Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 7

Arguments for and against Anarcho-Capitalism

Given that this entire article contains arguments for anarcho-capitalism, with arguments against being restricted solely to this section, I think it would be less misleading to simply label it "criticisms of anarcho-capitalism". Yes, arguments for anarcho-capitalism are still in this section, but that simply makes it the same as the rest of the article. I'll make this change pending comment. Kev 03:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is misleading. "This entire article" is an exposition of anarcho-capitalism, and thus presents what it is ancaps believe, why, and what their take on various issues is. Calling these "arguments for anarcho-capitalism" makes it seem like a polemical piece when it isn't. VeryVerily 05:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds all lovely when you put it that way. Unfortunately, if that were actually the case you wouldn't be spending so much of your valuable personal time removing all attempts to provide exposition on the politics and history surrounding anarcho-capitalism and calling it "overstuffing with criticism". Since when is giving a fair and balanced portrayal of both anarchism at large and anarchist individualism in particular a means of criticising anarcho-capitalism? Oh, right, when doing so happens to present a history that anarcho-capitalists wouldn't want the readers to hear. BTW, I do appreciate so much your return to the discussion page. Kev 09:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

VV, you will discuss this "one issue" you have with this compromise and hash it out, not go on one man crusades to revert entire pages for a few minor issues. Can we clean this page up? It's a little too long here.--Che y Marijuana 10:25, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Clean up vrs. reverts

I'd like to clean up this article, and wouldn't mind help, but I'm not going to be very happy if it all gets reverted due to some POV foolishness. For example, no one editor can express what "individualists" think, esp. not if that involvbes an opposition to something as basic as "rent". Does that also rule out "work" and "bills"? I never knew individualist = bum. ;)

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your bias couldn't be more clear, you won't even allow historically accurate statements to stand. We are not merely talking about "individualists" Sam, we are talking about anarchist individualists. I'm sorry if you think these people are bums for challenging the legitimacy of rent, but that is your own personal POV, and you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to remove their views just because you think they should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't like the history of anarchism, feel free to move onto a page you can more easily stomach. Kev 12:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And if you don't like NPOV and Factual accuracy, feel free to move on to a blog ;) Seriously tho, you can't claim to express individualist anarchist thought as some sort of homgeneous commodity, anarchism is necessarilly diverse. If you have a leg to stand on, cite it. Lets hear your sources. Otherwise I'll continue to think of you as a 'means of production' of hot air ;). Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is as inane as arguing that you can't make any claims about anarcho-capitalism on this page or libertarian socialism on its page. Individualist anarchists have a tradition, they have their own page too if you want to see it, and the evidence that they (tucker, spooner, stirner) oppose property entitlement and thus rent is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES on the very pages of the individuals in question right here on wikipedia. Not only is not my job to educate you when you go off editing subjects you don't have the knowledge required to even understand properly, but you have more than once demonstrated your willful ignorance of the subject matter and your insincerity in editing these articles, so I'm not going to waste a single moment supplying evidence for undoing edits that you supply -no- evidence for having made in the first place. Kev 13:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your refual to supply references is noted. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are the one asserting that individualist anarchists do not oppose rent, yet I am the one who must provide evidence? Back where I come from we have this funny tradition whereby the person making the claim is required to provide the evidence, but apparently you think my refusal to do your work for you will provide a convienent cover for the fact that you have provided no evidence yourself. Kev 13:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My claim is that indivualists are diverse, and that you might do better to cite a particular individual than a broad spectrum. I have no interest in your head games. Please go have a cup of tea. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 14:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great! Then please provide evidence for this claim. How about a single anarchist individualist that advocates property as entitlement a la the anarcho-capitalists rather than property as possession a la Proudhon. This should be very easy evidence for you to provide, yes? Kev 14:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have you considered writing a Wikipedia article on possession (anarchism), to help others better understand the disctinction above? - Nat Krause 05:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

reclamation

"Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists repudiate all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, aggressive war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights. They reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them on the grounds that they are violations of rights, not necessarily because they are committed by governments."

