Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Anarcho-capitalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 05 and June 05.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive11. Thank you. Saswann 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This seems justified until some stable agreement is reached about how to illustrate the tension over the fact that anarcho-capitalists self-identify as anarchists. 66.94.94.154 18:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For people that eschew private property, y'all sure do get uppity about "ownership" of a word. --Golbez 19:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I just hope that people calm down enough to be interested in coming to a consensus. 66.94.94.154 19:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For people that claim to respect private property, ancaps sure are shameless about stealing one.

The difference is, unlike an anarcho-capitalist, I wouldn't sue in a "privately owned" patent court or send a "private army" after them for using the term anarchist. I will just point out how ahistorical and inaccurate it is, and make every effort to clarify that they are misusing a political/philosophical term with a long, rich, and bitterly anti-capitalist history.

The basic, irrefutable fact is that anarchism as such emerged from the same anti-capitalist struggles that produced Marxism, and remains anti-capitalist to this day. Anarchism has never been simple anti-governmentalism, it has always been anti-capitalist. Anyone passingly familiar with anarchist history is aware of this - anyone who even bothers to read the wikipedia articles in the anarchism series! A handful of capitalists have decided in recent years to dub themselves "anarchists" exclusively because they oppose "public government," not even the state as such but public rather than private ownership of the state.

Fine.

But this does not mean they can openly define their ideology as "anarchist" and escape the fury of thosands of anarchists who are part of that tradition who have sacrificed countless thousands of their lives for freedom, whether fighting the Bolsheviks or the Fascists in defense of liberty. To call them "left-anarchists" or "socialist anarchists" is to spit on their graves and everything they died fighting for.

All this requires is an up-front statement of some sort making clear what anarcho-capitalism is and is not. It is a new ideology, emerging from libertarianism and capitalism. It is not emerging from anarchism. It is using the word as a label of convenience.

Whether out of respect for the dead or whether out of interest in academic rigor, it must be made clear that "anarcho-capitalists" are not anarchists by any but their own, extremely marginal, unique, and particular definition.

Take a hypothetical parallel: Christianity is historically well established. Say there was a group started in recent decades which decided to call themselves "Christian Satanists," say due to the fact that since everyone knows Satan is in the Christian bible he must be a Christian deity or similar convoluted "common" (aka uninformed, meaningless) definition. This is parallel to the ancap's ahistorical hijacking of the term "anarchism." Then, say members of this "Christian Satanist" cult decide to start a page on wikipedia, describing their religion as they see fit. Fine. Many Christians will no doubt contribute to "criticism" of the policies, actions, rituals, and philosophies of such a group. These would all appropriately go in the criticism section.

But clarification should be made, in the intro, and if necessary with elaboration in an opening section on terminology, that Christianity - Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, etc, etc - all factions which normally have plenty of theological problems with each other, as well as unaffiliated Christians belonging to no organized church - all would universally denounce such a religion as NOT CHRISTIAN.

This situation is the same. It must be handled as though anarchists deserve the same respect due to Christians.

You can obscure it and censor it and fight it all you want, but this is a matter of basic decency and respect, as well as academic, historical, political, and philosophical accuracy.

I'll calm down when capitalists stop strip-mining, clear-cutting, running sweatshops full of abuse victims, and directing their governments to fight wars for markets and resources, based on disputes over property ownership. Maybe.

--23x

Maybe you should calm down when you actually find out what kind of capitalism these folks support. --Golbez 20:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

23x, How do you explain individualist anarchism then? Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy. Individualist anarchists are part of a "tradition" and they oppose Marxism and collectivism. The real divide is between European and American anarchism. Collectivists versus individualists. You act as if the only tradition of anarchism is the collectivist one. RJII 20:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

