather merely left wing propaganda. Do you seriously disagree with the following statement: ´´If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse´´? There is no doubt that this statement is true. This is not ´´my logic´´. This is just logic, period. The statement about private property has the same logical structure as the blue horse statement. If you accept one of them as being true then you must, by force of logic, also accept the other one. If you are unable to see this I don´t know how to help you. I still think private property is too basic to be called a ´´system´´. We can´t even imagine a society without private property. It is absurd to think that if there were no state then all private property would suddenly vanish. If you have a source which Misplaced Pages deems ´´reliable´´ then go ahead and add it to the article. But I don´t like you pretending that by doing so you have somehow ´´proven´´ something. That would be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your opinions and interpretations don't matter here. The talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for political debates. If you have any quality sources showing that communism has a system of private property, feel free to go to the appropriate article and add that information alongside your references. Your "logic" is not sufficient here. You asked what a system of private property is, and I provided you with more than enough references, which I think are enough to help you understand the concept. I don't see what else needs discussing here. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- If ´´politics´´ means the state that is laughably wrong. Private property is older than the state. The marxist distinction between ´´personal´´ and private property is completely unscientific and arbitrary. The ´private´´ in private property refers to private ownership, as opposed to collective ownership. If something is both private and property, then by definition it is private property. This is basic logic. If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse. If someone steals my toothbrush I am allowed to take it back by force. This shows clearly that private ownership of toothbrushes is also enforced, just like any other private ownership. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly right. It's either a legal or political system – anything that defines the rules of how property is managed, how ownership claims are validated and how those rules are enforced. Per International Encyclopedia of Political Science by Bertrand Badie et al:
- @BeŻet @Liberty5000 "System" I think means the legal system, which defines "property" and its modes of acquisition (e.g., accession) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can still own a toothbrush if the system of private property has been abolished. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about the difference between personal and private property, but you don't need a system to manage ownership of toothbrushes. To manage land and property ownership claims, on the other hand, yes. BeŻet (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you can own a toothbrush in Marx´s communism then private property has not been completely abolished. Whether or not private property in the means of production has been abolished is another matter. Knives are means of production. Would all knives be collectively owned in Marx´s communism? If not then private property in the means of production has not been completely abolished. I think a better definition of communism, at least the one advocated by Marx would be: ´´the abolition of private property in higher order capital goods´´. Liberty5000 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to let you know that Marxist literature treats private property and personal property as completely separate concepts. Specifically, private property is something owned by an individual or corporation that generates capital (i.e rented-out houses, factories, a computer used for stocks, etc.) while personal property is anything else owned by individuals that doesn't generate capital (a toothbrush, personal home, dog, etc.). Therefore, private property would not exist in a communist society. 296cherry (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia or a place for marxist nonsense? Liberty5000 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Communism allows private property to an extent. Should the Communism article state ´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´? If not, why not? Liberty5000 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Private property is entirely a system. If your definition of "system" is so myopic and narrow that you can't apply it to how power & wealth is distributed in modern society then it's entirely meaningless. Private property was preceded by feudalism, which was preceded by various tribal and classical forms of economic production & distribution, including early slave and palace economies. These are all systems of managing and distributing wealth. Privately held capital is simply the latest iteration. Ashtarnaghö (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- To say "private property was preceded by feudalism" is itself inherently leftist idology, and stems from marx's theory of history.
- And saying this as some sort of fact in the context of anarcho-capitalism article is just dishonest.
- Private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals, not a "system of power".
- Treating it as so is using the definitions of the opponents of libertarianist to define a libertarian ideology 2A00:A041:3795:100:576E:B44F:E09F:F410 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- You say "private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals", but you don't define ownership or explain how ownership is determined - this is the system we are talking about. BeŻet (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ownership means control. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- You say "private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals", but you don't define ownership or explain how ownership is determined - this is the system we are talking about. BeŻet (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
References
- Waldron, Jeremy (2004-09-06). "Property and Ownership". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
- Waldron, Jeremy (1990-11-08). "What is Private Property?". The Right to Private Property. Oxford University Press. p. 26–61. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198239376.003.0002.
- "PROPERTY RIGHTS: THE KEY TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT". libertarianism.org. Retrieved 2023-11-12.
- Sayers, Sean (2011). "Private Property and Communism". Marx and Alienation. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 101–132. doi:10.1057/9780230309142_7. ISBN 978-1-349-32517-7.
- Marx, Karl; Engels, Frederick. "Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
- Bertrand Badie; Dirk Berg-Schlosser; Leonardo Morlino (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Sage Publications. p. 2132. ISBN 978-1412959636.