The last sentence is not really good. Some ancaps are pure economists. They would be thieves as it would be their prefered profession. So it is too pathetic to say: "They reject these forms of coercive control ... by private agents." All they love is their economic view. Or they think private coercive control is better than government, because of economic advantages and responsibility. And I think so because I don't make moral claims to top reality.

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anarcho-capitalism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anarcho-capitalism}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

67.166. / Spencer

Please tell me why Spencer is not an individualist in his essay "The Right to Ignore the State" (http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm)

And before is written: "Many anarcho-capitalists were also influenced by individualist critiques of the State and their arguments for the right to ignore or withdraw from it (as, for example, ..." ?!?!

--Alfrem 18:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence in this article that it is specifically an individualist anarchist one.

What shall mean that? It is by definition an individualist anarchist one. (right to ignore or withdraw from it) What do you need more? Must Spencer claim before: "Heh guys, I am individualist now when I write this!" --Alfrem 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Declaring the right to ignore or withdraw from the state does not an individualist anarchist make. If it did, then all anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, primitivists, and egoists would necessarily be anarcho-individualists. Being an anarcho-individualist means more than simply being against the state, and even more than being against the state because one has a right to withdraw from it. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly anti-state, that much is clear. But its relation to individualist anarchism cannot be determined if we only view this one article without relying on his other works (as you seem to be implying we should).

That is irrelevant because Spencer is not the topic but individualsist anarchsim is it. You disturb yourself at the person of "Mr. Spencer" and not to the point.

Yes, individualist anarchism is the topic, and the source is neither an individualist anarchist nor necessarily giving individualist anarchist arguments, which makes the source you are giving only tangetially relevant to the topic. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In itself, this article gives no evidence on Spencer's position in regards to possession, wage, or usury. Taken together with his collected works, there is good reason to believe that Spencer was not himself an individualist anarchist, and thus that the arguments given in this essay are not appropriately labeled "individualist anarchist" when they do not present themselves as such explicitly.

Yes, that is possible. One can deliberate about it. But that doesn't change anything that Spencer's topic must be an individualist one. I can't help it that just Spencer ist the author. That is not the mistake which you may revert.

It is, futhermore, rather important that Spencer was more than just an individualist anarchist "in [this] essay" if we are to make valid this example as part of general "individualist critiques of the State". Kev 07:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. That is only important on Herbert Spencer and the point here is not "individualist" but "individualistic". --Alfrem 23:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. The passage is specifically trying to state that anarcho-capitalism is drawing from anarcho-individualist sources. In order to do that you have to actually list anarcho-individualist sources that it has drawn from, not sources which may or may not be anarcho-individualist, not sources which are merely anti-state, not sources which are merely generally individualistic, but sources which are specifically anarcho-individualist. Kev 11:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction?

In the Libertarian Socialism article, Sam Spade led a laughably biased crusade to get the article trashed or severely edited, claiming that the term was a contradiction, citing the modern right-wing American definition of libertarianism.

The vast majority of anarchists consider anarcho-capitalism to be a contradiction, as anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. While I'm not suggesting or implying that the article be scrapped/overhauled, as such a proposition is as stupid and juvenile here as it was in the Libsoc article, would anyone be willing to write a section stating that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, the black sheep of the anarchist tradition, at worst, simply the American right-wing form of libertarianism in disguise, and that most anarchists do not consider such anarchists to be anarchists at all? ~ Bloodsorr0w, Jan 23, 2005

The Sam Spade crusade was like a year ago. Why are you bringing it up now? Anyway, this article currently states: "It would be an understatement to claim that anarcho-capitalism's place within the anarchist tradition is hotly contested (see Anarchism); in fact, it is disowned by most anarchists, who believe that capitalist economic relations constitute a form of social domination, and thus contradict the fundamental anarchist belief in freedom." That seems entirely sufficient. - Nat Krause 20:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Sam Spade crusade continues today. He has simply shifted gears from completely wiping out all information on anarchism to portraying it as only being correctly viewed when it is considered chaos and rioting in the streets. He has even said as much on the anarchism discussion page. Kev 17:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh, well, yeah, I guess that's a different crusade. - Nat Krause 00:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)