23x, I respect your passion on the subject, but I think you are way, way too close to the issue to edit anything on this subject in a dispassionate (ie. non-POV) manner. I am not saying your point about Anarcho-capitalism being rightly considered part of the Libertarian tradition more than the Anarchist tradition is not correct. But NPOV is not just a matter of fact, it is a matter of style. There is a very significant difference between saying "These people self-identify as anarchists, but a majority of anarchists disagree with them." and saying "These people are wrong to self-identify as anarchists." the first is an unarguable statement of fact, and the second is a very POV value judgment-- even if the meanings amount to the same thing. The article was originally very clear that this was a more part of libertarian thought than anarchist thought. To extend your parallel to cover the current debate: There are strains of Protestant fundamentalism that seriously consider Roman Catholicism a form of Idolatry, and consider the Mormons a form of cult, both (from their POV) "not Christian." (And, as an aside, many non-Christans-- particularly pagans-- see Satanisim as a "Christian" cult.) Just because people dissent from a particular ideology doesn't restrict them, in the real world, from identifying with whatever group they so choose. The place for an encyclopedia is to illustrate the facts: where this philosophy diverges from the orthodoxy. Not to enforce the orthodoxy by condemning those who diverge from it. 66.94.94.154 20:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it may be awhile before anyone gets a response from 23x. This was on his User page: "This account has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet created to get round 3RR. More details at User talk:67.123.246.214. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)"

Then, can we remove the tag now, it was an act of fustration on my part 66.94.94.154 13:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

w/o objection then I'm removing it 66.94.94.154 16:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

I placed the controversial tag here. It seems appropriate 66.94.94.154 19:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to Make this More "Encyclopedic"

YMMV- However, I've attempted to boldly edit this article in some sort of shape. I think the structure is workable now, with Philosophy/History/Criticism sections that should encompass most of the data that can be trown at this. History is still a little messy-- there seems to be two approaches possible;

a straight chronology, which the current version almost approaches
a thematic braid showing converging trends

more things this needs:

There should be a section on Austrian School economics in history co-equal with Liberalisim and Individualist Anarchy
The Philosophy section could do with much more actual citation.
The Philosophy section has a lot of redundancy.
Individualist anarchism gets a lot of text, at the expense (I think) of modern sources, which are more germaine to the topic.
A complete refrence section and appropriate inline citations (which I started, but long way to go.)

Anyway, my 2 cents 66.94.94.154 20:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

non-aggresion axiom

The non-agression axiom leaves out fraud. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose fraud in transactions. RJII 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

no, fraud is a lie for the purpouse of profit, which is theft, which is agression vs. propery. Just like burgulary or taxation which are patent violations of the axiom 66.94.94.154 21:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC) [BTW-I meant no, the axiom doesn't leave out fraud. 66.94.94.154 12:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)]

It's much more straightforward to just say that they oppose the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, and fraud that prevents individuals from using their person or property how they wish. RJII 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but it seems clear to me the way the section is currently worded. (I made a point of including fraud.) In my mind, legnth and redundancy seem (still) to be the major fault of this article, so there's alwaysthe possibility I might over-prune. . . 66.94.94.154 12:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI: Herbert Spencer used the terms "direct force" and "indirect force" to mean (as we would say) aggression or threat of aggression. By the way, which is more correct? Non-Aggression Axiom or Non-Aggression Principle? Rothbard used the former, but nowadays I always see it called the NAP. See numerous articles on anti-state.com --Hogeye 02:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FWIW: Axiom is the term I've seen most often with Libertarian writers. And, since this is an article about a phlosophy that owes a lot (probably even its name) to Rothbard, it seems to be appropriate to use the Axiom variant here. . . Saswann 16:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlimited right to contract

Is this accurate?

The thing to remember about such arguments is that an individual has an unlimited right to contract, and can be held to terms of death, torture, incarceration, exile, slavery, or stripping of property if they willingly sign a contract to that effect.

I would have thought that most A-C's do not accept the right to contract yourself into slavery. That sounds kind of logically inconsistent. Anyway, this certainly doesn't need to be highlighted. - Nat Kraus e 05:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it isn't self consistent. If every person is a self-owner, and everone has the right to transfer property, it logically follows that someone can give another person "ownership" over themselves. This doesn't just apply to "slavery" but to legal devices such as guardianship and power of attorney. Of course a citation is probably merited re: unlimited right to contract. 66.94.94.154 12:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The above is consistent only if we modify it to read ... "if every person is a self-owner at birth". If on the other hand, one believes that all people are self-owners at all times, slavery is impossible. If someone were to sell himself, then it wouldn't be true that all people are self-owners. Actually, to be completely accurate, I've never thought it was true that people own themselves—to me, that's just a shorthand way of saying that we sure as hell aren't owned by anybody else. - Nat Kraus e 14:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Does someone have a ref. for this? What I've seen of the philosophy seems to consider self-ownership as a lot more than shorthand. . . But if self-ownership is absolute but not transferrable within some strain of anarcho-capitalisim, the distinction should be pointed out. Saswann 14:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I remember Gene Callahan, an influential ancap author, saying that he didn't literally believe in self-ownership, but I'm not sure if that was in a published work or just some random place on the internet. - Nat Kraus e 15:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I asked this question once, and one answer I got was - What is slavery? It is the total removal of your personal liberty and, therefore, rights and responsibilities. You become an object. And an object cannot be liable for its actions, only its owner can. Therefore, if you sign yourself over to slavery, you can kill your owner without repurcussion. --Golbez 16:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The question is a matter of debate among libertarians broadly and a-c's in particular. Some (e.g. Murray Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty or Roderick Long here and here) think that slavery contracts can be voided at will because the right to contract depends on a prior set of inalienable freedoms; others (e.g. Walter Block, Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, or Anthony de Jasay in Justice and its Surroundings) think that slavery contracts can be valid and enforceable and banning them entails an invasive restriction on the right to contract. Since the dispute is present amongst anarcho-capitalists, the article shouldn't be written in such a way as to presuppose either POV. HTH. --Radgeek 03:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This would be a good point to raise in the "Contractual Society" contrasting the two views. Saswann 15:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took up this point myself Saswann 16:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Highly relevant link showing a range of Ancap opinions on the subject: Voluntary Slavery--Matt Apple 21:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Clipped paragraph

Nothing wrong with this, but it no longer fits in the section now headed "The use of force"

Some anarcho-capitalists are not happy with either violence or soap-boxing as ways to end statism, and instead are trying to found private communities (and thus lead by example) and essentially ignore government until it goes away. Some are attempting to outcompete government by issuing private money (such as anonymous digital cash) in hopes of eventually eroding its ability to tax.

Perhaps there should be a section on how anarcho-capitalists see the transition to an anarcho-capitalist society (Incrementalisim/Succession/Revolution) but I am leery about adding one because the article is borderline too-long as it is. Saswann 00:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Serious NPOV violations

Some serious NPOV violations have been introduced to this article at the hands of partisans. These need to be removed altogether or reworked in order to remove the NPOV dispute header:

To speakers of English familiar with the dictionary definition of the word "anarchism" as refering to the absence of a state, it may be odd to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. This seems obviously wrong to those who know the etymological roots of the word "anarchism," since it comes from Greek words meaning "without a ruler."

This section is plainly the anarcho-capitalist POV, all forms of traditional anarchism would dispute this, and there is no etymological reason to think that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. In addition, the graphic that is placed next to it clearly pushes the anarcho-capitalist POV. That in itself is fine, but it should be labeled as the anarcho-capitalist POV, rather than the voice of wikipedia.

I tried to adress this by reverting (in part) to an earlier version that had a less loaded vocabulary and driectly quoted a "traditional" Anarchist website. However, I fail to see how the graphic is pushing a POV, it seems solely discriptive to me. Saswann 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The graphic is descriptive of the anarcho-capitalist POV. The vast majority of anarchists would not agree that, for example, Proudhon's position is best described as somewhere vaguely inbetween the spectrum of socialism and capitalism, nor that Tucker's is. As I have already said, there is nothing wrong with giving this description (i.e. with posting this graphic here) in itself, but it has to be labeled clearly as the POV that it is. Kev 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's easy enough to fix Saswann 19:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This divide has been termed by anarcho-socialists as left anarchism versus right anarchism. (Heider 1994)

This is highly misleading. It may be termed by some traditional anarchists as such,but certainly not most. It is almost exclusively an anarcho-capitalist terminology, not a traditional anarchist one.

The left/right comes from all sorts, capitalist, socialist, and people completly outside the "movement," Illustrated by the fact that if you use the terms, almost everyone in the debate knows what you mean. I removed the "anarcho-socialist" which seems a very strange point to try and make. Saswann 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The left/right does come from all sorts, but almost exclusively those "all sorts" fall into the category of agreeing with the anarcho-capitalist conception of things, or if disagreeing with the traditional anarchist conception. In order words, this is pushing a particular POV, once again. Kev 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is POV, but I think you're wrong about whose. It is representitive of the general American preoccupation with left/right dualism that seriosly breaks down when talking about anarchisim of any stripe-- case in point: I see both anarcho-capitalists and anrcho-socialists object to it. Saswann 18:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These individualists opposed collectivist conceptions of property, in favor of individual private property.

This, again is totally misleading. Individualist anarchists supported a form of property stemming from Proudhon's possession. It was not the collectivist property of the anarcho-communists, for certain, but neither was it the property entitlement of anarcho-capitalists. This comparison makes it sound like the individualists agreed with the anarcho-capitalists on private property, when they did not.

Actually the article made the seriously redundant point that this was precisely where the two diverge. (Four places in three paragraphs at my count.) I tried to make it less opaque when I pruned it Saswann 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker, though calling himself a "socialist" rejects the modern socialist idea of common ownership of land. Rather than having to do with collective ownership of resources, as it is commonly defined today, he says the foundational claim of socialim is "that labor should be put in possession of its own" (see definitions of socialism).

This section falsely implies that Tucker's definition of socialism was somehow different than that of traditional anarchists. It was not, most anarchists agree that the principle of socialism is, in part, that the laborer should be in control of the product of their labor. Further, the entire section on individualists is cherry picked to only include those quotes which make it appear as though the individualists agree with anarcho-capitalists, leaving out entire paragraphs, essays, and chapters of books that show them to be staunchly against the kind of market dynamics supported by anarcho-capitalism.

Actually Tucker regarded "socialism" as a contested term applied to "two extremes of the vast army now under consideration, though united, as has been hinted above, by the common claim that labor shall be put in possession of its own, are more diametrically opposed to each other in their fundamental principles of social action and their methods of reaching the ends aimed at than either is to their common enemy, the existing society." SSA ¶ 3. He considered communist anarchists such as Kropotkin and Johann Most to be on the wrong extreme of the fight (cf. Labor and Its Pay, for example), and at times directly contrasted "Communism" (including as advocated by e.g. Most) with "Anarchism" or "consistent Anarchism". This doesn't mean that he was an "anarcho-capitalist," of course; anarcho-capitalism didn't exist when Tucker was alive. But it does mean that it's misleading at best to suggest that his conception of socialism is precisely the same as that of (say) Kropotkin or Most. —Radgeek 06:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text implies that traditional anarchists did not view the right of the laborer to control the product of his labor as essential to socialism, which in fact they did. That there was disagreement in other areas of socialism does not change the fact that Kropotkin would have agreed that a laborer has the right to control the product of his labor, and that is certainly not what the text implies atm. Further, I have been trying to make the point that Tucker's conception of private property is different than that of anarcho-capitalists, something this article does its very best to glaze over when comparing the two, in an obvious attempt to minimize the differences between the two. Kev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This point about a peaceful coexistence of mutualism and anarcho-capitalism is often made by modern individualist anarchist Wendy McElroy.

McElroy is being identified as an individualist anarchist here, again to create the impression that individualist anarchists are in agreement with anarcho-capitalists. But McElroy says herself that if the individualists of the past were alive today they would be anarcho-capitalists, so her credentials as an individualists are in dispute. The most that can objectively be written here is that she -claims- to be an individualist anarchist.

I pruned a lot of this away. All that belongs here was a) Individualist anarchists influenced anarcho-capitalists, and b) the two differ on property rights. An argument, either way, about the congruence of the two philosophies is POV bait and not particularly relevant, as this is not an article on individualist anarchism Saswann 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the criticism on anarcho-capitalism was gutted down to two short paragraphs. Contrary to what the text now indicates, many of the criticisms were not moved to the other articles it refers to, but rather removed altogether. I refuse to play edit war with anarcho-capitalist partisans any longer over this, I will not put these valid criticisms back in only to have them removed time and again. As such, I will leave it to the anarcho-capitalists themselves to show a little intellectual integrity and allow the criticism section to actually give some criticism. Absent that, the NPOV dispute header remains.

Why, exactly, is a bloated criticism section so important? The point of the article is a description of a political philosophy, and while conflicting opinions may provide some measure of context, they aren't a measure of POV-- That measure is made by how objectively the content describes the subject in question. Overburdening an article with conflicting opinions tends to make POV issues worse. Better to address partisan language and improper sourcing in the text, then try to add more text in a misguided attempt a balance. That seems to be what messed this article up in the first place. Two POVs do not make an NPOV. (Also, in an article this long, being concise is a virtue.) Saswann 19:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall arguing for a "bloated" criticism section. But somehow I don't think two paragraphs of about 3 lines each cuts it, especiallly when several of the criticisms that had already been in the article were relevant and often made of AC. Kev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a partial list of the major NPOV problems I can dig up for the moment. Kev 05:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see a decent explanation (or evidence) of how the source of the word "anarchism" is NOT limited to "without a ruler". Every single dictionary _I_ have looked in so far has described anarchism as the opposition to "government" - I have not seen one yet that describes it specifically as opposition to "hierarchy", at least not as a primary definition. Some secondary and tertiary definitions do describe the rejection of "authority", but that's certainly still not as specific as anarchists like to get when defining themselves. Not only that, but in my personal experience it is only anarchists that are even aware that there is such a difference between the philosophy of "anarchism" and simply "the belief in anarchy" (ie, without _government_). Not that that my personal experiences matter as much, but I'd like to see you produce evidence to the contrary - the relevant literature (the dictionary) seems to back the anarcho-capitalists up. --Academician 09:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Social anarchists believe that your boss necessarily qualifies as a ruler, hence anything that's against rulers must also be against bosses. - Nat Kraus e 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that a boss has the ability to withold part of the laborer's product, and to refuse offering employment based solely on the laborers refusal to agree to have the product of their labor stolen from them. Yes, they are rulers. Kev 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if I hire you to fix my toilet, then, given that it is physically possible that I refuse to pay, or that I refuse to offer the job to anyone who doesn't agree to my terms, I'm a boss? A ruler? 63.98.86.134 21:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made no claim concerning the etymology of anarchism being "without a ruler", and that in itself has nothing to do with my claims. My claim is that anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with the absence of rulers, and that claims to the contrary are controversial. Of course, this itself is also beside the point, as what makes those sentences a violation of NPOV are the phrases like "might be odd to assert" and "seems obviously wrong" used to present the capitalist POV as correct. That you don't see that only makes me wonder if you understand what NPOV is. Kev 10:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about language, however, I think you need to step back a moment and look at your own POV. When you say, "My claim is that anarcho-capitalism is not compatible with the absence of ruler" and imply that the article doen't adress this, you have stepped away from describing the philosophy of "anarcho-capitalisim" and entered into a critical deconstrution of it-- an inherently POV enterprise. Consider a statist coming along and demanding that every anarchisim article point out that the concept is inhently flawed becuse human nature requires hierarchical relationships to maintain social order, and the ability of humans to fuction without a government is a contriversial assertion held only by a minority. Saswann 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are taking my position out of context. This article does not merely refrain from pointing out that anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with the ideal of a society absent of rulers, it actively states that anarcho-capitalist -is- compatible with such an ideal. That is obviously the anarcho-capitalist POV, and all such statements need to be clearly labeled as such and not repeated so often as to make it obvious that they are merely grand-standing. Are you seriously trying to suggest that saying things like it "might be odd to assert" that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, or that doing so seems "obviously wrong" is even remotely close to NPOV? Kev 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally (although I agree that some of the language added by Hogeye veered far off from NPOV), I wonder if it occurs to Kev that it is equally disputable whether socialist anarchism, insofar as it prescribes any more social organization than primitivism or chaos in the streets, is compatible with the idea of a society without rulers? - Nat Kraus e 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Nat, that does not occur to me. Perhaps it is because I am more familiar with actual anarchist methods of organization than you are. The ability of anarchists to organize without rulers goes far beyond primitivism or chaos, and includes such methods are consensus voting (in which no one could possibly be ruled because they all agree), non-enforced super-majority (in which no one is ruled because nothing will be implemented so long as there is active dissent), free association (in which no one can ever be forced to take part in a collective that they disagree with, and individuals are free to only associate with those whom they agree with from the begining), and more. Now, if you are trying to point out that certain forms of organization, like say a very beauracratic type of syndicalism or a form of mutualism that focuses too much on private property, can eventually lead down the road to rulership, then I heartily agree. As I told you before Nat, the difference between you and I is that I actually reject rulership when it arises in any form, whereas you actively endorse it when it takes place in capitalism. Again, that is why anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists, plain and simple. Kev 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And so, the take home moral here, folks, is that Kev seriously does not understand how someone could dispute his ideas. This is exactly the sort of POV bias that should be edited out of Wikipedia thoroughly. - Nat Kraus e 13:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted the "obviously wrong" comment. And the construct you so strongly object to: "To speakers of English familiar with only the colloquial definition of the word "anarchism" as referring to the absence of a state, it may seem odd to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism." Is making a valid observation: i.e. the vast majority of people in the general population will find these distinctions so nuanced as to be incomprehensible. In general usage, anarchism is anti-statism and I think the whole passage does a sufficient job of pointing out the distinction to a general audience. Saswann 19:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that "general usage" of anarchism is anti-statism? Most dictionaries I find describe it as opposing all governmental authority. Did you know that the state is only one form of governance, and that it actually means something when they say "governmental authority" rather than simply, "government?" Kev 04:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This whole argument is frankly ridiculous. I sincerely doubt that there is any colloquial use of the word "anarchism" at all. "The vast majority of people in the general population" do not use the term. "Anarchy" has a colloquial use but the colloquial use is "chaos" or "riot" and has nothing in particular to do with anti-statism, socialist anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism. —Radgeek 06:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. - Nat Kraus e 15:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, if part of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is that it considers itself compatible with the ideal of a society absent of rulers, why is it NPOV in stating that anarcho-capitalists believe so? It doesn't seem very NPOV to, essentially, say that a supposedly objective article has to say, "X believe in Y, but Z says they're wrong." The fact that "Z says they're wrong" does not affect the fact that "X believe in Y" and spending much space qualifying the latter with the former changes an objective article to something that reads like a partisan attack piece, or at the very least something condescending and dismissive. As a thought experiment you might consider thinking of, say, sides in the abortion debate, creation science, the US Democratic Party, or France. Saswann 21:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your question was meant to be "why is it POV in stating that anarcho-capitalists believe so", and the answer is, it isn't. What I object to is not describing the anarcho-capitalist philosophy and their beliefs, indeed that is a large part of the purpose of this page. My objects only lie in stating those beliefs without indicated that they are, specifically, the beliefs of anarcho-capitalists. Further, it is absolutely essential that some degree of qualification be present in this article given the controversial nature of anarcho-capitalist claims to the anarchist title. They did in fact make these claims long after a pre-existing movement that opposed them had been identified with anarchism, and that movement is from all appearances still much larger by far. Putting anarcho-capitalist claims into context is not only entirely NPOV, but is necessary for an accurate article. Not every claim by the ACs needs to be qualified, and I have not asked for such, but some do, particularly the first time a claim is made in the article and when the claims are particularly controversial or run counter to the history and meaning of anarchist philosophy. Kev 04:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess my question is now, in its current form, what statements in the article you believe are part of the anarcho-capitalist belief system that are not obviously stated as such. IMO it is much simpler and more concise to rewrite such passages to be clearly stated examples of anarcho-capitalist philosophy. . . Saswann 19:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Oh, and BTW, "describing the anarcho-capitalist philosophy and their beliefs is a large part of the purpose of this page"? What other purpouse could it have? Saswann 19:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one, it has the purpose of putting those beliefs in historical and modern context. This would be the difference, for example, between an article written by anarcho-capitalists to stump for their cause, and an article written by wikipedians to describe their philosophy.

Still existing problems with the article include:

the line in favor of individual private property. in explaining agreement between individualists and capitalists. This is a deceptive bit of rhetoric that pretends that the individualist conception of private property was the same as that of the anarcho-capitalist, which is not true. Individualism took the mutualist property model built by Proudhon and expanded on it, and Proudhon dedicated entire chapters of his books to explaining how different person possession is from normal private property. Indeed, the entire section on individualism goes on and on about the similarities between the two philosophies without ever pointing this fact out, giving the impression that everytime Tucker said that private property was essential to anarchism, he was basically agreeing with anarcho-capitalists, when in fact he would have been disagreeing with them.

the lines To speakers of English familiar with only the colloquial definition of the word "anarchism" as refering to the absence of a state, it may seem odd to assert that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. to present anarchism, which give an intro heavily skewed to the anarcho-capitalist contention that the most common or basic meaning of the term "anarchism" is anti-statism. I don't see any evidence at all that this is true, and even if it is true in some limited circles or locations in the world, it is a very slanted way to begin presenting the issue. Kev 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me the phrase is POV enough to modify. It's inflicting an interpretation on a hypothetical individual, an interpretation that isn't required to make the point. I rewrote it Saswann 12:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)