Talk:Anarchism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Two Anarchisms

Vote summary

This discussion was not initially a vote, but I thought that it would be useful to see where people's opinions lie. If anybody disagrees with how I'm counting the votes, please feel free to make changes, as long as you discuss why you made them.

Should the section on anarcho-capitalism be merged out of the article?

Yes:

• Liftarn
• AaronS
• The Ungovernable Force
• Chris Acheson
• albamuth
• Bengalski
• Nihila
• Neoclassic
• Jae Muzzin

Unconvinced, Unsettled, and Unsatisfied:

• talonxpool

No:

• RJII
• Hogeye
• MrVoluntarist

--AaronS 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

take out 71.143.13.189 as a yes vote and add The Ungovernable Force. I just started an account, so the ip address is not the best way to count me. The Ungovernable Force 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

--I don't get it. If more people want it out than in then why is still there?

Two reasons:

1. We are trying to reach a consensus if possible (but that probably isn't). 2. It was out, but hogeye started an edit war which led to protection on hogeye's version. RJII and Mr.Voluntarist at least left it out for the time being while we discussed, (kudos to you two on that one). The Ungovernable Force 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Initial merge-out proposal

Remove I advocate that both Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism have there own seperate pages, though the arguments both for and against this Idea are vast, I think that both philosophies would be more accurately represented by this. Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchism are two completely disharmonious mutually exclusive philosophies, this "war of ideas", though productive, probably has no place in the dessimination process of the information in this wiki, it does people a disservice and further conflates the problem of the confusion. It would be an out and out lie to try to put forth anarcho-capitalism as a system of anarchism, and further a lie to put forth anarchism as a system of anarcho-capitalism. And so I propose that some brave persons help to create two seperate pages. Anarcho-capitalists have about as much in common with Anarchists as libertarians do, and it does all a disservice to pretend otherwise. - talonxpool

Remove I agree, to try to forge ancap into the anarchism article have only resulted in endless edit wars. // Liftarn

KeepThat doesn't make sense because anarchism is not one philosophy but, as Encyclopedia Britannica says, anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary." Anarcho-capitalism is one of the philosophies in that "cluster." Various philosophies within that cluster contradict each other; the only thing they all have in common is opposition to government. RJII 02:47, 31

December 2005 (UTC)

Remove Let's not quote selectively, here. Encyclopaedia Britannica also says that anarchism is inherently opposed to capitalism. --AaronS 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancap is not one of the philosophies in that cluster, but in an entierly different cluster. The only simmilarity is in the name. // Liftarn

Removish It's probably most accurate to describe "anarcho-capitalism" as a part of the classical liberal ("libertarian") cluster which has been influenced by individualist anarchist thought, rather than as part of the anarchist cluster. Granted, both groups tend to apply the labels of "anarchist" and "libertarian" to themselves, but "libertarian" has come to be more associated with classical liberals (including "anarcho-capitalists"), while "anarchist" has remained mostly associated with the anti-hierarchy cluster. Chris Acheson 17:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove agreed, I've never seen an encyclopedia mention anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a seperate idea that has been strongly influenced by anarchism, but it is NOT anarchism. They need seperate pages and templates so that we can keep this ancap stuff out of the anarchism page. I say that we do this by Jan 5 2006 (arbitrary, but we need to set a cut-off). If there is not a serious disagreement with this by that time, I say that someone (possibly myself) take all ancap references out of the anarchism pages and templates, except for a mention at the disambig part at the top of this page mentioning anarcho-cap as a seperate ideology/philosophy. And let's hope whoever does it does not get charged with vandalism. 71.143.13.189 21:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Individualist anarchism is also derived from classical liberalism. Both anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are rooted in liberalism. This is from the Dictionary of History of Ideas: "Benjamin R. Tucker rejected any communistic solution of the social problem as incompatible with the ”sovereignty of the individual,” as postulated by the first American exponents of individual anarchism such as Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. Their intellectual development was not influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence." [1] PlayersPlace 22:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

regardless, anarcho-cap does not belong here. Most people would agree that individualist anarchism does belong here though. Basically, as far as I can tell, anarcho-cap was strongly influenced by indiv anarchism, but it diverges way too much from integral parts of anarchist thought, and should not be considered a type of anarchism. Not all forms of anarchism have to develop from the same source, but there needs to be a point where we say "enough is enough". Anarcho-cap is clearly beyond that point. As I've said numerous times, just because National Socialists appropriated the name of (and to some small extents were influenced by) socialism, does not mean they constitute a branch of socialism. I doubt anyone is arguing to include nazism in the socialism article, so why are people trying to keep anarcho-cap in the anarchism page? 71.143.34.231 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I just added a link to this thread on the anarcho-cap talk page 71.143.13.189 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Proudhoun and Stirner were primary influences on Tucker. Neither of them were liberals. Chris Acheson 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep I can't wait until Chris explains his way out of Tucker's description of his philosophy as "unterrified Jeffersonianism". MrVoluntarist 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The "primary" influence on Tucker was undoubtedly Warren, as he credits the latter with being his "first source of light." And, Warren was influenced tremendously by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence which he praised as a document asserting individual sovereignty. Tucker was influenced by a variety of people including Proudhon (whose philosophy has even been called liberal anarchism), Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, and others. Liberalism means opposition to collectivism in favor of individualism and support of private property, so of course the labor-value individualists are liberal anarchists. Labor-value individualism is a radicalized liberalism. [2] Labor-value individualism and subjective-value individualism (anarcho-capitalism) are both forms of liberal anarchism. As PlayerPlace pointed out above, it comes from a whole different mindset than the Euro/collectivists. RJII 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the Anarcho-capitalism section of this page getting merge out or not? Judging from the intensive discussion, that seems like it might happen.

However, the statements "Anarcho-capitalism envisions a stateless society " and "....arguing that authoritarian institutions are integral to and are inevitable in any capitalist system" could be explained better. "Capitalism" only seems to refer to profit, not an state system. Individualist Anarchism allows for profit to, so that doesn't seem to be the issue. What "state" does Anarcho-capitalism inherently create?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope those sections get merged out, that is what I propose. 71.143.34.231 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I started this thread, thinking of the basic values espoused by the most base philosophies of anarchisms, namely, humanistic philosophy. Capitalism is entirely non-humanistic in the sense that it relies on capitalising and profiting off of others usually at thier expense, which flies in the face of humanist philosophy. Further I think discussions of "thats what the dictionary says", or "so and so says this so its (positivisticly) true" are counter to wikipedias goals and aims as an information providing service of the people for the people and by the people. This is not a place of elitism, be it anarchistic or anarcho-capitalistic elitism. Further, I can see no reason why an anarcho-capitalist would want their philosophy to remain attached to an anarchist entry as anything other than a historical reference, especially seeing as how all non-individualist anarchists vehemently deny any profound philisophical connection to anarcho-capitalism. As I said before I see both political philosophies suffering greatly from this confusion, first and foremost this wiki is about the free and clear dissemination of information, as of right now we as people are cheating not only ourselves but also the global community. - talonxpool

Keep Some of you guys need to look up the definition of anarchism. Anarchism is the belief that all states are oppressive and unnecessary, and should be abolished. Period. Anarchists can be vegetarian or meat-eaters, capitalist or communist, green or blue, so long as they believe that the state is an unnecessary evil.

If two articles are desirable, then they should reflect the proper dictionary definition vs. the popular socialist slang meaning, i.e.

Anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the philosophy or belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. For other usages, see anarchism (disambiguation).

Anarchism may mean:

• Anarchism (anti-state) - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished.

• Anarchism (socialist) - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority.

Hogeye 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's some astounding historical revisionism that you've got there. Let's all be honest, now. Pointing to Merriam-Webster and claiming that rapist-anarchists are also anarchists because they oppose the state that tries to lock them up in prison is disingenuous. Anarchism has always been a form of socialism. Anarcho-capitalism is a recent phenomenon and is a very small movement, mainly on the Internet.

The anarcho-capitalist contingent on Wikipedia is very persistent and pervasive, so I don't expect neutral treatment, here. I just don't think that Wikipedia should be used to trump up tiny political movements and change common understandings of ideas. The anarcho-capitalist tactic, I have observed, here, seems to be to claim that anarcho-capitalism has always been considered to be a form of anarchism, just like (what they call) "anarcho-socialism". This is not true, not even from a generous viewpoint.

It's rather obvious that anarcho-capitalism evolved out of classical liberalism/libertarianism, and not out of anarchism. The original anarcho-capitalists, in using "anarcho", may have meant anti-state, but that does not mean that "anarchism" only means anti-state. For quite some time before anarcho-capitalism was concocted as an ideology, anarchism had always been synonymous with socialism. That's just a historical fact.

Anarcho-capitalists can feel free to argue about the merits of their ideology. They can use Wikipedia to explain it to others, even. Wikipedia, however, is not a political platform, and it is not a tool for historical revisionism.--AaronS 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If your point is that anarchism has always been associated with collectivism you're wrong. It's just that anarcho-communism and syndicalism have been the most popular in the 20th century. Individualist anarchism (including anarcho-capitalism) has always been around, and preceeded collectivism anarchism. You're statement that "anarcho-capitalism evolved out of classical liberalism/libertarianism, and not out of anarchism" is nothing short of bizarre. Let me clue you in on something: anarchism first evolved out of liberalism. Collectivist anarchism infiltrated the scene later. RJII 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me that you truly are attempting to revise history, here. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you can show what you claim to be true from sources other than anarcho-capitalist evangelicals and singers of the Rothbardian gospel, then, by all means, please do. At the moment, a rather compelling majority (if not totality) of neutral sources prove otherwise. I am not discussing the merits of your movement or your ideology; I am sure that it has some importance, both currently and historically. Does it have importance as a subset of anarchism? Since most neutral observers and, more importantly, self-proclaimed and historical anarchists would claim otherwise, I would say not. The only reason why anarcho-capitalism is a contentious topic is because anarcho-capitalists attempt to apply their narrow definition of what anarcho- implies to all of anarchism, and claim that anarchism has always stood for the same things as anarcho-capitalism. Not only is this disingenuous, but it seems to be so pointless. The debate would be so much more interesting if it were about the merits of either ideology, as opposed to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a "school" of anarchism insofar as anarchists and non-anarchists alike define anarchism.--AaronS 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that individualist anarchism was the first philosophical anarchism --and it developed as a radicalization of liberalism in America, Britain, France (even Proudhon credited Adam Smith for the labor theory of value). Anyway, I can tell you exactly why anarcho-capitalism is such "a contentious topic." It's because it contains the word "capitalism." If it were not named that, there wouldn't be this level of contention (in fact it had already been in existence since at least the late 18th century under other names, such as "individualist anarchism," "no-governmentalism," and "voluntaryism.") I don't know if you've noticed, but very few anarchists know the common contemporary definition of capitalism --they're clinging to outmoded definitions that have to do with concentration of capital, government-backed privilege for capital, etc. (You wouldn't be one of those throwbacks would you?) RJII 01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please. Now you're just reframing the discussion at hand and putting words into my mouth. Individualist anarchism is not anarcho-capitalism. Moreover, I would argue that the main roots of anarcho-capitalism are not even in individualist anarchism, even if it shares some things in common and even if individualist anarchism inspired some things in the 20th century liberals who coined the term "anarcho-capitalism". Anarcho-capitalism's roots are clearly in classical liberalism. You claim to know quite a bit about this subject, so I would love to see some sources -- especially from the 18th century.--AaronS 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. It's certainly not a collectivist form of anarchism. The essential difference between, say, the individualist anarchism of Josiah Warren and that of David Friedman is that Warren had a labor theory of value while the latter of a subjective theory of value. Both value theories have always been present in individualist anarchism --eventually someone decided to call individualist anarchism that didn't adhere to the labor theory of value "anarcho-capitalism," due to the changing definition of capitalism. Capitalism used to mean "capitalism...The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital." (1901 Century Dictionary). Now it means laissez-faire: "capitalism...an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." (Merriam Webster International Unabridged). The labor-value individualists also were in favor of laissez-faire --but they thought laissez-faire would increase business competition so much that profit would be rendered nearly impossible (anarcho-capitalist consider that to be bad understanding of economics). RJII 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove The A-C proponents, namely Hogeye and RJII, have been preventing this article from developing into a useful article because of the constant edit warring their campaigning has incurred. Moving the A-C information into a separate article has been tried before, but the A-C proponents always come back to the main anarchism article and wedge the false dichotomy back in. --albamuth 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You're being dishonest. I have not prevented this article from being useful. I have contributed extraordinarily to the quality of this article. The individualists/collectivist schism is essential to understanding anarchism. That divide has always been there and always will. And, naturally, since everyone thinks their anarchism is the true anarchism and few are willing to put their POV on that aside, the "edit war" will continue eternally (forever after I'm gone). You may be able to get a few months of stability at the most, but then it's back to warring. Individualist anarchism has been obscured by the poularity of collectivist anarchism in the 20th century, therefore many were unaware of it, but now the information is on the Internet. Individualist anarchism was not even mentioned in the article when I arrived here, so I put the section in. Now the information is out there and it's going to be a source of conflict forever. Anyone who tries to censor individualist anarchism (including anarcho-capitalism) from anarchism is going to have quite a struggle on their hands in the long haul (given that individualism is going to continue to become more popular as collectivism wanes). Benito Mussolini said "if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism, and liberalism always signifies individualism, it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism..." and he was absolutely right. Now, I could be wrong, but from the indications I'm seeing, it appears to me like the 21st century will be a century of individualism/liberalism. RJII 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your evangelism is interesting, but has nothing to do with this article. Individualist anarchism is not anarcho-capitalism.--AaronS 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is interesting, but the prominent anarchists listed in this article and in the individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article disagree with you. As I recall from anti-state.com, you were never able to state how individualist anarchist markets are AOK, but anarcho-capitalist markets are not, and I suspect you still can't. But at least you don't use [3] Wikipedia [4] as a platform [5], right? Now go enjoy that warm, capitalist clam chowder. MrVoluntarist 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you really need to calm down. Again, if you have an argument, just back it up with some sources, and I'll fully support you. It's no secret that all of the articles about anarcho-capitalism and its relation to anarchism are dominated by very stubborn proponents of the ideology, so I'd prefer it if you didn't simply cite another article written by propagandists. Give me the title of a book, an essay, or a web page including texts written by any author who is not an anarcho-capitalist that supports your position, and I will happily join you and work to make sure that this key part of history is not left out of Wikipedia. My goal, here, is to present a neutral point of view. Now, it's rather clear that the only people who seem to think that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, in its most academic and encyclopaedic sense, are anarcho-capitalists or people unfamiliar with any of the ideologies. I simply requested that the anarcho-capitalists who are pushing for all of this to cite some sources.

As for your ad hominem attacks, anybody can find what seems to be damning evidence of POV in any user's contribution history. Taken out of context, many actions can seem POV. I think that it is rather silly that you went through all of that trouble, just in an attempt to somehow discredit my valid request for sources and a neutral point of view. All that demonstrates is that you are more interested in "winning" than you are in getting to the bottom of this and resolving this issue.--AaronS 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get what is going on...where does it say that anarcho capitaclism(A-C) is capitalism (govermemt system)? It allows for profit and uses the word "capital", I haven't read anything that says that they want a capitalist government system. This seems to be a war of words more that actual ideology, whith both sides accusing the other of POV. Lets try to address this issue rather than losing out civility.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation: anarcho-capitalists support private property, i.e. the notion of full liberal ownership (with all of the rights and privileges that come with it), whereas most anarchists either reject private property or endorse a notion called possession, which is a form of property without some of the rights and privileges that full liberal ownership has.--AaronS 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Labor-value individualists support private property as well. They and anarcho-capitalists support private ownership of the produce of labor, including private ownership of capital. (however, most, but not all, labor-value individualists oppose ownership (both individual and collective) of land since land itself is not the product of labor). RJII 13:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

just some ideas:

Even the an-caps Kinsian point of view grows out of classical capitalist ideaology, whereas anarchism as a philosophy and politic grows not out of capitalism.

I predict that non-an-cap individualists will have just as much a problem with an-cap being included as an anarchism as any collectivist, further I am sure there are many an-caps that would also agree with this point of view. Do we have any means to test this hypothesis?

Elitism has no place in Wikipedia.

If there were two articles instead of the one both could be identical accept in point of contention. There is literally no reason why this could not work. It would be required in a dissambiguation that one of the two anarchims pages be further labeled anarcho-cap. This would not be indicitive of an individual point of view but rather a contention of information among many. The wikipedia community would greatly benefit from this.

If this cannot be resolved among the anarchists concerned, than perhaps we should look for arbitration. If arbitration is not desired perhaps a simple edit that "most non-ancap anarchists do not subscribe to the views espoused in this article" would suffice. I think the real issue here is neither party wants to be misrepresented, though from my POV it really does look as though an-caps are trying to substantiate themselves by creating a false or misleading history (note an inquisitive non-judgemental tone).

Anarchism is in the very least inherently humanistic if not consistent entirely of humanists.

Collectivism vs. Individualism has never been an actual dichotomy.

Does this all boil down to anarcho-capitalist beleiving that they perhaps maintain some right to the ownership of their supposed proprietary history?

Is the previous statement merely an observation or indicative of a rehtorical criticism, I believe it to be the first of these two things?

-talonxpool

Remove For what it's worth, having got sick of this edit war a while ago I requested mediation on this issue. You can see the progress of the request here (currently 'pending'.) Do other people want to go further with this discussion with involvement from a mediator? (There's no point if it's only me.) As I see it the issue is whether anarcho-capitalism should stay in this article - I have never seen anyone argue here that individualism isn't anarchism. My experience, which seems to be that of others, is that the existence of ancapism on this page is not only misleading but has been the cause of ongoing edit wars which have disrupted creation of a decent article.Bengalski 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove Anarcho-capitalism should not be taking up space in this article as a "school" of anarchism; however, there ought to be a brief paragraph in on the controversy and a link to anarcho-capitalism included. - Nihila 00:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove Even though there are some similiarities between Individualistic Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism I stand by that Anarchocapitalism is not a form of Anarchism. However Individual Anarchism IS a form of Anarchism. I agree that after removing Anarcho-Capitalism from this page there should be a section about this controversial topic. - Neoclassic 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Call for respectable sources to substantiate anarcho-capitalist claims

Let me start off by making note of the fact that, while I am not an anarcho-capitalist, I would also not call myself an anarchist. I am simply interested in the study of anarchist philosophy -- there are too many poorly fleshed-out aspects of it for me to embrace it as a political philosophy. I say this, because I think that it is important for all of us to admit that we all have our own POV that needs to be guarded against. Now that you all understand where I am coming from, you can better understand where my POV may be show through, and can catch me on it. I would like to say that, on the whole, my interest in anarchism is mostly academic at this point.

Talonxpool raises some good points. I know quite a few individualists who oppose the notion that anarcho-capitalism somehow precedes anarchism, as the anarcho-capitalists here claim, and that it is a school of anarchism, as others yet claim. Some of the most prominent individualist anarchists have criticisms of capitalism that most anarcho-capitalists would reject. In order to substantiate their ideology as an outgrowth of individualist anarchism, some anarcho-capitalists tend to quote authors out of context (I have seen people claim that Ayn Rand is an anarchist in this very manner). I do not deny that some aspects of anarcho-capitalism (and anarcho-capitalism's undeniably 20th century thinkers) are inspired by anarchist individualism or anarchism in general. Anarchism, both historically and popularly, however, has included a rejection of most notions of private property, and certainly all of the notions of private property that anarcho-capitalists would support.

There are, of course, more facts that tend to go against what is being pushed by the anarcho-capitalists, here. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be a 20th-century phenomenon, whereas anarchism comes out of the 19th century (most notably out of disputes between Marx and Proudhon, a French socialist) and earlier. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be a distinctly American phenomenon, or, at best, an Anglo-American one; whereas anarchism is clearly an international one. Most European or Asian anarchists, for instance, balk at the notion of anarcho-capitalism. Finally, anarcho-capitalism, today, seems to mostly be an Internet phenomenon. Aside from the Free State Project, which is not anarcho-capitalist, but rather libertarian, the only place one normally encounters anarcho-capitalism is on the Internet. Anarchists, on the other hand, have had a real-life presence for well over a century, especially in the early 20th century, have had massive international organizations, collectives, syndicates, and militias, and have fought in revolutions and civil wars.

To claim that the term anarchism can be broken down into anarcho-socialism on one side and anarcho-capitalism on the other side is to misunderstand what anarchism means. Anarchism is not simply about government and politics; anarchists do not distinguish between the political sphere and the economic sphere. Most anarchists will tell you that the absolute authority of the property owner is as undesirable as the absolute authority of the ruler. Indeed, the property owner is a ruler over his or her property -- and that property can be massive if the property owner is, for instance, a corporation. It is for this reason that most anarchists will call anarcho-capitalists de facto statists.

The point of this discussion is that the articles on anarchism and the articles on anarchism in relation to anarcho-capitalism have been hijacked by anarcho-capitalists. Now, anarcho-capitalists are generally intelligent and tech-savvy people; however, in this case, I feel that they are very wrong. If you look at the history of this article, their goal has always been to give anarcho-capitalism a preeminent role in the history of anarchism and the development of anarchist thought -- something that is dishonest, in my view.

You'll see that the anarcho-capitalism article does not have much of a discussion of anarchist criticisms of the philosophy, and more or less presents everything from an anarcho-capitlaist point of view. Personally, I do not know why it was ever made a featured article. The sources cited are almost exclusively anarcho-capitalist.

As I've said before, if the anarcho-capitalists come up with sources that are not anarcho-capitalist and that substantiate their claims, I will happily help them to make this a better article. I should emphasize that sources from the periods during which they claim anarcho-capitalism was prevelant are essential -- it's not enough, in my opinion, if some modern anarcho-capitalist believes that medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist (a disputed claim itself).

Regarding arbitration and mediation, I fully support it. I do believe, however, that whoever mediates should have an understanding of the subjects in question and should clearly present his or her own biases -- because, let's be honest, we all have them.

Now I would like to address some points that have recently been raised. It has been claimed that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, since it is individualist, and not collectivist. As Talonxpool, the individualism versus collectivism dichotomy can often be misleading. To claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism simply because it is not collectivist is wrong, because nearly every individualist anarchist would reject anarcho-capitalism. The roots of individualist anarchism are in the beliefs of Proudhon, Stirner, Warren, Tucker, Spooner, Thoreau, and others. They would reject that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.

Anarcho-capitalism's original thinkers may have been inspired by individualist anarchism, but they are not individualist anarchists, and individualist anarchists do not consider them to be anarchists.

Lastly, this page needs to be archived. It's getting to be too long. I'm afraid that I would mess it up if I tried, so it would be great if a more Wiki-savvy person could do so. AaronS----

Aaron, hon, you're supposed to switch to a sockpuppet first, then given an unsigned "neutral newcomer" lecture. Geez, you can't even deceive properly. Now everyone knows it was you who posted that. Oops. MrVoluntarist 15:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

MrVoluntarist, please try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. It's obvious that I wrote the above response, since you can see it clearly in the edit history. My wireless Internet connection has been shoddy and I've been having trouble saving pages all day long. If you aren't going to add anything to the discussion but personal attacks and insinuations, then please don't bother. It seems that your only goal is to attempt to discredit my valid requests for neutrality by calling into question my own motivations and character. Please stick to the discussion at hand.--AaronS 17:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism" (Individualist anarchism vs. Anarcho-capitalism by Daniel Burton, founder of the Individualist Anarchist Society at UC Berkeley)
• "The capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists." -(Individualism Reconsidered, Joe Peacott, labor-value individualist anarchist and founder of BAD Press) (my note: Benjamin Tucker said that the anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist Auberon Herbert was an anarchist: "Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!" Liberty (vol. 15, no. 6, p. 16))
• "[what that these 19th and 18th century liberal philosophers] had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." (Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century by historian Ralph Raico).
• "Since World War II, this [individualist anarchist] tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." (MS Encarta Encyclopedia article by political historian Carl Levy) (my note: the writer I'm responding to (is it Aaron?) said anarcho-capitalism is an "internet phenomenon." Funny, I didn't know the net was around since WW II.) (note that MS Encarta is a very mainstream source, and the article was written by a respected political historian)

RJII 16:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, your first source is an essay written only 3 years ago by a college student and consists mainly of his opinions. It has no bibliography. Your second is a relatively recent pamphlet written by a small group known as the Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade. You quote it out of context, since the author goes on to state that "there are other individualists, like myself and the individualists of the past, such as Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, and John Henry Mackay, who reject capitalism as much as they reject communism." The author continually distinguishes between what he sees to be anarchist individualism and mere anti-state anarchist individualism. Regardless, I do not hold the opinions written in a pamphlet in high academic regard, although I do find the bibliography to be compelling, despite the fact that nothing in the pamphlet itself is cited. Your third source is an anarcho-capitalist essay from the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute written just this year. The author, a former student of Ludwig von Mises, attempts to claim, as many anarcho-capitalists do, that anarcho-capitalism was the "original" anarchism and that it existed well before the 19th century. Your fourth source is damning proof that no self-respecting encyclopaedia would include anarcho-capitalism as school of anarchist thought. In the entire (rather long) article, anarcho-capitalism receives a single mention: "Since World War II this individualist tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." Like I said, it is a recent, revisionist, and American philosophy. When I claimed that it was an Internet phenomenon, I was talking about today. Before, it was something that was discussed in small academic circles.

In summary, the sources that you have provided are not what I'm looking for. They're either (a) too recent, (b) too biased, (c) uncited, or (d) not substantial (i.e. the Encarta source, which actually shows that anarcho-capitalism should only get a brief one-sentence mention in an encyclopaedia article on anarchism). I'm really not convinced.

If these are the only sources that you can come up with to support your claim that anarcho-capitalism is a substantial part of anarchism and an important part of the history of anarchism, and not its own separate movement, then I do not see why anarcho-capitalism should have such a prominent, if any, role in the Wikipedia article on anarchism. I suggest that you and others (Hogeye, for instance) cease to revert my edits attempting to make this article more neutral and encyclopaedic.

I found the absence of anarcho-capitalism in the Encarta article on anarchism so interesting that I took a look at the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Not only is this a respected encyclopaedia, but it is closer to the historical period in question, too. In it, I found this: "As to their economical conceptions, the Anarchists, common with all Socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent amonopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility." There is no mention of anarcho-capitalism, and the only references to capitalism are anarchist criticisms of capitalism. --AaronS 16:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Those sources were not to show that anarcho-capitalism was anarchism, but that it was individualist anarchism. Anyway, did you happen to check the date on that encyclopedia? It's from 1911. Of course anarcho-capitalism isn't mentioned. It wasn't called anarcho-capitalism at that time. It was called voluntaryism, and sometimes simply individualist anarchism. And the article was written by an anarcho-communist. RJII 17:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My criticisms still stand. --AaronS 17:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So does mine. Imagine that. RJII 17:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If anarcho-capitalism -- or even voluntaryism -- was not considered to be anarchism then, and if individualist anarchism was not considered to be capitalist, then, and if both Britannica and Encarta seem to indicate that anarcho-capitalism was though up in the mid-20th century, I don't see why anarcho-capitalism should be included in an article about anarchism. The Encarta article is very recent, and it only makes one brief, cursory mention of anarcho-capitalism. The Britannica article makes no mention of anarchists supporting capitalism -- on the contrary, its author claims that anarchists oppose capitalism. Where do you see that the author was an anarcho-communist? If that's true, then I would be fine with discrediting it as a truly encyclopaedic work.

There is a clear call, here, for sources on the part of the anarcho-capitalists who want their ideology included in this article. At the moment, I do not think that it should be incldued in much detail. I think that there should be a link to anarcho-capitalism in the related subjects section, as well as a brief, one-paragraph-at-the-most discussion of the subject within individualist anarchism. Convince me otherwise -- I'm open-minded.--AaronS 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First note, that I have never claimed to be an anarcho-capitalist. The 1910/1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article was written by Kropotkin --an anarcho-communist. If a mainstream encyclopedia such as MS Encarta includes anarcho-capitalism, then certainly a more liberal encyclopedia like Wikipedia should include it and give it a paragraph or two. What's the harm? You think it's going to convert the world to anarcho-capitalism and there will be mass exploitation? The paranoia about anarcho-capitalism is ridiculous. RJII 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that the article was written by Kropotkin? I know that Kropotkin worked on the encyclopaedia, but I wasn't aware that Britannica would have allowed him to write an article about himself. If that's true, then I've lost respect for them.

Now, your claim that MS Encarta includes anarcho-capitalism is a bit misleading. As I have been saying all along, that one quote that you drew out was the only passing reference to anarcho-capitalism in the entire article on anarchism, which was several pages long. One sentence out of several pages seems to imply insignificance in the grand scheme of things.

You know all along that my goal has not been to remove anarcho-capitalism from Wikipedia, but rather to request that the anarcho-capitalists who seek to include their ideology in the article on anarchism justify their actions with academic sources. The reason why this is such a hot-button issue for this article is not because there is mass paranoia on the part of socialists, as you rather disingenuously imply, but rather because it runs contrary to popular belief that anarcho-capitalism is a major "school" of anarchist thought. If it is a school of anarchist thought at all -- MS Encarta seems to clearly indicate that it was not worth mentioning as such -- then it is a very minor one, especially compared to others. I really haven't been convinced that anarcho-capitalism is any more significant than primitivism.

You and others have attempted to frame my position for me and discredit me by claiming various things about my intentions. That's all well and good, for all I care. My intentions don't really matter when all I am asking you to do is cite some of the things that you claim with respectable academic sources. I could be the leader of a vast anarcho-communist conspiracy to stamp out anarcho-capitalism, and it wouldn't matter. I'm making a very simple request of you, and if all it takes to stamp out anarcho-capitalism is a request for citations, then, well, I'm sorry for anarcho-capitalists.

As I just said above, one paragraph in the section on individualist anarchism, along with a link in the related subjects section, is fine with me at the moment. That paragraph should exist on the condition that it is made very clear that the vast majority of anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchism, that anarcho-capitalism has a very different history from anarchism, and that anarcho-capitalism is an American libertarian philosophy that arose in the mid-20th century. I'm more than willing to compromise, if you can convince me otherwise. I just want this article to be accurate, fair, concise, and precise. --AaronS 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to look for a source that Kropotkin wrote the article, but it's pretty well known that he did. It's not hard to find copies of it online with his name included as the author. It's also mentioned in the Peter Kropotkin article. I disagree with you that anarcho-capitalism is a minor school of thought --it's pretty major. Just look at the Austrian School of economists ..that's a bastion of anarcho-capitalism that has a lot of followers (as far as anarchism goes). RJII 19:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should be inclined to look for sources for your other claims. Otherwise, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes proposed below. Anarcho-capitalism may be important in some economic circles (let's not forget that the Austrian School is outside of the mainstream; most staunchly capitalist economists that I know -- I do know a few -- balk at the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Let's also not forget that the Austrian School of economics does not necessarily imply anarcho-capitalism). --AaronS 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Austrian School is outside the mainstream? ANARCHISM is outside the mainstream! What kind of screwed up argument are you trying you make there? Of course anarcho-capitalists are not mainstream ..neither are anarcho-communists, or any other kind of anarchist. As for the Kropotkin article, here it is with his name on it: [6] Everybody knows that Kropotkin wrote that article. Where have you been? RJII 20:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, RJII. References to anarchism in the mainstream are so sparse that it's really hard to discern what the "most common" everyday use out of media sources, etc. Even when anarchism is mentioned, you can't tell if they're being called that because that appears to be their political philosophy or because they appear to be "favoring chaos". Socialist anarchists try to patch over this by claiming that every poor person, and every radical environmentalist, and every squatter, and every person who shares things, and every open-source writer, and every member of a union, and every feminist, and every person favoring higher taxes on the rich or more government aid to the poor (!) etc etc etc is really an anarchist. MrVoluntarist 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's dishonest. You can take your criticisms of other anarchists elsewhere, because that's not what we're discussing. There are countless respectable, neutral academic resources on anarchism, and it is not very difficult to try and learn what the most common understanding of the philosophy is. --AaronS 20:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is 100% relevant if one side is unjustifiably counting non-anarchists of some type as evidence of the numbers of that type. The article at present overstates the role of anarchist in environmental, women's, and labor movements. No sources are cited regarding relative influence of anarchists in these groups. And at the same time, you're rejecting every source given pointing to "real" anarchists who consider ancap to be anarchism. MrVoluntarist 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you called anarcho-capitalism a "pretty major" school of thought, and then pointed to the Austrian School of economists. I do not see that as evidence that anarcho-capitalism is a major school of anarchist thought. It is relatively recent, confined to non-mainstream and small academic circles, and mainly American. Anarchism, on the other hand, has at least been around since the 19th century, is not confined to small academic circles, is international, and has been a force in revolutions and civil wars around the world. Anarcho-capitalism is not only a minor school of thought outside of anarchism, but it is even more clearly a minor school of thought within anarchism.

Now, I would appreciate it if you addressed my other concerns and provided some citations and sources for your claims. I'm in the process of downloading a VPN client so that I can access JSTOR and take a look at MrVoluntarist's sources, since I don't imagine that he will provide me with any citations (at least not without a pointless war of words). --AaronS 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Anarcho-capitalism is huge. It probably has more adherents than anarcho-communism. RJII 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion. I cannot make any claim as to the numbers of the adherents to any of these philosophies, because any such claim would be ridiculously inaccurate. All I can do is look at the canon of anarchist literature, the multitude of academic works on anarchism, the vast majority of reference works, etc. to see that anarcho-capitalism is not considered to be an important part of anarchism, if a part of anarchism at all. You cited the MS Encarta article yourself, and that's just one example. I understand that you want to believe that anarcho-capitalism is a strong movement -- it probably is. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to strengthen political movements, however, and it is not meant to be a soapbox or political platform. As long as this article is going to be about anarchism, my criticisms stand. And, for that matter, my request still goes unheeded on your part. --AaronS 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron -- for now, I'm going to stop pointing out your attempts to portray yourself as less biased than you are by giving unsigned posts that misleadingly state your actual position. Here are three academic references (available on JSTOR) that reference an anarcho-capitalist type system as "anarchism". They were referenced in a Mises.org, and mentioned in the anarchism mediation that you did read.

Sutter, Daniel. (1995). "Asymmetric Power Relations and Cooperation in Anarchy." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 61, No. 3 January): pp. 602-13.

Hirshleifer, Jack. (1995). "Anarchy and Its Breakdown." The Journal of Political Economy Vol. 103, No. 1 (February): pp. 26-52.

Mueller, Dennis C. (1988). "Anarchy, the Market, and the State." Southern Economic Journal Vol. 54, No. 4 (April): pp. 821-30.

Of course, you'll probably reject those because they're not immediately accessible to you, or the authors are biased, or they're just a bunch of rich economists. Also, does Kevin Carson count as a "real" individualist anarchist for purposes of showing one who views ancap as anarchism? MrVoluntarist 19:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your hostility is unwarranted, MrVoluntarist. You conintually introduce venom into a discussion that does not need it. Ad hominem attacks and attempts to portray me as misleading and disingenuous will be ignored, and only hurt your argument. I have openly pointed out where my biases may lie, so your criticism is a bit unfounded. I will, however, look into those sources. In the meantime, if you could provide some relevant citations, I would be grateful. Also, I'd prefer it if you refrained from such childish remarks in the future. --AaronS 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, all I can offer is frothing (your non-ad-hominem, setting-a-good-example words). Your proposed changes (below) are unwarranted at this point now that I have provided citations and queried the status of Kevin Carson on the anarchist scene. Please justify why you deem the citations irrelevant. In each article, the author describes something matching anarcho-capitalism. They reference it as "anarchism". That's academic reference of anarcho-capitalism as anarchism by non-anarcho-capitalists. And I gave that several months ago. MrVoluntarist 20:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You've provided sources, not citations. I'll look into the sources and then give you my conclusions. --AaronS 20:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I provided I citation. I did not provide a quotation. But what would I quote? The articles talk about anarchism. They don't mention mutualism, collective ownership, the labor theory of value, the possession/property distinction, "to each according to his need", egalitarianism, etc. I would have to quote the entire articles to show that they're not talking about any socialist kind of anarchism. Sorry, I can't give you your 5 o'clock soundbite. That's not how philosophy works. MrVoluntarist 20:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the articles, and it is indeed clear that they have nothing to do with the relation between anarcho-capitalism and anarchism in general. They're simply articles about anarcho-capitalism written by anarcho-capitalists. We already know that anarcho-capitalists think that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. That's nothing new. What we want to know is whether or not people who are not anarcho-capitalists -- anarchists and general and non-anarchists alike (especially neutral non-anarchists who have an understanding of all of the subjects at hand) -- believe anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. If they believe it to be a form of anarchism, do they believe it to be a school of anarchist thought? Do they believe it to be prominent? In essence, would they think that it deserves the attention that Wikipedia gives it in an article on anarchism, or would they argue that it should have its own article, separate from anarchism (albeit with a brief mention), and linked more with libertarianism and classical liberalism (as the current anarcho-capitalism article is, after all).

These are the kinds of questions we must ask if we truly wish for this article to be accurate, neutral, and fair -- three things that I think we all want it to be.

The sources that you provided answer none of those questions. --AaronS 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? Now I know you're not acting in good faith. The three authors I gave you are definitely not anarcho-capitalists. The articles are describing why statelessness doesn't work! Look at the title: "Anarchy and Its Breakdown." Yeah, they must be real big fans of anarcho-captialism! When you show evidence you've read them, I'll read your analysis of their relevance. MrVoluntarist 21:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was in error when I said that they were written by anarcho-capitalists. They are, however, written by libertarian authors are debating the merits of anarcho-capitalism. They have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism's relation to anarchism in general. They do not substantiate any of the claims that a prominent section on anarcho-capitalism should be included in this article. They merely offer further proof that anarcho-capitalism is confined to small academic circles. --AaronS 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not trying to test my patience, you're sure doing a good job of it nonetheless. Whenever you ask for X, and someone provides X, you say "well, all that establishes is X, not Y, which is what's really at issue". You ask for examples of anarchists who consider ancap to be anarchism. When they're given, you claim what you really want is academic discussion of ancap as anarchism. When that's given, you deride it as just being "confined to small academic circles" and therefore not good enough. What counts as proof? Do you even know?

The question is whether anarcho-capitalism has been prominently referenced by non-ancaps as a form of anarchism. It has: individualists like Peacott and Carson, and the three academic papers I gave you have done so. (And, of course, they must regard anarcho-capitalism as being significant enough to spend a journal article on.) They don't have to give the intellectual history. All that's necessary is that they call it anarchism. And they have. Let me know in advance if you plan to move the target. MrVoluntarist 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to take much to test your patience. Simple disagreement appears to do the trick. I think that you are misrepresenting my position.

Originally, I noted that most anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism. It became obvious that such a discussion would go nowhere. Anarcho-capitalists will always claim that their philosophy is a school of anarchism, and many anarchists will always claim otherwise. It occurred to me that it would be more useful to see what other, less invested, less biased people think. This has nothing to do with me "moving the target," as you claim. This has to do with getting to the bottom of things.

Now, the only sources that you and RJII have provided are written by (a) anarcho-capitalists, (b) right-wing libertarians, (c) Austrian School economists, or (d) a contemporary individualist anarchist. Since I argue that anarcho-capitalism is a right-wing libertarian philosophy and not an anarchist one, albeit influenced by anarchism, it only substantiates my claim that anarcho-capitalism should not be featured prominently in an article discussing anarchism if the only people you can find discussing it are the kind of people I claim anarcho-capitalism sprouts from. Make sense?

Try to keep your hostility in check, by the way. There's no reason to get nasty. --AaronS 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, when I detail a specific unreasonable act on your part, and you dismiss me as "just getting mad at disagreement", that's just something I have to live with when dealing with you. Alright then.

First of all, where did you get that Sutter, Hirshleifer, and Mueller are right-wing libertarians? Are you familiar with their work? Did you look them all up? Or did you just assume so because that would fit your preconceptions? And what does it matter? Even if they were biased in favor of libertarian philosophy, that doesn't mean they're biased in favor of promoting the view that anarcho-capitalism is a kind of anarchism. What stake does a right wing libertarian who is opposed to anarcho-capitalism have in such a dispute?

But I don't think I should say any more at this point because it looks like you agree -- "the only sources that you and RJII have provided are written by ... a contemporary individualist anarchist. ...the only people you can find discussing it are the kind of people I claim anarcho-capitalism sprouts from." So anarcho-capitalism sprouts from individualist anarchism? I thought they were completely contradictory philosophies!

We've got "true" anarchists who call anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism. We've got ancaps historically asserting it to the point it is commonly used that way. We have non-anarchist, non-ancap authors describing anarcho-capitalism as anarchism. What more do you want? Could you even find an academic discussion by a non-leftist, non-anarchist claiming explicitly that syndicalism is a form of anarchism? That's a mirror of what you're asking of me. MrVoluntarist 04:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course anarcho-capitalism is "libertarian" and so is labor-value individualist anarchism. Being libertarian doesn't make something non-anarchist. This is from Encyclopedia Britannica: "Some American libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, have opposed all forms of government." (just in case you don't know, Spooner is one of the early American individualist anarchists) RJII 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Those authors write for organizations like the Cato Institute. It wasn't very difficult to discover that they were mostly right-wing economists. My point is that right-wing economists will discuss anarcho-capitalism, because they don't recognize traditional anarchism as being legitimate and because anarcho-capitalism is a right-wing libertarian ideology. --AaronS 16:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's try maintain a pretence of not being a moving target. You were asking for evidence of non-anarchist, non-ancaps who regard anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. I gave you that. It doesn't matter if they "discuss it more". The only relevant bias is a bias in favor of considering anarcho-capitalism a type of anarchism. They have none. You have not given one reason why a right-wing libertarian (if indeed they even are) who opposes anarcho-capitalism would be biased on that particular matter, (i.e., the one you originally asked for before you moved the goalposts). MrVoluntarist 16:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New proposed changes -- please address edits and reverts here

Proposed changes

Since a good majority of users want the section on anarcho-capitalism to be merged out of the article, I will in due time begin to make the following proposed changes to the article:

• Remove the section on anarcho-capitalism
• Place key elements of the section on anarcho-capitalism in the final part of the section on individualist anarchism, giving anarcho-capitalism its own paragraph
• Revert edits attempting to reinsert a section on anarcho-capitalism

If you disagree with any of these proposed changes, please voice your disapproval. I want to make sure that everybody's views and opinions are treated fairly. The most important thing for us to do is to make this article accurate, fair, and neutral, so that it can continue on its progress to becoming FAC.

Please note that changes in this article will reflect changes in the anarchism template. The same users who have been fighting against the removal of a prominent section on anarcho-capitalism in this article have been engaged in a revert war with regard to the template.

I think that we've come some way, and I think that the progress is good. And I think that the discussion has been (mostly) civil, and I thank you all for that. Not long ago, some people were attempting to place anarcho-capitalism in a preeminent role in this article. I'm glad that we're finally addressing this inaccuracy and bias in a manner that, hopefully, everybody can agree is judicious. --AaronS 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of proposed changes

A majority of users? LOL! This is not democracy. This is anarchy. You can remove the anarcho-capitalism section if you wish. I and others will just put it back in. Welcome to Wikipedia. RJII 20:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

and we'll take it back out. I think the proposed idea is a good one. Take out A-C's paragraph and mention it in the indiv anarchism section. Sounds like a good compromise. The Ungovernable Force 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's revealing that you admit that you are not interested in resolving any issues or addressing any concerns, but rather are only focused on injecting your own POV into an article without heeding the valid complaints and criticisms of many other users. --AaronS 20:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My POV is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. And there are sources that agree with me. Therefore, I am correct to put anarcho-capitalism in the article. RJII 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The sources that you provided were not fit for an encyclopaedia article. Are you, then, relying on the sources that MrVoluntarist provided? --AaronS 20:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are fit for an encyclopedia article. I gave you legitimate historians, and I gave you published contemporary labor-value individualist anarchist Joe Peacott. RJII 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You gave me anarcho-capitalists and an Encarta article that only serves to demonstrate anarcho-capitalism's insignificance within a discussion of anarchism in general (how else do you account for the fact that anarcho-capitalism only receives one brief mention in a single sentence within a discussion of individualist anarchism?). I already explained why that's not good enough for an encyclopaedia article. --AaronS 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Raico is an anarcho-capitalist? I don't think so. And, if he was I don't think that's relevant. He's a respect history professor. It's POV to dismiss him just because of his personal philosophy. The Encarta article includes anarcho-capitalism. That's a very mainstream source. Sure they only say one sentence about it, but that doesn't mean we can't go into more depth on it here in Wikipedia -and we should. Also, note that Rothbard, the most famous proponent of anarcho-capitalism considers it a form of anarchism --that certainly counts for something. 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's be serious, now. The Encarta article mentions anarcho-capitalism once in a passing sentence about individualist anarchism over the span of several pages. It doesn't matter that anarcho-capitalists consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchism -- we've already been over this. We need to see whether or not neutral observers believe that anarcho-capitalism deserves the prominent place that we've given it in this Wikipedia article. So far, all you guys have given me is articles written by anarcho-capitalists or right-wing libertarians. That's not enough. --AaronS 21:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So what if Encarta only mentions one sentence about it? Wikipedia is supposed to be a more comprehensive encyclopedia, so it should be at least a paragraph or two in this article. We don't have to mimic other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is a cutting-edge encyclopedia and can go into more detail than the mainstream encyclopedias out there. Mark my words --all mainstream encyclopedias will follow suit and will have a section on anarcho-capitalism in a few years; and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And, you've ignored the article by Joe Peacott --a published individualist anarchist (that opposes capitalism). RJII 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article you cited in Encarta was actually pretty detailed. Its length was about the length of a long Wikipedia article. I don't think that we should mimic other encyclopaediae -- I never claimed such a thing. I just don't think that you are being accurate when you claim that your Encarta article is proof of the substantial nature of anarcho-capitalism.

Moreover, RJII, you and I agree that anarcho-capitalism deserves a mention in the anarchism article. I just don't think it requires the amount of discussion that it has recently and not-too-recently received.

Lastly, keep your evangelical predictions to yourself. I'm not trying to stop the "wheels of progress" or whatever dialectic you may be referring to. I'm trying to bring this article up to FAC quality, and that can't happen as long as this dispute persists. --AaronS 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think it deserves discussion then don't discuss it. Let the anarcho-capitalists have their little paragraph or two and let it be. What does it matter how large the section is? It should be as large as it takes to give a quick understanding of it. I do not understand that mentality of thinking that the size of a section or sentence matters ..at all ..about anything on Wikipedia --whether it's a minority view or not. What does it matter? RJII 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I have been saying all along that anarcho-capitalism deserves a paragraph of discussion. I just don't believe that it should have a prominent position in the article, or be listed as a "school of anarchist thought," since most anarchists would reject it as such.--AaronS 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mentioning the existence of "anarcho-capitalism" in the individualist anarchism section. It should not be explicitly framed as anarchist or non-anarchist, but as something influenced by anarchism. Chris Acheson 15:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be POV if you said it was just "influenced" by anarchism. All anarcho- philosophies must be discussed. Let the reader decide for himself if it is "true anarchism." RJII 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not POV. It's true. I don't know why you don't get that the anarcho-capitalism article is sufficient for a discussion of anarcho-capitalism, and that a brief discussion in the anarchism article in the individualist anarchism section is a sufficient discussion of how anarcho-capitalism developed from classical liberalism and American individualist anarchism. This isn't a conspiracy. --AaronS 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If it gives the impression that it's merely influenced by individualist anarchism but is not actually anarchism, then it's POV (not the mention that it IS individualist anarchism). I'm perfectly content with a brief discussion of anarcho-capitalism, just like all the other forms of anarchism. You're too hung up on the brevity issue. What does it matter how many sentences it takes to explain any particular philosophy? It should take as many sentences as is necessary to give a overview. You seem to think that if one section is two paragraphs and another is one that it indicates that the former is more important. I don't see it that way at all. I think that's a bit immature actually. RJII 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Presenting "anarcho-capitalism" explicitly as an anarchist philosophy would be just as POV as stating that it is not. State that it exists, note the controversy, and leave the rest of it to the article that already exists on the subject. Chris Acheson 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the section on anarcho-capitalism again, per the discussion on this page. --AaronS 15:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that my removal of the section on anarcho-capitalism is contingent on the fact that discussion of anarcho-capitalism exists in relative detal in the section on individualist anarchism. The proponents of anarcho-capitalism here claim that the philosophy partially evolved out of individualist anarchism, so discussion of it belongs in that section only. Since most other anarchists claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a school of anarchist thought, and thus not an example of "contemporary anarchism," and since the proponents of anarcho-capitalism here have yet to prove otherwise, discussion of anarcho-capitalism is relegated to the section on individualist anarchism. I think that one or two paragraphs is enough to cover everything before referring the reader to the main article. --AaronS 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Godwin

Aaron I don't think you were right to remove Godwin - or at least, I think you should to discuss first before cutting a whole section. Would you like to give your reasons here?

I don't have a strong opinion personally on whether he should be in as the 'first philosophical anarchist', though he certainly should be in as something. Many respected anarchist writers have given him a prominent place - including Kropotkin in the EB article you quote from above. (It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work.) And as I remember the first book I ever read about anarchism long ago, Woodcock's 'Anarchism', also had him as the first modern anarchist.

You could argue we should start with Proudhon as the first to call himself an anarchist - but then, as I think you're seeing with the ancaps, calling yourself an anarchist and being one are two different things.Bengalski 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it was a bit rash to remove the section completely. I'm fine with including discussion of it, as long as the discussion is fair and neutral.--AaronS 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it because Godwin was a liberal? RJII 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is because it is innaccurate to call Godwin the founder of philosophical anarchism.--AaronS 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberal anarchism

Hogeye, good move on making a liberal anarchism section. But American labor-value individualism should be in that as well. RJII 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for two sections on anarcho-capitalism when we can't even agree on one. --AaronS 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - funny how the vast majority of editors and anarchist books don't see a/c as a school of anarchism. Probably coz it isn't - max rspct leave a message 22:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, what is with this: "Other anarchists point out that anarcho-capitalism, although influenced by individualist anarchism, is more tied to classical liberalism" This makes no sense, because labor-value individualist anarchism is also "more tied" to classical liberalism, than the euro/collectivist anarchism. It was initially conceived on American soil by a native American who noted the Declaration of Independence as his inspiration. Read this great article and learn a little: Liberal Anarchism Weisbord is a pretty decent historian. RJII 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if the change that I made clarifies anything. In the meantime, I'll take a look at that article. Thanks for the reference. --AaronS 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section again. It has nothing to do with anarchism in general and belongs on the anarcho-capitlism page. --AaronS 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this removal. Liberal Anarchism--blatantly ridiculous term --Neoclassic 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanket reverting, or how to to start an unnecessary edit war

Hogeye, please refrain from blanket reverts in the future, and discuss the problems that you have with particular changes on the talk page. --AaronS 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed anarchist books, the clarification of the definition of anarchism, and the first anarchist essay many times. Do you have something to add? Hogeye 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You provided me with an obscure pamphlet by an individualist anarchist and a bunch of right-wing, laissez-faire capitalist, libertarian authors. Considering that my argument is that anarcho-capitalism is more a libertarian movement than anything else, your sources only provide evidence of the fact that the subject is only discussed in small academic circles or right-wing libertarian circles. --AaronS 15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Some claims I want a citation for

Let's start with what should be an easy one: "There is a significant anarchist element to the environmental movement, ..." Proof? What unbiased author claims this? What is the estimate of the percentage? On what is it based? I'll have more but let's start with this for now. MrVoluntarist 05:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that claim should be removed. The Earth Liberation Front is said to be anarchist, and I am sure that there are many anarchist environmental organizations, but I'm not sure if that makes it a "significant" part of what most people view as the environmental movement.--AaronS 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect that response. It is a bit odd that your POV-detector missed that one though. MrVoluntarist 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A less pov statement would be "many anarchists participate in the environmental movement" b/c it emphasises our participation rather than our influence (and I think it is obvious that a large percentage, and probably the vast majority, of anarchists are environmentalists). The Ungovernable Force 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to focus on every aspect of the article, especially when I already have one dispute taking up all of my time.--AaronS 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's surprising to see Ursula K. Le Guin and Howard Zinn in a list of publicly self-identified anarchists. Are there sources? Many authors popular with anarchists have never called themselves that. 24.22.58.51 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe either of those two are anarchists, but Zinn has said he is partly inspired by anarchism, and LeGuin has written books w/anarchist themes.The Ungovernable Force 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The MS Encarta article that RJII originally cited actually calls LeGuin an anarcha-feminist. I'm not sure about Howard Zinn, though. --AaronS 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon debate

We have an ongoing problem with the Proudhon section - RJ is pushing the false view that Proudhon supported private property, except for land - this brings P in line with RJ's definition of 'individualism', and thus makes him a predecessor of ancapism in his eyes. Assuming good will, this comes from a misreading (or rather, not reading at all) of What is Property. Note the text is easy to get online eg. [[7]]

My attempt at a summary of Proudhon's views:

In What is Property Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work he opposed the institution of "property" (propriété), where owners have complete rights to 'use and abuse' their property as they wish. In its place Proudhon supported what he called 'possession' - individuals can have limited rights to use resources, capital and goods in accordance with principles of equality and justice. However, it should be noted that in later works Proudhon modified his ideas on property: in his Theory of Property he argues that property, in the full Roman Law sense he had previously opposed, is a necessary counterweight to the centralising force of the state.

RJ's version (text in the article at present):

In What is Property Proudhon answers with the famous accusation "Property is theft." In this work he opposed the institution of "property" (propriété) in the special sense of idle and occupied land and other natural resources bestowed and enforced by state privilege. Proudhon opposed the idea of an individual having dominion over land that he was not using, as this would enable the owner to charge rent to others and thereby be paid without laboring. Besides opposing individual ownership of land itself, he opposed the idea of social ownership (as in communism) as well: "instead of inferring from this that property should be shared by all, I demand, as a measure of general security, its entire abolition." For Proudhon, individuals may rightfully "occupy and use" land (calling this "possession" rather than "property"), but not restrict others from using land or charge rent to use land that they are not themselves putting to use. However, Proudhon did not oppose property in the sense of individual ownership of the produce of his labor.

In previous discussion (see last archive) RJ agrees that Proudhon defines property as 'the right of absolute dominion over a thing'. But he thinks Proudhon is only against property in natural resources: "He opposes property, both private and collective, for natural resources (like land). But, he supports a right of private property for the produce of labor. Since he believes labor is the only source of rightful property, and land itself was not produced by man, then it can't be property but by legal privelege granted by the state."

This is just wrong - as RJ would see if he actually read WIP. Here is my last comment from yesterday:

Proudhon (in WIP) didn't support property (propriété) of anything: not land, not capital, not the produce of your own labour. He supported only possession. The entire book is written to demonstrate that the very concept of property, in all contexts, is unjust and stands in contradiction with other professed legal and social positions of proprietarian theorists. Chapter 3 specifially argues against, in great detail, your idea that "labour is the only source of rightful property." The first part of the chapter discusses land, but he soon moves on to show that property rights cannot be justified either for produced capital, or at the end even for consumption goods.

He 'proves' this by contradiction. That is, he sets up the proposition (in section 5) that "The laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced.” He is here arguing against Comte, amongst others, who held that the labourer has no rights over his product other than what he's given in his wages. (After using this clause to show contradiction in the theories of Comte and others, he drops it and argues against it in section 8.)

At the end of section 5 he claims to have shown that this proposition leads to a number of conclusions, including that there can be no private property in capital: "3. That all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor." In sections 6 and 7 he argues that eveything is collectively produced by society as a whole through 'association'. He uses this to take the critique of property further and conclude - not only can there be no justified property of capital, but even what we might call 'human capital' can only be 'possessed'. I don't even have property of my own 'talent':

Just as the creation of every instrument of production is the result of collective force, so also are a man's talent and knowledge the product of universal intelligence and of general knowledge slowly accumulated by a number of masters, and through the aid of many inferior industries. When the physician has paid for his teachers, his books, his diplomas, and all the other items of his educational expenses, he has no more paid for his talent than the capitalist pays for his house and land when he gives his employees their wages. The man of talent has contributed to the production in himself of a useful instrument. He has, then, a share in its possession; he is not its proprietor. There exist side by side in him a free laborer and an accumulated social capital. As a laborer, he is charged with the use of an instrument, with the superintendence of a machine; namely, his capacity. As capital, he is not his own master; he uses himself, not for his own benefit, but for that of others.

As he sums up at the end of section 7: all capital, whether material or mental, being the result of collective labor, is, in consequence, collective property...

That leaves us with consumption goods - which he turns to in section 8. His argument is in two stages. First, the collective nature of production means that any individual producer can't have a claim to any more than his equal share of the total social product:

Now, this undisputed and indisputable fact of the general participation in every species of product makes all individual productions common; so that every product, coming from the hands of the producer, is mortgaged in advance by society. The producer himself is entitled to only that portion of his product, which is expressed by a fraction whose denominator is equal to the number of individuals of which society is composed.

But then he goes even further and argues that even property, in fact even possession, of an equal 'share' isn't right:

It is true that in return this same producer has a share in all the products of others, so that he has a claim upon all, just as all have a claim upon him; but is it not clear that this reciprocity of mortgages, far from authorizing property, destroys even possession? The laborer is not even possessor of his product; scarcely has he finished it, when society claims it. "But," it will be answered, "even if that is so — even if the product does not belong to the producer — still society gives each laborer an equivalent for his product; and this equivalent, this salary, this reward, this allowance, becomes his property. Do you deny that this property is legitimate? And if the laborer, instead of consuming his entire wages, chooses to economize, — who dare question his right to do so?"

He does deny exactly that. The laborer is not even proprietor of the price of his labor, and cannot absolutely control its disposition. That is, there is not even property in his fair wage or share. Specifically, he has no right to sit on, hoard, accumulate the product of his labour - like in the discussion on land, he has only limited rights over his share in the social product.

Why's that? As I understand it, there are two arguments here (plus more in later chapters): 1) ‘We consume before we produce’. We have taken out from the common pool of human and physical capital in order to produce with our labour. We are thus always working 'in arrears'.

Let us not be blinded by a spurious justice. That which is given the laborer in exchange for his product is not given him as a reward for past labor, but to provide for and secure future labor. We consume before we produce. The laborer may say at the end of the day, "I have paid yesterday's expenses; to-morrow I shall pay those of today." At every moment of his life, the member of society is in debt; he dies with the debt unpaid: — how is it possible for him to accumulate?

2) If all capital is collectively owned, as he argued before, then there can be no such thing as individual saving.

They talk of economy — it is the proprietor's hobby. Under a system of equality, all economy which does not aim at subsequent reproduction or enjoyment is impossible — why? Because the thing saved, since it cannot be converted into capital, has no object, and is without a final cause. This will be explained more fully in the next chapter. Bengalski 15:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Bengalski 13:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski, you keep forgetting that, when Proudhon used the term "property," he used it in a non-standard manner. In modern terminology, Proudhon's "possession" is a type of private property.

"No one is obliged to do more than comply with this injunction: In the exercise of your own rights do not encroach upon the rights of another; an injunction which is the exact definition of liberty. Now, my possessions are my own; no one has a claim upon them." - Proudhon, WIP page 49.

In WIP, Proudhon argued against certain legalistic and economic conceptions of property, but not property per se as it is understood in modern times. In short, he supported private property in everything but (some) natural resources. His longwinded argument establishing the obvious - that social interaction enhances productivity - does not contradict his support of private property, made explicit in the quote above.

(Looking over WIP, I notice some grave errors; in particular P's assumption that originally everyone owns everything equally, and that trade involves exchanging things of equal value.) 70.178.26.242 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Proudhon used the term property in a non-standard manner? You need to back this claim up with some sourcing or at least some argument. For example, in chap 2 he is working from jurisprudential definitions of property from French legal codes which are still the basis of many European legal systems.

Even if you were right about that, my point above is that he uses these two terms property in the same way when talking about a range of things: natural resources, physical capital, human capital, consumption goods. Everywhere he opposes property, everywhere he supports possession. His position is the same for land as for goods produced by labour. So if you think possession = private property in your 'modern' sense then he is also allowing private property of land. But if you read what he says about possession this is plainly wrong: possession carries only restricted usufructuary rights, and conforms to Proudhon's principles of justice and equality. Thus eg. specifically individual possessors don't have the right to save out of the product of their labour - this doesn't sound like private property.

Grave errors? That may be your opinion. Here we are talking about Proudhon, who did not support private property of anything.

I think I've backed up my reading of Proudhon, which I think is the standard interpretation, with plenty of references and argument now. If RJII or anyone else wants to keep on arguing for ths 'Proudhon supported private property, except for land' line, the onus is on you to present a properly sourced argument. That does not mean opinions of later interpreters, ancaps or otherwise.Bengalski 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be interesting to also note that RJII's favorite encyclopaedia article calls Proudhon an anticapitalist. --AaronS 23:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho: the threats of an anarcho-capitalist administrator

It seems that RJII, Hogeye, and MrVoluntarist have sicked the dogs on the rest of us. Today I received a message denouncing my "vandalism" from a Wikipedia administrator who is also a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist. --AaronS 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

AaronS, please try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you aren't going to add anything to the discussion but personal attacks and insinuations, then please don't bother. It seems that your only goal is to attempt to discredit my valid requests for neutrality by calling into question my own motivations and character. Please stick to the discussion at hand.

And for the record, I didn't "sic any dogs" on you. Find where I messaged someone in my contribution history. I didn't ask any admin to intervene. And I don't see how the admin that told you that is an anarcho-capitalist. Of course, since you love to make non-falsifiable claims, you'll probably say I know him/her from elsewhere and communicated that way. Whatever. If you got admonished, you deserved it. You're making edits even when your changes don't stand up to scrutiny on the talk pages. MrVoluntarist 16:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about anarcho-capitalists .."hierarchy" and all. Of course there are no true anarchist adminstrators. And, no true anarchist would ever ask authority to step in! RJII 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The admin claims to be an anarcho-capitalist in his/her user page.

Or, a libertarian, possibly anarcho-capitalist. Ah, details. MrVoluntarist 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of having to fight you two in order to get neutrality, here. You're dishonest, disingenuous, and are more interested in "winning" than you are in making this article any better. It was you who first engaged in incivility, and I only did so when I became exhausted with your words and actions. You will not listen to any disagreement and will not be satisfied until you can use Wikipedia to promote the idea that anarcho-capitalism is the driving force behind contemporary anarchism, a claim that most anarchists and neutral observers would reject.

Don't question my motives. I have never been dishonest or disingenuous, or more interested in "winning". I have provided you with evidence that you respond to by moving the goalposts. You're the one who pretends to be "neutral" with unsigned "I don't know how to archive" newbie-style posts. MrVoluntarist 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In the long run, only the credibility of Wikipedia is damaged. Enjoy your soapbox.

I'm going to step away from this page, as you two should, too. I don't have the time or energy to sit by my computer and watch all of your edits. --AaronS 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when you start realizing you are incorrect. You lose the will to fight. RJII 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha. I'm glad you have so much free time, RJII. At least it keeps you out of the real world. --Bk0 (Talk) 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Free time? I wish. I'm at work. RJII 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The irony of that statement—coming from an anarchocapitalist—brings me great satisfaction. Thank you. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

When have I ever claimed to be an anarcho-capitalist? RJII 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

!!! You spent all day yesterday making comments and edits! Like hell you don't have the time! From your oppressed proletariat position with your substandard wifi you were able to come up with quite a bit of free time. MrVoluntarist 16:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you need a napkin for that dribble? --AaronS 17:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Max_rspct removing sourced info

Max, you have a habit if deleting sourced info. You deleted a quote from Arthur Lehning (a historian who happens to be an anarcho-syndicalist) that "Arthur Lenning notes this native American anarchism "was not influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence." [8] The reason you stated is that it was "original research." A quote is not original research. RJII 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Max, you're still at it. Stop removing sourced information. I'm taking pains to get sources from historians who are not labor-value individualist or anarcho-capitalists --one's personal philosophy is anarcho-syndicalist, and another is a Marxist. What's it going to take for you to stop censoring things? RJII 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with RJII, here, Max. If your going to be removing anything, please discuss the reason why you want to remove it on this page first. Then we can all think about it in the context of everybody's wishes and the good of the article as a whole. Your actions may or may not be justified, but none of us know until you inform us of your impetus. I don't think that the edit summary suffices for such a removal. --AaronS 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry.. that info of course should stay - but the more pov is put in around it, the more mistakes are made - max rspct leave a message 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Chart of influences

Nice chart. But is there a flow chart in Wikipedia so that anyone can edit it? I know tables can be made. If not, someone needs to program one. RJII 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that chart was rather POV. Without even getting into the dubious make-up of the tree, putting it under the historical section of the article made it seem as if individualist anarchism evolved into anarcho-capitalism, i.e. that anarcho-capitalism is modern individualist anarchism. That is not true. --AaronS 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism has taken many forms. Subjective value individualist anarchism (anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, etc) actually existed before labor-value individualist anarchism. Benjamin Tucker even said Auberon Herbert as an anarchist (Auberon Herbert was was is now called an anarcho-capitalist --an individualist anarchist who doesn't see profit as exploitative). There are several individualist anarchists that didn't subscribe to the labor theory of value. They just haven't been called anarcho-capitalists. Would you deny that Emile Armand was an individualist anarchist? Nobody else has denied it, even though he thought value was totally contingent upon subjective valuations. But, as soon as you tag the word "capitalism" on something, those who cling to obsolete definitions of capitalism get all confused, such as yourself. RJII 00:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No. You're ignoring what I am writing, and reading what you want to read. My problem was that the chart made it appear as if individualist anarchism evolved into anarcho-capitalism. There are still old-school individualist anarchists today. Anarcho-capitalism might draw many things from individualist anarchism, but the notion of capitalist private property (which, I might had, has not changed) is rejected by socialist and individualist anarchists alike. No matter how much you try to belittle those who disagree with you and claim that they are stupid or ignorant, the fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with misunderstandings regarding the definition of capitalism, and everything to do with anarchist rejections of capitalist private property. --AaronS 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism/Individualism section - disputed

This section has long been a problem, but now it's become positively misleading.

Lots of people have been labelled anarchists by their critics when they have no connection with anarchism. This is not a reason to include them on this page. There are relations between liberalism and anarchism for sure, but they are two different things, and this first paragraph confuses.

The reason for trying to conflate generalised 'early 1800s liberals', and Bastiat and Molinari in particular, with anarchism is to provide a pedigree for ancapism. This is misleading and deliberate POV pushing. Bengalski 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were indeed liberal anarchists who were anarcho-capitalists. Even Benjamin Tucker said that Auberon Herbert was an anarchist (he called himself a Voluntaryist which is capitalist anarchism). ""Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!.." -Tucker Also, political historian Ralph Raico said that these guys, including Molinari "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." RJII 21:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberal ancrhsim has connections with liberalism but 'liberal anarchism' is a non-notable fiction when it comes to the writing of an encyclopedia - max rspct leave a message 22:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism just essentially means an individualist in person and property. It you take that to the extreme by not bringing government into the picture, you're a liberal/individualist anarchist. RJII 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that Ralph Raico is a good, unbiased experts on the history of anarchism is like claiming scientists working for ExxonMobil are good, unbiased experts on global climate change. Just as I wouldn't support information from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on anarchism that was written by Kropotkin, I don't think that information from Raico on this subject can be entirely trusted. I am not calling into question either Kropotkin or Raico's credentials; I'm simply saying that, for the subjects in question, they are not neutral resources. --AaronS 22:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the two. Raico is a professor of history, and Kropotkin was not. I don't think you can rightfully dismiss a source just because of the historian's personal philosophy. Every historian has a personal philosophy --does that mean we dismiss everybody? Now, Kropotkin we can more easily dismiss because he has has no degree in history. For example, what if we find out that Carl Levy, a political historian, and author of the MS Encrta article is a capitalist? Are we then supposed to dismiss it? Of course not. RJII 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the issue is not whether or not we should dismiss Raico as a historian; rather, the issue is whether or not we should dismiss Raico as a neutral historian of anarchism. Just as I would balance Howard Zinn's People's History against a more nationalistic reading of U.S. history, I think that Raico's perspective needs to be balanced, as well. The issue, then, is finding middle ground -- something that I have been promoting since the very beginning, immediately after you began providing me with sources for your claims. --AaronS 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah non-notable quotes..as I suspected (yes i have faced the 1911 Kropotkin issue similarly) -max rspct leave a message 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The oft-cited MS Encarta article

Let's get a few things straight. The MS Encarta article that RJII keeps citing as proof that anarcho-capitalism is both a "significant" part and "school" of anarchist thought actually works against his claim. On the web, the article is split up into three rather long and detailed pages. It offers the following and only the following schools of anarchist thought:

• Mutualism
• Anarcho-communism
• Anarcho-individualism
• And a discussion of anarchist attituides towards religion and organization

Anarcho-capitalism is not treated as a school of anarchist thought in this article. Furthermore, in the section V, "Anarchism Since 1945", there is not one mention of anarcho-capitalism.

The only mention of anarcho-capitalism is sandwhiched in the following excerpt (it is a long excerpt, because I want it to be clear how small of a mention this is):

All anarchists emphasized the importance of the individual: the anarcho-collectivists supported individual reward and smallholder or artisanal property, and even the anarcho-communists argued that their voluntary form of communism would deepen the individual’s ethical personality. However, for anarcho-individualists the needs of the individual superseded the collective and the commune. This school of thought is associated with the German, Max Stirner (1806-1856), whose best-known book, The Ego and its Own (1845), was rediscovered by individualist anarchists in the late 19th century after decades of obscurity. Stirner was influenced by the Young Hegelians (see G. W. F. Hegel) and received trenchant criticism by fellow members Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1846). Stirner did not identify himself as an anarchist or the follower of any ideology. He believed that the individual should reject institutional structures and all set patterns of truth, obligation, or morals. Thus he advocated a union of egoists, of exceptional individuals prepared to question the value of all social and political orthodoxy. In the late 19th century Stirner's ideas were combined with an appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche by a small group of anarchist activists and intellectuals. This type of anarchist individualism was attractive to certain writers (Henrik Ibsen and George Bernard Shaw, for example), who decried mass civilization, common prejudice, and the “mass mind”, but it also inspired an anarcho-feminist, the Russian-American Emma Goldman, who advocated the social and sexual liberation of women (see Feminism). Later Stirner's writing had a significant effect on the philosophy of existentialism.

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.

As you can see, anarcho-capitalism is only mentioned in passing.

RJII argues that this is not important. I disagree. Even so, let's assume that he is correct. Then, there is still the fact that this is the UK version of MS Encarta. What about the North American version?

The North American version is much shorter, and makes absolutely no mention of anarcho-capitalism. Quite to the contrary, it explicitly states that "in 1872 the anarchists were expelled from the International. Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." The North American version of MS Encarta makes no mention of anarcho-capitalism, and calls all forms of anarchism, both socialist and individualist, "basically anticapitalist."

Does the UK version discuss anticapitalism? Some interesting excerpts of note:

• "Proudhonian mutualism argued that workers’ associations would replace the capitalist economy, enabling the political State to wither away"
• "mutualism (renamed collectivism by anarchists such as Bakunin)"
• "Anarcho-collectivism carried on the Proudhonian tradition, particularly in Spain and elsewhere in southern Europe, until the doctrine of anarcho-communism replaced it in the 1890s."
• "Anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism were inviting to anarchists [in general] because they postulated the replacement of the State and the capitalist system"

Since 1945:

• "Today, economic growth is queried and critically examined by these movements. "

The point of this discussion is not to argue that Wikipedia should simply "mimic" MS Encarta. By all means, no! But, the anarcho-capitalist proponents, here, have often cited MS Encarta as a source claiming that anarcho-capitalism is a vital part of the anarchist movement. That is a very misleading and, I dare say, dishonest claim to make. --AaronS 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of dishonesty. All I said is that the Carly Levy article notes anarcho-capitalism. It is true that anarcho-capitalism has been neglected by historians. American labor-value individualist anarchism has been neglected as well; note that the MS Encarta article only gives it two sentences. When I came upon this article over a year ago, individualist anarchism was not even mentioned, so I put in a section. Just because most general sources neglect individualist anarchism (including anarcho-capitalism) an enlightened encyclopedia like Wikipedia has to neglect it too? I don't think so. Definitely not. I'm here to help tell the full story --not the official version of history. RJII 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of dishonesty. Personally, I do not believe that there is some sort of vast conspiracy on the part of historians to ignore anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism certainly isn't ignored by most historians. A myriad of pro-market, limited-government, laissez-faire, libertarian, individualistic, capitalistic philosophies and ideologies are examined in a fair manner by historians both biased and unbiased.

Why are so many sources ignoring anarcho-capitalism when discussing anarchism? That is the real issue, here. It is not whether or not anarcho-capitalism or American labor-value individualist anarchism are neglected by historians. They may very well be. And I agree with you that Wikipedia should not neglect them. I strongly feel that Wikipedia should represent the sum total of all human knowledge, and by knowledge, I mean the facts. That includes detailed discussions of the subjects that we all feel passionate about -- and you certainly seem to feel passionate about anarcho-capitalism, American individualist anarchism, and anarchism in general. So am I. You might not believe it, but I am very interested in anarcho-capitalism. I read essays by anarcho-capitalists when I have the time, and participate in discussions with anarcho-capitalists. I may not agree with them, but I respect their beliefs and feel that I show know as much about them as possible before I can truly decide whether or not to reject them. That's how I feel about most things, especially politics.

The reason I say this, is because I understand your passion and committment to this article and these subjects. And I know that you just want to get things right. I feel the same about things like clam chowder, fried clams, New England, and, hey, even Dartmouth pong. I think that we should all treat each other with respect and make this basic assumption about each other, and, again, I apologize for implying that you were being dishonest.

Now that you understand where I am coming from and my motivations (they are not so different from yours), perhaps we can continue to have a fruitful discussion. You have continually stated that you believe that anarcho-capitalism:

• Partially evolved out of American individualist anarchism
• Deserves some discussion in this article

Here's the kicker: I agree. I think that you have understood that, though. I think that are main problem is that you believe that there should be a subsection on anarcho-capitalism in the contemporary anarchism section, as well as a discussion of American individualist anarchism, liberalism, and anarcho-capitalism in the individualist anarchism section. Correct me if I am wrong. I, on the other hand, believe that all such discussion should be relegated to the individualist anarchism section.

So, our difference is not so great. Here is why I feel the way that I do:

• Anarcho-capitalism is not considered to be a school of anarchist thought in the same way that mutalism, individualism, syndicalism, etc. are
• Most historians ignore anarcho-capitalism when discussing anarchism
• Discussion of anarcho-capitalism seems to be confined to the Internet, small academic circles, and right-wing economic circles

The reason why most historians ignore anarcho-capitalism when discussing anarchism is because they are discussing anarchism. They don't consider anarcho-capitalism to be a major school of anarchist thought, if a school of anarchist thought at all, and they see it, if they discuss it at all, as something influenced by individualist anarchism and confined mainly to the United States. That is why anarcho-capitalism should not receive much attention in discussing anarchism.

Does that mean that anarcho-capitalism should not receive attention? Of course not! There is already a very robust article on Wikipedia that gives it a great deal of attention. American individualist anarchism also has a surprisingly thorough article. So, are these subjects being ignored on Wikipedia? Not at all. You cannot claim that we are attempting to suppress them by relegating them to a minor role in an article on anarchism, because this article should only discuss them with regard to their relation to anarchism. Because, after all, most historians do not ignore anarcho-capitalism. They only do so when discussing anarchism. Outside of that context, anarcho-capitalism does receive the attention that it deserves.

Does that make sense? Do you get where I'm coming from, now? I hope that I've explained everything clearly. I'm sort of typing in a rush, so perhaps not. --AaronS 02:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the mainstream sources are "supressing" individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy. I think that when anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism became a mass movement, attention simply focused toward these movements and individualist anarchism was simply forgotten. How else can you explain the fact that individualist anarchism was not even mentioned in this article? Maybe some would like to see it censored, but I think for the most part it's simply a lack of familiarity. The average anarchist one speaks to has never heard of individualist anarchism. Historians and reference works have simply done a bad job at providing the whole story. By the way, I'm the creator and writer of the American individualist anarchism article and the Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (90% or more of the material in those articles). If I didn't create them, if I didn't put the individidualist anarchism section in this article, would anyone ever have? Or would American individualist anarchism simply have been neglected and forgotten? Who knows? But, again, just because mainstream sources have failed to mention anarcho-capitalism or only give it a sentence or two, that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to be a shoddy source of information as well. RJII 03:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, about the anarcho-capitalist section. It's complicated because there is a section on "contemporary anarchism." I opposed making such a section when it was made, because the kinds of anarchism above the line are also active today as well. It presents a problem because you have to talk about a school of anarchism twice. RJII 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to all of this tomorrow. Thanks for your response, and you raise some good points. The American individualist anarchism article is very well-written and very thorough. In the case of this article, however, I should say that we should not promote original research on Wikipedia (good as that research may be). Get it published by an unbiased political/historical journal, and maybe then we could. ;) --AaronS 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

---

• Partially evolved out of American individualist anarchism
• Deserves some discussion in this article

I agree with the points above.

• Anarcho-capitalism is not considered to be a school of anarchist thought in the same way that mutalism, individualism, syndicalism, etc. are

I disagree here. Anarcho-capitalism is a school like anarcho-syndicalism, but not a broad category like mutualism, individualist anarchism, or anarcho-socialism. See the tree.

• Most historians ignore anarcho-capitalism when discussing anarchism

I agree. Most historians are biased toward socialism.

• Discussion of anarcho-capitalism seems to be confined to the Internet, small academic circles, and right-wing economic circles.

I would put it differently: Discussion of anarcho-capitalism is limited to the last few decades, it being the new up-and-coming modern form of anarchism. (And most anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be left-wing - against the ancien regime - or don't use a linear political model at all.)

AaronS> "The reason why most historians ignore anarcho-capitalism when discussing anarchism is because they are discussing anarchism."

You beg the question here. Virtually all dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even luminaries define anarchism as pure anti-statism. Yet you assume that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. Your argument seems to be: Since traditionally most historians didn't write about anarcho-capitalism as a school of anarchism, the article should do likewise. I submit that the definition trumps traditionalism. Hogeye 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake

I just edited the intro to say that anarchist almost always oppose capitalism, but I accidentally forgot to make an edit summary to explain it. I didn't do this to hide my edit, I just learned how to do an edit summary and I forget sometimes.

No worries. Thanks for the heads-up. --AaronS 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

now hogeye is calling that vandalism. Talk about the real vandal. This is The Ungovernable Force btw, I'm not logged in, and I forgot to say that the first time.

"Contemporary anarchism" should be removed/altered

Discussion

RJII raised the good point that the section on contemporary anarchism is very problematic. I would be in favor of reorganizing the article so as to have a "schools of anarchist thought" section. This section would include anarcho-capitalism, liberal anarchism, and American individualist anarchism under the subsection of individualist anarchism. The individualist anarchism subsection is also in dire need of a cleanup.

The contemporary anarchism section, I think, should still exist. But, it should be very brief, i.e. not a propaganda piece ("look! anarchism is alive and well, and you can sign up here!").

I'll get to work on this when I have some free time tomorrow. I'll propose an outline here before making any major changes. --AaronS 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. That seems very reasonable. Perhaps many of the smaller "schools" (insurrectionary, post-structuralist, small 'a' etc...) could be addressed in a single section w/ links to their own articles. I say this not because I think that any of these are less important, but because often they are permutations or additions to traditional anarchism rather than stand-alone political perspectives. A smaller article will be more accessible to readers, who are then free to explore anarchism in further depth on further pages (decentralization?). - Nihila 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, your enthusiasm is great, but you need to bear in mind that the layout of this page at the moment - while by no means perfect - comes out of a lot of debate and hard work. In fact 2-3 months ago there was a vote to change the article from one organised more along the 'schools of thought' line you mention to the present version. A number of editors, with albamuth in particular contributing a lot, advocated the historical approach, and some have been very strongly against a 'schools of thought' model. I suggest you look at some of the archived debate on this.

In particular, like a number of other editors, I feel that there is a danger of overplaying the individualist/collectivist divide, and I am strongly against structuring the article around such divisions. These divisions into schools seem to be crucial to some theoretical versions of anarchism, and in partciular to the ancaps' attempts to legitimise their own theory. (RJ's edits are mainly either redefining an American individualist tradition so that it can provide pedigree for ancapism; strongly distinguishing that tradition from bad 'socialistic' anarchism; and tarring social anarchism with terrorism, priest-killing etc. (just don't mention the Bonnot gang, etc.))

We also need to remind ourselves that anarchism is much more than economic theory or a set of philosophical 'schools' - it is a historical and living movement and struggle. (What I've tried most to contribute to the historical approach is linking theorists and philosophical debates with historical events and practical struggles.) Debates on the status of private property have not been central to my experience of the anarchist movement, or to its history. The ancaps seem unable to comprehend this, but active movements have generally included communists, mutualists, stirnerites, and all kinds of strange ideas mixing together without forming into sectarian divides around private property.

So yes there is plenty of work to do - I agree particularly the section on individualism is dire, and contemporary section is a complete mess. But please don't change the structure of the page without discussion, and without looking at some of the earlier discusion, including contributions from editors who are no longer so active on this page.Bengalski 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Worry note, Bengalski, I wasn't planning on making an iota of change without discussion. I don't want to step on anybody's toes, here. You raise some very good points. I, too, am concerned about playing up the individualist-collectivist divide, since it is, for the most part, superficial.

Perhaps everybody would be satisfied if we kept the historical format, but reduced the contemporary anarchism section greatly (e.g. down to one or two paragraphs, with no subsections). We could then explain all of the things that we want to explain within the context of the historical format (that would include things like primitivism, post-left anarchy, American individualist anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism). I share your concerns that some Wikipedians might be eager to offer their own original research on things like individualist anarchism and liberal anarchism. I commend their search for knowledge and their desire to do research, but we need to stick to the published research that already exists.

Let me know what you think. --AaronS 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be no dividing line for "contemporary anarchism." Because, for example, anarcho-communism is contemporary as well, even though it's above the line. I say just present each philosophy in the order that it evolved. I thought the idea of this article was supposed to be a historical account. If you're going to talk about "contemporary anarchism" just give it a paragraph or two --rather than a separation of schools, and just note which kinds are still active today. But definitely seperate the schools of thought in historical presentation of anarchism. I don't know how you can discuss the history of anarchism without describing the major schools of thought. RJII 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by AaronS

Note: No bullet-point means section, bullet-point means subsection, and indented bullet-point means discussion (not further division into sections).

History of anarchism:

• Pre-modern traces
  • Stoicism
• Possible early modern anarchists
  • Godwin, sans-culottes
• Mutalism
  • Anarchism develops as a self-conscious movement
  • Proudhon
• Egoism
  • Stirner
• Individualist anarchism
  • French individualists
  • American individualists
  • Anarcho-capitalism develops later
• Anarcho-communism
  • The International
  • Bakunin
  • Kropotkin
  • Goldman
  • Anarcho-syndicalism
• Modern anarchism
  • All previously mentioned philosophies, plus (in no particular order)
  • Post-left anarchy
  • Post-structuralism
  • Anarchists w/o adjectives/small "a" anarchism
  • Primitivism
  • Insurrectionary anarchism
  • Platformism

Anarchism in history:

• Propaganda by the deed
• Anarchism at work
• The Russian Revolution
• The Spanish Civil War

Anarchism applied to other ideas

• Religion
• Feminism

--AaronS 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't develop "later." It was named later. It existed in parallel with labor-value individualist anarchism. I like that you want to include the French individualist though. Emile Armand is an example of an individualist anarchist that didn't adhere to the labor theory of value ("FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to determine and change the value or price of any goods, either one's own products or consumer goods, of whatever kind, according to one's own discretion. Likewise untouchable is the right to negotiate in this respect, to use an arbitrator or to do without any determination of values.") RJII 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that your labor-value/capitalist division is accurate. I think that most anarchists and observers would argue that the "division" has more to do with how broadly "proeprty" is defined. I think that it would suffice to say that anarcho-capitlaism evolved out of these individualist philosophies and came to fruition in the mid-20th century. --AaronS 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Labor-value individualists and subjective value individualists (anarcho-capitalists) define property in exactly the same way. Here's Lysander Spooner's definition: "... the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." Property is the right of absolute dominion over the product of one's labor --exclusive use, against all others. Both, labor-value individualist and anarcho-capitalists advocate private property. They both define it the same way. "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." -Clarence Swartz, labor-value individualist and associate of Tucker. RJII 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Those basic definitions are not enough. There are things that many individualist anarchists and other anarchists alike oppose, like rent, profit, land ownership, etc. that many if not all anarcho-capitalists support. --AaronS 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The definitions are enough. That's how they define private property. The differences is in what they consider the produce of labor. Many individualist anarchists opposed ownership of land itself, since land itself is not the product of labor. Others don't oppose it, believing that if you work the land then you own it. Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews didn't oppose ownership of the land itself. Spooner thought that natural resources could become private property just taking them, since it takes effort (labor) to acquire it. It's not a clear cut thing where they all believe the same thing. Some of labor-value individualists supported rent, as long as it was just used by the owner to maintain upkeep of the property and pay for insurance, etc. Tucker said he supported the "right of usury" since it was a matter of contract, which was the over-arching law. But, labor-value individualists and anarcho-capitalists have the same definition of property --the right of exclusive use to a thing (and the right to dispose of it as one wishes). RJII 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me get one thing straight: are you claiming that these thinkers are anarcho-capitalists? --AaronS 18:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out that those thinkers supported private property and defined it the same way as anarcho-capitalists. What makes one individualist anarchists a labor-value individualist and another individualist an anarcho-capitalist is that the former adheres to the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists don't --they think value is subjective so they don't think an economic law is being subverted when profit occurs in trade. The labor-value individualists anarchists allow people to trade for profit, but they think it's exploitative. But, they think that in a laissez-faire situation, profit would be nearly impossible due to the proliferation of competition (they embraced economic competition). The anarcho-capitalists simply think they're bad economists --that the labor theory of value is flawed. RJII 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Hogeye

Here's a better outline:

History of anarchism

• Pre-modern traces (Stoicism)
• Early anarchists (Burke's Vindication, Godwin)
• Mutalism (Proudhon)
• Egoism (Stirner)
• Individualist anarchism
  • French economists (Bastiat, Molinari)
  • American individualists (Warren, Spooner, Tucker)
• Anarcho-socialism
  • Bakunin
  • The International
  • Anarcho-communism (Kropotkin)
  • Anarcho-syndicalism
• Anarcho-capitalism (Rothbard)
• Notable Events
  • Propaganda by the deed
  • The Russian Revolution
  • The Spanish Civil War

Issues and Offshoots

• Anarcha-feminism
• Christian Anarchism
• Eco-anarchism
• Post-left anarchy
• Post-structuralism
• Anarchists w/o adjectives/small "a" anarchism
• Primitivism
• Insurrectionary anarchism
• Platformism
• National anarchism

Conflicts and Critiques

• Conceptions of an anarchist society
• Environmentalism
• Neo-imperialism and Globalization
• Parallel structures
• Technology
• Tolerance
• Pacifism
• Parliamentarianism

Hogeye 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you've finally decided to participate in the discussion instead of making blanket reverts (although I suspect that you are rather happy that the page has been frozen with your version, which almost everybody opposes). The problem with your outline is that it makes the same false and troublesome socialist/capitalist division that everybody has been lamenting since the beginning of this discussion, and gives anarcho-capitalism the preeminent role that nearly everybody has been criticizing as inaccurate and misleading, as well. In other words, your proposal is to keep the page the way you like it and screw everybody else. --AaronS 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is to use the definition rather than the conservative cop-out anarchism is whatever was considered anarchism in the past. BTW, you really should read the archives. I have discussed this definitional issue (and other things) extensively - I simply don't care to rehash the same tired old sectarian anarcho-socialist crap. Hogeye 18:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The only definitions that you have provided so far are dictionary definitions and Wikiquote definitions. I noticed that you made many edits on the Wikiquote discussion page, and crafted the article it so as to make it appear as if anarchism is mere opposition to the state. That is very misleading, and some users there asked you to stop. --AaronS 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism "appears" to be opposition to the State because that is how it's defined. I didn't make up the definition. All defs are cited (unless someone's vandalized it again.) Get a definition, dude! Hogeye 18:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On that page, you selectively ignored all definitions that claimed that anarchism was opposition to all forms of hierarchy or authority. Wikipedia and Wikiquote should not be used to redefine terms or revise history. --AaronS 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

False. Proof: OneLook.com Hogeye 18:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Click on any number of definitions, and you'll see that you ignore any definition that doesn't fit into your own narrow one. --AaronS 18:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you counting on other readers to be too lazy to check for themselves? All of the first ten definitions are compatable with anarcho-capitalism. Tell us, where is the anti-capitalist definition you claim to see? Hogeye 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Any definition that says that anarchists are against all forms of institutionalized authority, control, or hierarchy.--AaronS 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Which comes to exactly zero. Please quit lying about finding an anti-capitalist definition in Onelook. Hogeye 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar. It doesn't help the discussion to accuse each other of dishonesty. I apologized for implying that RJII was being dishonest, and you should do the same. A few examples of definitions:

• Encarta: "resistance to all forms of authority or control"
• Merriam-Webster (on anarchistic principles, linked to in the definition of anarchist): "one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power"
• American Heritage: "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority"
• Dictionary.com: "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority"
• Columbia: "Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders human development. Since the Industrial Revolution, anarchists have also opposed the concentration of economic power in business corporations."

You might argue that the institution of capitalism involves no coercion, authority, hierarchy, established order, or ruling power (or does absolute dominion not include these things?), but most people would disagree with you. You can say what you want, but I'm not being dishonest, here, and I regret that you feel obliged to imply that. --AaronS 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You have to be careful, Hogeye. AaronS has a habit of some pretty brazen mis-statements. Look at this section [9] and scroll down to the part around the bold. I gave him three articles critical of anarcho-capitalism, and he claimed to have read them, and then dismissed them because they were by anarcho-capitalists! That's right, he actually was brazen enough to claim an article critical of anarcho-capitalism is irrelevant because it was written by an anarcho-capitalist. Also, take a look at the top of that section I linked. The first comment is a long one by someone claiming not to be familiar with Wikipedia, and claiming not to be an anarchist (i.e, the neutral "I don't know how to sign posts" newbie angle). You've seen AaronS's posts before (oddasudda) and you know that is ... a little misleading. Notice he didn't sign it until I pointed out how it was suspicious. So, this behavior is typical of him. MrVoluntarist 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't you guys have a discussion without attacking people? Your only strategy has been to attempt to defame my character and then, I suppose as a result, discredit my valid calls for neutrality. Like I said before, I could very well be the evil and duplicitous conspirator that you try to paint me as. It doesn't matter. My requests are simple. If your claims can't stand up to a simple call for a number of neutral and unbiased academic or authoritative sources, that is your problem, not mine. Such a request will always be the same, regardless of whether or not it is coming from Jesus or The Great Satan. So, instead of trying to discredit my appeals by smearing my character, step up and defend your claims by finding sources that talk about anarcho-capitalism as a school of anarchist thought that are written by

• People who are not self-labeled anarcho-capitalists
• People who are not right-wing libertarians
• People who have no interest in either (a) discrediting anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist or libertarian philosophy or (b) promoting anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist or libertarian philosophy

The essays that you provided me were written by right-wing economists. They will of course discuss anarcho-capitalism, because anarcho-capitalism, I argue, is a classical liberal philosophy. And they certainly won't talk about anarchism as it is typically understood, because socialism is dead to them.

Please try to keep the discussion civil. I apologized for RJII for implying that he was being dishonest. If you can't control yourself from making everybody you disagree with appear evil to you, then perhaps you should step away from the discussion for a while. Both you and Hogeye, it seems, are very adverse to engaging in civil discussion. Honestly, I just want to move forward and stay the middle course. If you can't do that, I can't help but think less of the validity of your claims. --AaronS 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Anyway, of course anarcho-capitalism is radicalized classical liberalism. So what? Liberalism can't be anarchism? Individualist anarchists used to claim that communism couldn't be anarchism: "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." -Henry Appleton, 1884. Benjamin Tucker called communist anarchism "pseudo-anarchism." Labor-value individualist anarchism ("unterrified Jeffersonianism") is radicalized classical liberalism as well --and just as anarcho-capitalism is being attacked with the claims that liberalism can't be anarchism, labor-value individualism was attacked by the communists for the same reason --as Murray Bookchin notes that individualist anarchism was attacked by the anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists in the early 19th century as being "petty-bourgeois exotica" and that "they often attacked it quite directly as a middle-class indulgence, rooted far more in liberalism than in anarchism." It's always been that way --the individualist claim collectivism isn't consistent with anarchism, the collectivists claiming individualism/liberalism isn't consistent with anarchism. You're just continuing in the same tradition. There is no reason that liberalism can't be anarchism, and communism can't be anarchism as long as it's VOLUNTARY. RJII 17:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the same individualist anarchism/communist-socialist anarchism division that you do. Personally, I don't see anarchism as being divided by economics in such a way. You don't have to be a communist or a socialist anarchist to oppose the institutionalized authority of both capitalism and socialism. Also, the Encarta article by Levy class American individualism a less radical version of European (international) individualism. --AaronS 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's his opinion --it depends on what he means by radicalism. I'm not sure what he means. If he means bomb-throwing, then I agree. The individualists were adamantly against "propaganda by the deed." But, note that liberalism itself was extremely radical a few hundred years ago; the idea of government function merely in the role of protecting individual autonomy in person and property was revoluntionary. Thomas Jefferson was even called an anarchist by his detractors. So if Levy is talking about violent radicalism sure, but if he's talking about philosophical radicalism he's wrong. RJII 17:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty clear that he was talking about philosophical radicalism, not violent radicalism, and I don't think that that makes him wrong. He makes no mention of violence, and is only talking about philosophy. The excerpt:

All anarchists emphasized the importance of the individual: the anarcho-collectivists supported individual reward and smallholder or artisanal property, and even the anarcho-communists argued that their voluntary form of communism would deepen the individual’s ethical personality. However, for anarcho-individualists the needs of the individual superseded the collective and the commune... This type of anarchist individualism was attractive to certain writers (Henrik Ibsen and George Bernard Shaw, for example), who decried mass civilization, common prejudice, and the “mass mind”, but it also inspired an anarcho-feminist, the Russian-American Emma Goldman, who advocated the social and sexual liberation of women (see Feminism). Later Stirner's writing had a significant effect on the philosophy of existentialism.

Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical.

Make of it what you will, but I think that it would be very difficult to argue that he's talking about propaganda by the deed. --AaronS 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You put "..." that obscured what he was talking about. What goes there is "This school of thought is associated with the German, Max Stirner (1806-1856), whose best-known book, The Ego and its Own (1845), was rediscovered by individualist anarchists in the late 19th century after decades of obscurity. Stirner was influenced by the Young Hegelians (see G. W. F. Hegel) and received trenchant criticism by fellow members Marx and Friedrich Engels in The German Ideology (1846). Stirner did not identify himself as an anarchist or the follower of any ideology. He believed that the individual should reject institutional structures and all set patterns of truth, obligation, or morals. Thus he advocated a union of egoists, of exceptional individuals prepared to question the value of all social and political orthodoxy. In the late 19th century Stirner's ideas were combined with an appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche by a small group of anarchist activists and intellectuals." So, he's saying that the American liberal anarchism is less radical than Stirner's individualism. I can agree with that. RJII 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

The page has been placed under protection by Voice of All. I would have appreciated it if Voice of All had discussed this move on this page before deciding to protect the page. The only person attempting to revert anything without discussion is Hogeye. The rest of us are in the middle of a discussion and have been making some progress. I request that this page be unprotected, and rather that Hogeye be admonished, and ask that you all support me on the requests for unprotection page. --AaronS 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

more than admonished, hogeye should be banned (I asked him to volutarily disassociate, but that won't happen). I don't know how to do that though. He clearly is vandalising this page and keeps covering up any criticism on his talk page. It would be one thing if he discussed his changes here, but he doesn't for the most part. The Ungovernable Force 01:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend asking Voice of All yourself. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the suggestion. --AaronS 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection, as the tag says, does not endorse the current version. Only pointing out clear vandalism or consensus votes will get me to change it. Besides, I remember pointing out Hogeye's 3RR vio a while back and he didn't take it well, so I am not on his, or anyone's, side. I just saw an edit war and protected, I am not going to determine the "right" version.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that an edit war has been going on nonstop for 4 or 5 years in this article. Blocks come and go, but the war rages on. RJII 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

All sorts of people have done reversion without discussion, and the page seems to be primarily apl;ace where rival sects try and impose their particular view of anarchism. It is also clear that whatever definition of anarchism is chosen, like with every other political movement, the reality is different. Just as Tony Blair is not a socialist and the Soviet union was not a union of workers councils, and the Communist Party was not communist, so much of the so-called anarchist movement is racist sexist and full of all sorts of other obnoxious authoritarian practices (as illustrated by the behaviour of some of the editors of this page. However it seems unlikely that ideologically inflexible authoritarian anarchists will permit the development of a page which will allow readers to locate other more specific pages which give pertinent information about the real world rather than the anarchist fantasy world anarchists elevate themselves above criticism.Harrypotter 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's an odd feature of the anarchist tradition over the years that it seems to have often bred highly authoritarian personality types, who legislate what the Doctrine IS, and with various degrees of fury (often great) denounce those who depart from what they have declared to be the True Principles. Odd form of anarchism." --Noam Chomsky RJII 00:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That must be the fourth time I've seen you post that quote. Frankly you're as guilty of trying to legislate anarchist doctrine as anyone else. That you're comfortable with legislating Libertarianism doctrine as anti-socialist hardly generates much sympathy from me. What needs to happen is a loosening up of the definition so as not put it definitively either way (a similar change needs to occur at libertarianism), although appropriately weighting it in historical context. You also shouldn't continue to pretend that only anarchists refuse to consider anarcho-capitalism anarchism, as a number of capitalists appear to make the exact same argument. [10] Sarge Baldy 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to legislate what the "true principles" are. I say if any notable group of people calls themselves anarchists, put them in the article. RJII 00:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I've said this several times, but I'll say it again, just because National Socialists call themselves socialists, it does not mean they are socialists. Appropriating the name means little, what matters is how you fit in with the historical definitions and philosophies, or how you fit in the modern perception of what the group is or stands for. Anarcho-caps have little ground with either of those two in my opinion. Not enough for an entire section at least. Also, just so you know, here is another quote from Chomsky: "US and to some extent British libertairanism is quite a different thing [...] [and has] no objection to tyranny as long as it is private tyranny". He does consider them anarchists, it seems, but he also says they have "no connection with the rest of the international anarchist movement". It makes sense to mention An-cap (yes, I've changed my position a bit since the beginning) but it should only be in the indiv anarch section w/o it's own. It is not nearly connected enough w/"mainstream" anarchism to warrant a huge discussion. The Ungovernable Force 02:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant your previous attempts at attaching a strict definition of anarchism. You also tend to strictly define individualist anarchism, representing yourself as the single authority on the topic. For instance, L. Susan Brown, an individualist, says:

While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation.

Defining anarchism along the lines of opposition to government might cover all movements, but it still pushes a POV against most forms, which go much further. While it's true early anarchists did define it this way, they did not appear to suspect the future rise of right libertarianism or market anarchism, and frequently describe anarchism as necessarily being in opposition to capitalism. As such, their forbears have revised the definitions accordingly, and in a way that continues to incorporate older philosophies. Sarge Baldy 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal By Talonxpool

Invokeing my right to freely associate I, talonxpool, currently, not just as an anarchist but as a principled human being, reject most if not all of the information currently contained within this article. I reject it on the basis of its misleading nature, biased nature, and creation in dispute fundamentality. I propose that we try a different approach to resolving this article and completely abandon any personal and/or collective goals and aims which have not helped in the production and resolution of this article over the past "4 or 5 years". Namely all of them. New aims goals and strategies seem to need to be formulated, this is merely my opinion and my attempt at a real and lasting resolution.

For instance, we could,

--invert POV's, example, RJII and Aaron could maybe seek out and attempt to reproduce, as accurately as possible, each others position, effectively bringing themselves to a better understanding of the others motives and ideas and goals. This promulagtes the ability to better negotiate and reach consensus based on understanding the other persons aims.

--Outline, without specifics, what we deem to be a good anarchism article

--Aim to create an article of alternate understandings, I, personally, don't see why everyone has to agree or why the article needs to be short.

--other ideas?

I'm not sure what other ideas I have, but I do want to say that if I have offended anyone recently by being too rightous, sorry. When I really look back at this, a lot of it seems pointless to get so worked-up about. It's important, but we should definitely be more toned down in our arguments if possible. I have seen some nasty remarks on this page as of late. I would still like to say though, that I am seriously concerned by the behavior of hogeye, and although I maybe should not have been so mean to him/her on his/her talkpage, I do believe we need to have some serious discussions about his/her edits (which are, or at least border on, vandalism). Am I correct in assuming that everyone other than hogeye accepts that we delete the section on an-cap while still discussing it thoroughly in the Individualist Anarchist section? I saw that RJII and MrVolunteerist never reverted it back in (I don't think), so I took that as support for the proposal. If not, then please correct me. Also, do most people support saying in the intro that "most" or "almost all" anarchists are anti-capitalists? I never saw them revert that either. I do like the idea of inverting POV's, that is actually a really cool strategy for conflict resolution, did you come up with that yourself Talonxpool? I think that we should consider a massive overhaul, but there is a lot of good stuff here too. Peace and Anarchy. The Ungovernable Force 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Talon, are you really saying that nothing in the article is unbiased or misleading? Even the parts that have nothing to do with individualist anarchism?

The Ungovernable Force -- please explain what method you would use to count the fraction of self-described anarchists who are anti-capitalists, what definition of capitalism you are using, how you would be sure your method only counts people using that definition, and what your standard for "almost all" or "most" (hopefully 50%+1 for "most") is. If you can give a reasonable answer to all of those, I'll endorse whatever the results turn out to be. MrVoluntarist 04:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's very communicative to say that most oppose capitalism, because anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism by the definition of capitalism that some anarchists have. I would prefer something like "most anarchists oppose private property." I think that if you say anarchists oppose capitalism, then a definition should also be presented so everybody knows what's being said. RJII 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a definitional problem with private property too? It's nuanced as well. You'd have to explain what that means. A lot of people will take that to mean most anarchists are communists, which isn't true. MrVoluntarist 05:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's true too. It would be fun to see some of these people trying to come up with a definition of capitalism though. RJII 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

whoops, I did not mean to spell your name wrong MrVoluntarist, that was my bad (you didn't mention it though). Anyway, most is 50%+1 for me. And although I guess there is no way to truly poll every anarchist around, from my own personal experience, and based on the number of pro-caps vs anti-caps on this page, I would say that way more than 50% +1 are self-describe anti-capitalists (then again, you guys are self-describe anarchists and I personally wouldn't endorse that). My definition of capitalism is any economic system based on private ownership of property and accumulation of profits. Still, I have met no anarcho-caps except here on wikipedia, and there have been very few even here. And based on previous discussion on this talk page, books I have read, and various incarnations of the anarchism article, it seems clear to me at least that most anarchists are anti-cap (whether they use my definition or their own). And of course, like you say, even the definition of "private property" could be debated. Also, neither of you said, do you actually agree that an-cap should be taken out as an individual section and only be mentioned under the Individualist Anarchism part? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with anarcho-capitalism being discussed under the Individiualist Anarchism section with a subheading of its own. It's significant enough that it needs more than a "mention." RJII 05:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

...and now back to square 1. The Ungovernable Force 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

TUF -- do you agree that we can't make claims about percentages unless there are object publications to back it up? The testimony of a Wikipedia user doesn't count for much I'm afraid. I'm sure you've never met ancaps, just like I've never met a socialist anarchist except on the internet. (Rioters with an unclear ideology are a different story.) MrVoluntarist 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

you've got a point to some extent (though I disagree that the rioters have unclear ideology). Where do you live by the way? Just some background to see where we are coming from. I'm from CA. There are no real publications of that sort though I'm afraid, but I will say, that I often search mainstream news sites for "anarchist" and I have only seen pages in reference to anti-cap anarchists in those searches, so we are the only ones w/media attention (not that the media is great or anything though). I think the fact that the Encarta article barely mentions an-cap though is clear evidence that anti-caps far outweigh pro-caps in terms of influence, numbers, and public/academic perception of the anarchist movement. The Ungovernable Force 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think anarcho-capitalism should have a section. It is certainly more important than obscure offshoots like platformism, post-left, post-structuralism, etc. Not only that, it is the new up-and-coming form of anarchism - the form that will likely prevail in the 21st century. Now that "creationism of the left" (aka labor theory of value) has been throughly discredited in the economic sciences, the old socialist forms of anarchism are in decline.

I don't understand the point of this headcount popularity condition people seem to be talking up lately. Popularity is irrelevant - since anarcho-capitalism satisfies the definition of anarchism, it should be there, even if 99% of Wiki editors are ardent anti-capitalists. We are seeking truth, not groupthink, are we not?

Many others besides me revert attempts to censor out anarcho-capitalism; RJII amoung others, though he's been shy of late due to his recent banning.

RJII> "I have no problem with anarcho-capitalism being discussed under the Individiualist Anarchism section with a subheading of its own."

I agree, but the format should be fair and symmetrical: If anarcho-capitalism is a subheading under Individualist Anarchism, then e.g. anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism should be a subheading under Anarcho-socialism (or "Collectivist Anarchism" or some such name). Hogeye 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to embrace the "new wave of the 21st century." That's just evangelism -- and your personal opinion. It would be hard to argue that it fits a NPOV. As for anarcho-capitalism, I think that it should be discussed withing the context of individualist anarchism, like the way it was before the page was frozen on one of Hogeye's reverts. --AaronS 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry hogeye, but I think that number of adherents is and important indicator as to what type of anarchism is more "important". The thing is, the definition itself is in question, I'm sure you are aware of that. And since most people think that the definition excludes an-cap, then it is important to know which side has more followers (eg. which definition is more popular). And like I said, most other encyclopedias give little information on an-cap, which suggests that we are in the vast majority in terms of influence and perception of what is and is not anarchism. And therefore, to give an-cap the same (or even close to the same) treatment as anti-capitalist anarchism is a clear case of an-cap POV. The Ungovernable Force 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of anarchy

anarchy literally means, "no rule," not just "no government." Any system that supports the rule of private tyrannies cannot be anarchist, so please remove all this nonsense about "anarcho-capitalism."

What's a "private tyranny"? RJII 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are against the initiation of force. We are against tyranny, both government and private. Your confusion about anarcho-capitalism probably stems from the socialist assumption that voluntary interactions like employment, rent, and interest are tyrannical. But we anarcho-capitalists don't buy your flat-earth labor theory of value or your exploitation theory. What is deemed to be aggression depends on one's theory of property. Hogeye 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. From a basic philosophical standpoint, making a claim to absolute dominion is an initiation of force. --AaronS 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That can only be the case if natural resources are a priori owned by everyone. Not everyone believes that is the case; individualist certainly don't. If natural resources are originally unowned, then taking a natural resource and transforming it into something of value, and then keeping it to oneself cannot be the initiation of force against anyone. You can't steal what is not yet owned. Individualist anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists) think applying labor to a natural resources creates ownership. THEN, if someone tries to take that away from you it's iniitiation of force, because individual ownership (private property) has been established. RJII 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, protect this from editing of ancaps

They are not anarchism, don`t let us manipulate from these freekes...

They are not a movement, they are not historic, they dont agree with the academical definition of anarchism. They haven`t so many martyrs and activists that have dead trying ti destriy capitalism.

The ancaps should put wathever they want in Anarcho-capitalism definition of anarchism but not here, and they couldn`t put anarchocapitalism in the begining of the template. --Nihilo 01 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We should protect this page from them... but now ancaps have protect this pages from anarchists.

This couldn`t continue in this way

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." --Murray Rothbard Fair&Balanced 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a slogan without sense, sectarians you are an invention of Corporation`s Universities for confuse people.

Ancaps=Authoriatarian Sect

You are very stupid Hogeye, because you ignore ther anarchist theories: Individualist anarchism is Socialism not Capitalism.

The ancaps are part of the Authoritarian System--Nihilo 01 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

although I agree with a lot of what you say, tone down the rhetoric and the personal attacks. We are trying to calm things down, not light the powder keg on fire. The Ungovernable Force 04:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some,not all or most, of the labor-value individualist anarchists called their philosophy "socialism," but they're not using the term as it's commonly used today --social ownership of the means of production. They believed in private ownership of the means of production. Meanings of terms change over time. Capitalism today doesn't mean what it used to back then. See any 19th century dictionary for evidence of that. RJII 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to know a whole lot about what the early individualists thought, so what was their idea of socialism? The Ungovernable Force 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

First, this isn't the kind of discussion that we need at this point (I'm not referring to you, RJII). Second, (now I am referring to you), it is quite true that definitions change over time. I do not think that they have changed so much, however, that individualist anarchists could be called capitalists, since they oppose some aspects of private property that are necessary for most conceptions of capialism. --AaronS 18:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The labor-value individualist oppose government intervention which causes concentration of capital in the hands of a few. Tucker thought the most crucial government-backed monopoly was the banking monopoly --the requirement that one has to get a charter to start a bank. He thought that in a laissez-faire system, capital would become more dispersed due to increased competition: Tucker said: "Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing....though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few." Anarcho-capitalists also believe in free banking.

Contemporary labor-value individualist Larry Gambone points out that there is a definitional problem. He says that when "classical anarchists" speak of capitalists, they are referring to "those who had gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government" whereas anarcho-capitalists refer to capitalism as "free exchange" and oppose "government aided business"; he says that what the libertarians call "mercantilism", which they oppose, is what classical anarchists call "capitalism" (Any Time Now Spring 1998 No. 4).

Contemporary labor-individualist Kevin Carson argues that anarcho-capitalism actually collapses into labor-value individualist anarchism. That is, he believes, like other labor-value individualists that laissez-faire would make it nearly impossible to profit. RJII 19:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't end with free banking. It also consists of opposition to things like rent, profit, land ownership, ownership without use, etc. Regardless of what a couple individualist anarchists write, I think that it is very difficult to take the position that individualist anarchists have the same definition of private property and capitalism as anarcho-capitalists. I believe that it would be more beneficial to look at a full range of individualist anarchist beliefs. --AaronS 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But they do have the same definition. Private property is that which an individual has absolute dominion over, (as opposed to state or collective ownership). Labor-value individualist and anarcho-capitalists believe that the produce of labor should be considered private property. Collectivists anarchists believe the produce of labor should be collectivized: "The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity." As Clarence Swartz pointed out (an individualist anarchist and friend of Benjamin Tucker) : "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." RJII 19:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Manchester School was not Anarchism

That economic school like austrian school (were comes ancaps) are not ways of anarchism, but ways of Liberalism or Libertarianism (in the capitalist sense).

Proudhon, Tucker, Kropotkin never consider Manchester School like Anarchism and critizies it.

Now why include anarcho-capitalism like a way of anarchism if their first ideologists (Molinari, Bastiat, etc) never were considered anarchists by the anarchists (societarians, individualists, comunitarians, free market (mutualism), syndicalists, etc)--Nihilo 01 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker called himself a "consistent Manchester man." RJII 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I said what Tucker doesn`t consider Manchester School like Anarchism is because the same words; Free Market conduces to Anticapitalism, that is the thougt of a consistent Manchester man.

Tucker considers Manchester school inconsistent with Free Market, like a Capitalism that pretends be anarchism.--Nihilo 01 19:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He considers anarchism to be consistent manchesterism --laissez-faire --a free market economy. Anarcho-capitalists also support a free market economy --laissez-faire. RJII 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Real Free Market is against Capitalism.

A "real free market" is complete laissez-faire. That's the anarcho-capitalist definition of capitalism. RJII 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An individualist agrees with property (could be exceptions like individualists Oscar Wilde or include Godwin), but always rejects any authority over him.

If capitalism is the authority of the bosses over the workers that is not individualist anarchism. --Nihilo 01 19:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Labor-value individualist anarchists don't oppose employer/employee situations. Where are you getting that? RJII 19:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That was in the past, now we should continue and superate any kind of boss-employe situation.--Nihilo 01 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. The individualist anarchists support any kind of arrangement anyone contracts for. They explicitly support employee/employer situations. Lysander Spooner: "And if the laborer own the stone, wood, iron, wool, and cotton, on which he bestows his labor, [he] is the rightful owner of the additional value which his labor gives to those articles. But if he be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors." And, Benjamin Tucker: "[If in a laissez-faire system] any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen, whether these be Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, or the State militia, I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." RJII 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing is a free contract between equals like is propose by individualist anarchists, and other thing is a false free contract between inequals (capitalist and worker) like pretend the anthoritarian anarchists (anarcho-capitalists).

I repeat, for these times if want to superate the Authoritarian System we should superate any kind of boss-employe situation.--Nihilo 01 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you're wrong. A boss/employee situation is consistent with anarchism as long as both parties agree to the arrangement. RJII 20:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is an authioritarian way of thinking, that demostrates that ancaps aren`t anarchists. You are only Liberals or "Libertarians" (capitalist sense) that want to be radicals only becuase you say that you oppose to State. --Nihilo 01 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is authoritarian. I give my labor away to an employer, but only because I have to to survive (unless I drop out, which would not satisfy my current ambitions). The Ungovernable Force 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could discuss what you wnat, but ancap place in template should be erase, one reason is because ancaps always put it first and the other is because anarcho-capitalism, today, is mostly an Internet phenomenon, nothing more.--Nihilo 01 19:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not an "internet phenomenon." The internet just happens to be one of the places where real-life people discuss things. And anarcho-capitalism is all the rage. RJII 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Don`t try to confuse people, Libertarians (in the capitalist sense) and austrians exist. But ancaps not. Ancaps exists IN Libertarians (in the capitalist sense) movements and are a minority there.--Nihilo 01 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ancaps are libertarians. So are labor-value individualists. What are you trying to say? RJII 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Labor-value individualists are anticapitalists. What are you trying to say?

Ancaps are libertarians not anarchists--Nihilo 01 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is Libertarianism not Anarchism, so it should be erase from template.

Libertarianism is totally consistent with anarchism. Libertarianism IS anarchism. Libertarian: "a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action" -Merriam Webster. There is nothing to stop a libertarian from being an anarchist. As I said, the labor-value individualist anarchists were called libertarians as well. If you think the individualist anarchists are anarchists then you have to think the anarcho-capitalists are as well, because they're both libertarians. RJII 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ancaps are a very minority in Libertarian movements and aren`t part of Anarchist movements.

Of course ancaps are a minority. So are all other kinds of anarchists. That's nothing new. RJII 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course anarchism is a minority (in some places an important minority).

What I say is that in Libertarian movements ancaps are a minority, but in Anarchist movements anarchists are all.--Nihilo 01 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So a very little faction of one movement or ideology could`t pretend be the true way of another movement.

Please erase ancap place in anarchism template--Nihilo 01 21:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Criminal Anarchy Act 1902

Just as a side issue to the discussion going on above, I have just discovered that an anti-anarchist law was passed in the U.S. in 1902 to allow the government to arrest or deport any person or persons that promote anarchism. Does anyone know any more about this? I cannot find any reference in Wikipedia. Do we need an article on this law, or for that matter an article covering every anti-anarchy law made by any government (I believe France has several). I believe the law only effects those who promote violent anarchy, but it made me stop and think, given what is going on under the current U.S. Patriot Act. --nirvana2013 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Here's Theodore Roosevelt: "When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions." Here he is condemning anarchists in a State of the Union address: [11] in 1901. RJII 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That was the begining of use word libertarian to define anarchist around the world.

Taht was because libertarian was a synonimuos of anarchism until 60s.

Libertarians (capitalists) stold that name, now they want to still the other (anarchism)--Nihilo 01 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Googology

Using Google to determine the popularity of terms, etc. is a bit dubious, I admit. But, it is a useful lens, at least to some extent. Here are the number of Google hits for several different terms, ranked in order of most numerous to least numerous (Google explains using the minus sign as such: If your search term has more than one meaning (bass, for example, could refer to fishing or music) you can focus your search by putting a minus sign ("-") in front of words related to the meaning you want to avoid)[12]:

Note: all phrases were queried as phrases; thus, anarchist communism was queried as "anarchist communism", quotes included.

• Anarchism: 1,790,000
• Anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 1,690,000
• Anarcho-capitalism: 142,000
• Anarcho-syndicalism: 134,000
• Libertarianism +anarcho-capitalism: 106,000
• Libertarian socialism: 71,400
• Anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 61,000
• Anarchist communism: 56,800
• Anarcho-communism: 27,300
• Individualist anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 24,200
• Individualist anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 12,500
• Individualist anarchism +anticapitalism: 2,490
• Socialist anarchism: 728
• Anarcho-socialism: 613
• Anarchist capitalism: 481
• Liberal anarchism: 354
• American individualist anarchism: 338 (the first two links are the Wikipedia article)
• Individualist anarchism +labor-theory of value: 285
• Labor-theory individualism: 1 (Wikipedia)
• Labor-theory individualists: 1 (Wikipedia)
• Labor-theory individualist: 0
• Labor-theory individualist anarchism: 0

The following facts are apparent:

• The word anarchism is used 94.4% of the time without any connection to anarcho-capitalism
• Anarcho-capitalism is more often discussed in connection with libertarianism than it is in connection with anarchism (nearly twice as often)
• The terms socialist anarchism and anarcho-socialism are very rarely used
• The term liberal anarchism is almost never used
• The term American individualist anarchism is used even less than liberal anarchism
• The term labor-theory individualism and its various forms is nonexistant, except for on Wikipedia
• Individualist anarchism is referenced twice as much without any connection to anarcho-capitalism than it is with a connection to anarcho-capitalism
• Etc.

If you believe that Google is at least somewhat useful in determining the popularity of terms, we can draw some conclusions. First, the term "liberal anarchism" should not be used in this article. Second, the term "American individualist anarchism" is a bit dubious. Third, the term "labor-theory individualism" only exists on Wikipedia, in an article written by RJII (that seems like original research to me). Fourth, anarchism is rarely discussed with a direct reference to anarcho-capitalism -- only 5.6% of the time. Make of it what you will. This is just some more information to help our discussion along. --AaronS 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"American individualist anarchism" is not intended to be "term." Neither is "labor-value individualism" --I'm just distingushing between individualists that ahdere to the labor theory and the ones that don't to facilitate discussion. These are descriptions --not "terms." Instead of "American individualist anarchism" you could say "Individualist anarchism developed by Americans" --"American individualist anarchism" is simply more economical. Get it? RJII 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't prove what you think it does. First of all, if someone references "anarcho-capitalism" as just "anarchism" as many do, like those academics I showed you (that got hit by the goal post as you moved it past them), that would show up as a hit for "anarchism" on Google. So you can't get away with saying that any website without both "anarchism" AND "anarcho-capitalism" uses anarchism "without any connection" to anarcho-capitalism. The only way to establish that one site uses anarchism a certain way is to ask them. I could go on, but that was really your central claim. And a bit smug, if I might add, for a disinterested pursuer of truth. MrVoluntarist 05:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd check out Google's first result if I were you: [13]. MrVoluntarist 05:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Googology

Using Google to determine the popularity of terms, etc. is a bit dubious, I admit. But, it is a useful lens, at least to some extent. Here are the number of Google hits for several different terms, ranked in order of most numerous to least numerous (Google explains using the minus sign as such: If your search term has more than one meaning (bass, for example, could refer to fishing or music) you can focus your search by putting a minus sign ("-") in front of words related to the meaning you want to avoid)[14]:

Note: all phrases were queried as phrases; thus, anarchist communism was queried as "anarchist communism", quotes included.

• Anarchism: 1,790,000
• Anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 1,690,000
• Anarcho-capitalism: 142,000
• Anarcho-syndicalism: 134,000
• Libertarianism +anarcho-capitalism: 106,000
• Libertarian socialism: 71,400
• Anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 61,000
• Anarchist communism: 56,800
• Anarcho-communism: 27,300
• market anarchism: 39,900
• Individualist anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 24,200
• Individualist anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 12,500
• Individualist anarchism +anticapitalism: 2,490
• Socialist anarchism: 728
• Anarcho-socialism: 613
• Anarchist capitalism: 481
• Liberal anarchism: 354
• American individualist anarchism: 338 (the first two links are the Wikipedia article)
• Individualist anarchism +labor-theory of value: 285
• Labor-theory individualism: 1 (Wikipedia)
• Labor-theory individualists: 1 (Wikipedia)
• Labor-theory individualist: 0
• Labor-theory individualist anarchism: 0

The following facts are apparent:

• The word anarchism is used 94.4% of the time without any connection to anarcho-capitalism
• Anarcho-capitalism is more often discussed in connection with libertarianism than it is in connection with anarchism (nearly twice as often)
• The terms socialist anarchism and anarcho-socialism are very rarely used
• The term liberal anarchism is almost never used
• The term American individualist anarchism is used even less than liberal anarchism
• The term labor-theory individualism and its various forms is nonexistant, except for on Wikipedia
• Individualist anarchism is referenced twice as much without any connection to anarcho-capitalism than it is with a connection to anarcho-capitalism
• Etc.

If you believe that Google is at least somewhat useful in determining the popularity of terms, we can draw some conclusions. First, the term "liberal anarchism" should not be used in this article. Second, the term "American individualist anarchism" is a bit dubious. Third, the term "labor-theory individualism" only exists on Wikipedia, in an article written by RJII (that seems like original research to me). Fourth, anarchism is rarely discussed with a direct reference to anarcho-capitalism -- only 5.6% of the time. Make of it what you will. This is just some more information to help our discussion along. --AaronS 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"American individualist anarchism" is not intended to be "term." Neither is "labor-value individualism" --I'm just distingushing between individualists that ahdere to the labor theory and the ones that don't to facilitate discussion. These are descriptions --not "terms." Instead of "American individualist anarchism" you could say "Individualist anarchism developed by Americans" --"American individualist anarchism" is simply more economical. Get it? RJII 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't prove what you think it does. First of all, if someone references "anarcho-capitalism" as just "anarchism" as many do, like those academics I showed you (that got hit by the goal post as you moved it past them), that would show up as a hit for "anarchism" on Google. So you can't get away with saying that any website without both "anarchism" AND "anarcho-capitalism" uses anarchism "without any connection" to anarcho-capitalism. The only way to establish that one site uses anarchism a certain way is to ask them. I could go on, but that was really your central claim. And a bit smug, if I might add, for a disinterested pursuer of truth. MrVoluntarist 05:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd check out Google's first result if I were you: [15]. MrVoluntarist 05:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reposting this in order to keep the discussion fresh. I hope that that's okay. If not, let me know; but, I've found everybody's comments to be enlightening. I'll respond as soon as I can. --AaronS 07:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing that struck me is that "anarcho-capitalism" got more hits than "anarcho-syndicalism." (And more than "anarchist communism" and "anarcho-communism" combined.) So much for the notion that anarcho-capitalism shouldn't have a section or two. Hogeye 07:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, but for 1,790,000 hits on anarchism, only 142,000 talked about A-C. And many of those sites could be criticizing anarcho-cap (infoshop does, as you are no doubt aware). There are many arguments that can be made from the data and that can be spun around in different ways. And you are only adding anarcho-communism and anarchist communism. What about sydaclism, anarcho-socialism, socialist anarchism and libertarian socialism (all of which are strongly anti-capitalist)? Add those in and you get 290,841, versus 183,072 for an-cap, market anarchism, anarchist capitalism, liberal anarchism and american individualist anarchism. Also, there is more of an association between an-cap and libertarianism than an-cap and anarchism (106,000 vs 61,000). Overall, it seems to point in the anti-caps favor. The Ungovernable Force 08:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion is fairly irrelevant. Nothing is going to be decided on the basis of google results. - FrancisTyers 14:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)