´´Similar to a state apparatus´´
I would say these words are a clear violation of the NPOV policy. I'm pretty sure that anarcho-capitalists would not agree that they advocate something that is ´´similar to a state apparatus´´. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. This seems to not be included in the source and likely an editor's opinion, even if one could agree with it. BeŻet (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Anti-State & Libertarian
If the only sources of these claims are from Anarcho-Capitalist pundits I'm not sure it is best to advertise them as central to the ideology. For example, if Stalinists claimed that their ideology was democratic we wouldn't uncritically add "democratic" to the first line of the article.
The degree to which Anarcho-Capitalism is truly libertarian and anti-state is extremely contentious. It seems to me to be giving the Ancap pov undue authority in the article to start with the such major concessions. RealLibertyEnjoyer (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- While the source in the lead is from a site that is likely at least sympathetic to Anarcho-Capitalism, there are at least some sources describing it as anti-statist in the body that are definitely not Anarcho-Capitalist pundits, like Lisa Duggan writing in Dissent (American magazine) (who puts scare quotes around “free market”, but not anti-statist), or Ruth Kinna, who is a scholar who generally studies more traditional anarchism, or the big list of citations in the classical liberalism section. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to tweaking the lead despite this ("state" and "libertarianism" are complicated and just because something is citable in the body doesn't mean it's suitable for defining the topic in the first sentence) - but we would need something to replace it with, preferably some core definition used by a bunch of high-quality sources. Did you have something in mind? Another option, if you have sources supporting the idea that
the degree to which Anarcho-Capitalism is truly libertarian and anti-state is extremely contentious
, is to just add those sources; depending on how clear the dispute is, the relative quality of the sources, and where the balance point is weight-wise we could then cover the disagreement in that regard. But we'd need those sources to even start, both to support the existence of a dispute and in order to articulate how they disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) - How is being in favor of abolishing the state not anti-statist? The anti-statist views of anarcho-capitalists are well documented. Liberty5000 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Meistro1 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I take issue with "In the absence of statute". Under the Rothbardian system at least, there would be a codified body of law. So statutes would exist.
- Surely there would be multiple competing bodies of law? —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not the way Rothbard saw it. David Friedman on the other hand had a different point of view. Meistro1 (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Rename to Paleo Propertarianism.
Proper name of this tendency. 2601:200:4000:7DA:F4D7:3989:293D:FE4 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a neo-propertarianism? —Tamfang (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hard pass.Meistro1 (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
slavery
@Grayfell: The status quo has been "voluntary slavery" since this edit in mid-September. Voluntary slavery is a separate article so it's not jargon or a euphemism. Not including the word "voluntary" is misleading, akin to saying that somebody who is pro-abortion rights is pro-abortion. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- A SPA changed it from where it was and it took a while for anyone to notice. The status quo is what it was before it got changed, obviously.
- "Pro abortion"? That's one hell of a comparison.
- "Voluntary slavery" is, at best, a poorly-defined subset of slavery, but that's being pretty generous. The term as used here would be libertarian jargon (although even Rothbard recognizes that it's an oxymoron). Misplaced Pages articles should not obfuscate words by using jargon.
- Further, neither of the sources for this in the lead are strong enough to legitimize the fringe concept of "voluntary slaver".
- That the concept itself has an article doesn't make it any less fringe, nor does it make this any more or less euphemistic or jargon-like in any way. We have countless articles for jargon terms, after all.
- Also, look at Voluntary slavery and that article's sources. It's a hot mess which fails to even properly define the concept as a topic. I do not see how linking to that article here is going to provide readers with a better understanding of this topic. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The slavery sentence was first added in February of this year, and was also removed from late June to early August, so not a long-standing consensus. I've never heard an argument to avoid linking to a more specific article because of its quality (we link to stubs, for example). Regardless, I suggest a couple compromises:
- Change it to either a voluntary form of slavery or "voluntary slavery" with quotes.
- Keep voluntary slavery but only link slavery.
- My goal here is simply to avoid giving the reader the impression that anarcho-capitalists are fine with slavery as it existed in early-1800s America, which is I think what many assume when they hear "slavery" with no qualifications. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The word voluntary in voluntary slavery refers to the fact that the individual voluntarily signed the contract. Voluntary slavery is not voluntary in any other sense. And Walter Block wouldn't claim that it is voluntary in any other sense. So in reality, there is no disagreement. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The slavery sentence was first added in February of this year, and was also removed from late June to early August, so not a long-standing consensus. I've never heard an argument to avoid linking to a more specific article because of its quality (we link to stubs, for example). Regardless, I suggest a couple compromises:
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class Libertarianism articles
- Mid-importance Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Libertarianism articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles