Talk:Autarchism

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

anarchism and libertarianism

Why the anarchism template is appropriate in this article

Although autarists don't always call themselves "anarchists," they do advocate statelessness insofar as we define a state as an entity external from the self and ruling over others. Like other forms of anarchism (e.g. anarcho-capitalism), autarchism believes in doing away with all coercive hierachies.

Why the libertarian template is appropraite in this article

Modern libertarianism has been influenced by autarchists like Robert LeFevre. As libertarianism is a big-tent philosophy that accepts both minarchism and anarchism, it is of little doubt that autarchism also falls under this tent. Indeed, despite his oddities, LeFevre was a libertarian.

Conclusion

It seems to me that both templates are valid for inclusion in this article. If you disagree, I'll be happy to listen to your arguments.

Sincerely,
Allixpeeke (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article's too short. Space enough for one. Skomorokh ^incite 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding pictures of the autarchists would expand the article vertically. JoshHeitzman 10:17pm, 26 November 2007 (PST)

Only if they were on the left-hand side; if they were on the right they'd simply go beneath the templates, exacerbating the problem. And if images were added to the left-hand side, with the templates remaining on the right, the text of the article would be squeezed and constricted so much as to make the article unreadable at low screen resolutions. Either the text of the article is extended, or one of the templates goes. Skomorokh ^incite 06:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By what delegation of authority do you have the right to issue ultimatums?JoshHeitzman 10:38pm, 26 November 2007 (PST)

By mine own divine right as an autarchist!!! Just kidding, I wasn't issuing ultimatums, only observations. Skomorokh ^incite 06:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've got Robert LeFerve as the primary illustration of of an autarchist, and he specifically calls out and denounces the anarchists. He would likely have taken offence at being labelled 'a type of anarchist'. See: http://mises.org/media/1177 - So I'd say it's inaccurate and inappropriate to make autarchism use the anarchism template. A 'see also' is entirely appropriate, as the two contrast nicely. BillMcGonigle (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsion or Coercion

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call a government or state "coercive" instead of "cumpulsive"?

Isn't something compulsory necessarily coercive (even if you don't mind it, it isn't like you had a choice anyways)? Isn't something coercive necessarily compulsory (as opposed to voluntary)? I fail to see the distinction...although the word "compulsive" does evoke images of Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder. Perhaps "compulsory" or some other form of the word would be better than "compulsive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.151 (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autarchism and Rational Anarchy

Is there a widely accepted stance on how Autarchism relates to the label 'Rational Anarchy'? The Rational Anarchy page has been changed to a redirect, but I wonder if it would be appropriate to redirect it here instead. Does anyone know? I will try to find a good source and definition of 'rational anarchy', but this page has an example that sounds close to Autarchism: "The rational anarchist has a strict moral code that he will not break. At the same time, the rational anarchist accepts that those around him may require those rules". That sounds a lot like rejecting compulsory government and upholding individual liberty. --Culix (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Anarchy is something Heinlein came up with himself, whereas autarchism was a creation of LeFevre. While it is plausible that they had a shared intellectual background, to say that the two philosophies are in some sense equivalent is speculative. For Wikipedia's purpose, any association between autarchism and RA is purely original research, so nothing should be touched unless a reliable source confirms the association. Regards, Skomorokh 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Anarchy and Autarchy?

So what're the differences between anarchy and autarchy?
~ender 2008-11-29 10:50:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.18.165 (talk)

Yeahmetoo. I don't "get it". I'd like to see a better explanation of what the difference is supposed to be. Lousyd (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"LeFevre favored the abolition of the state but used the term "autarchism" (self government) to describe his politics, to distinguish it from anarchism. In part this was because of the association of anarchism in the public eye with violence, but LeFevre did not consider himself an anarchist, and in his 'LeFevre Commentaries' bluntly stated that he was not an anarchist." Abel (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer: semantics. LeFevre spent most of his life railing against things left-economics holds most dear (unions, redistribution of wealth - or as he saw it "socialism"...to mean state socialism). Because the word "anarchism" is mostly dominated by and associated with left-wing economics, whether Mutualist, Marxist, Syndicalist, etc., for LeFevre to distance himself from the "anarchist" was a no-brainer for him, as he was appealing to a crowd who leaned toward free markets instead (and not in the Mutualist sense, because of rejection of the labor theory of value and its replacement with marginalism/subjective theory of value). Essentially, there is nothing functionally different between autarchism and free market individualist anarchism (the socialists, like myself, today who reject the Mutualist idea of the LTV and embrace marginalism instead), or even anarcho "capitalism" (which I, and a few other individualists, see as a misnamed form of stigmergic socialism). The major differences are very minor indeed...autarchy was a natural rights philosophy, as is anarcho capitalism (at least the original Rothbardian version). Some free market individualist anarchists are natural rights fans, others are utilitarians (as are some autarchs and AnCaps), and still others follow some other ethical theory (mine is the Path of Least Coercion, or the PLC for short, which is neither deontological or consequentialist - it's also both simultaneously, as it is "circumstantialist"). So the ethical code varies today from adherents, but at their founding all of them were dominated by natural rights espousers (even the Mutualists were seemingly mostly natural lawyers). So, it's just semantics, and LeFevre's way of distancing his economics and pacifism from the economics and much-publicized and maligned terrorism of leftist anarchists during the late 19th and early 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.151 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, anarchism is effectively no social hierarchy, which can either be literally no coercive authorities other than one's self (autarchism), or a one level society where everyone has equal authority over everyone else (such as a direct democracy). Autarchism is a sub-type of anarchism; not all anarchisms are autarchism. Darkmagine (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autarchism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Autarchy redirect here?

According to dictionary.com, "autarchy" means:

1. absolute sovereignty.

2. an autocratic government.

3. autarky.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as:

1. autarky

2. absolute sovereignty: autocracy

The Oxford Living English Dictionary (a British English source) likewise defines "autarchy" as:

1. another term for autocracy

2. variant spelling of autarky

Based on these sources, it seems to me that autarchy should redirect to autocracy instead. --JHP (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. I replaced the redirect with a disambiguation page. --JHP (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that autarchy literally means self-rule, and it thus has two meanings in one spelling, one self ruling over others and the very different definition of every self ruling over itself. It's a bit unfortunate that this ambiguity occurred, given there are so many synyonyms for absolutism, yet no other way to say individual self government. Darkmagine (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]