Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 6

Justification of non-use of "traditional"

Per Keveh's request. To talk about "traditional anarchism" is unclear. What tradition, where? If you are talking about Bakuninist thought, that's not the same tradition as the American individualists. A-C, on its own, is a tradition that goes back about 150 years in its current form, and 40-50 years under its current name. - Nat Krause 06:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okey, I'll refrain from reverting given that it could be unclear. But the claim that AC goes back 150 years in its current form is revisionist history at best. Not only has it changed a good deal since its inception 50 years ago, and not only is the previous tradition recognizably different in numerous ways, but claiming that the previous tradition of anti-state capitalism did not change at all (i.e. "in its current form") when those advocating it started calling themselves anarcho-capitalists only serves as an argument against the inclusion of ac within the domain of anarchist theory, given the undeniable hostility that all anarchist theory had to capital predating ac. Such an argument would pretty much cement the hypothesis that ac is nothing more than a subversion of anarchism. And in case you are under a mistaken impression, the tradition of american individualist anarchists is no less hostile to capital than that of bakunin, kropotkin, proudhon, or any other anarchist predating ac. Kev 10:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Traditional is not just problematic but also adds nothing. The "history" section of Anarchism can give all the details instead of a prejudicial one-word summary. VV 09:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"If you are talking about Bakuninist thought, that's not the same tradition as the American individualists." You are correct in saying that the individualists were not "Bakuninists". But both Bakuninists and individualists, along with adherents to a whole host of other "anarchisms", are part of a single tradition of which anarcho-capitalists are not. This unbroken tradition is that of the historical anarchist movement, which has always been characterized by both anti-statism and anti-capitalism. The majority of anarchists today identify with this movement. -- Spleeman 01:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My opposition to saying "traditional anarchism" is basically that people who don't know what you mean won't know what you mean.

Kev, I should have said, "in an explicit form", because A-C has certainly changed in the intervening 150 years. I would be surprised if left-anarchism hasn't changed as well. And I wouldn't agree that anarcho-capitalism is a subversion of hard-left anarchist thought; it is something entirely off to one side of it.

I know that you two would like to claim the American individualists as the property of left-anarchism. I don't really know their thought well enough to argue much, although I've been doing some reading lately. On the other hand, A-C's like Murray Rothbard, Wendy McElroy, Roderick Long, and Bryan Caplan argue that the I-A's are fundamentally on our side. I like Rothbard, et al., but I know they aren't right every time. I got nothing against you, either, but you sure aren't always right -- for one thing, you're socialists, which is like 2.5 strikes in my book. So, I don't know. For Spooner, at least, I've never seen anything to indicate that he was a socialist. Tucker definitely wrote some stuff that was pretty sketchy sometimes.

Simply being "hostile to capital" isn't sufficient to disqualify one from being an anarcho-capitalist, at least not by much. A lot of A-C's are hostile to capital. I believe it was Murray Rothbard who said, "We trust capitalism, not capitalists." - Nat Krause 17:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nat why do write stuff that makes you sound ignorant? If you "don't really know their thought well enough to argue much" why must you argue at all? I don't claim the American individualists as the property of "left-anarchism". The term "left-anarchism" itself is one invented by anarcho-capitalists and their ilk to distinguish between themselves and the rest of anarchism. Before the emergence of anarcho-capitalism, there was no "left" or "right" anarchism; it was all one "anarchism", one tendency of thought that was characterized by opposition to both capitalism and the state. If I claim the individualists for anything, it is for this anarchism, for "anarchism without adjectives" as some have called it. Nevertheless, I don't deny, nor have I ever denied, that there are major differences between 19th-century American individualist thought and the rest of anarchism, but neither do I see this as excluding the individualists from a tradition of which they clearly considered themselves a part. In other words, I'm not saying the individualists were left-anarchists, commie anarchists, or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that they were a part of the main anti-capitalist anarchist tradition, and that they placed themselves within this tradition by their own words and deeds, especially their association with what you call "left-anarchists". Benjamin Tucker even called himself a socialist!

What I object to the anarcho-capitalists doing is claiming that Tucker and the rest were their ideological forbears or that they were "anarcho-capitalists without knowing it". The anarcho-capitalists may very well "draw inspiration" from the individualists, but this does not change the fact that anarcho-capitalism emerged out of classical liberalism and not out of the historical anarchist movement.

By the way, Kev didn't say "that anarcho-capitalism is a subversion of hard-left anarchist thought". He said it was a "subversion of anarchism", which, from a certain point of view, is true. Anarcho-capitalists have declared from the beginning their intention to "reform" anarchism, i.e. eliminate its anti-capitalist tendencies. From a "left-anarchist" view, this could definitely be considered "subversion". Also, you know exactly what he meant by "hostile to capital", so you can take your semantics games somewhere else. The individualists were opposed to the system of capitalism, just like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Goldman, etc.

Also, thanks for pointing out your already obvious bias: "for one thing, you're socialists, which is like 2.5 strikes in my book". -- Spleeman 18:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nat, it is too bad that you come into this discussion with a mind so set against socialism, especially since you probably don't understand the meaning it has for most anarchists. The individualists were socialists by their own repeated admission, this would be as difficult to deny as it would be to deny that they were hostile to communism. And I very much hope that if you read a statement in which they denounced communism you would not assume them communists, as you seem to be doing in the case of capitalism. Perhaps if you were able to understand anti-state socialism (especially that of the individualists), removed from the context of anarcho-capitalists who attempt to distort their views in order to claim their tradition, you might not give us so many strikes at the outset. I'm not all that hot on enforced economics myself, but no anarchist worth their salt is suggesting any such thing. As to your knowledge of individualism, I'm not sure what would satisfy you. Tucker was clearly against capitalism, he held an almost identical view as Proudhon in rejecting property beyond possession, he also rejected usury, rent, and wage. I really think you would do well to read exactly what someone like Mr Caplan claims on his FAQ, his very careful use of only those quotes that defend his position and his careful cropping of even those quotes themselves, and then read the primary texts for yourself and see just how badly Caplan is manipulating his audience into believing something that clearly isn't the case. I could give you many examples if you need, but it would be far more compelling if you find them yourself.

As for Spooner, he soundly rejected wage, something many believe is a primary component of capitalism. He decried the institution of diverting any part of the laborers effort or reward to an employer, advocating universal self-employment, as most individualists did. He believed in a market, as do most individualists, but in a market squarely against one in which capital investment and wage play a primary role. I suppose if you can bring yourself to accept that someone could reject all of these things and yet embrace capitalism with open arms then there is simply nothing I could write to convince you. You would have already defined away any ability to prove you wrong as some capitalists do when they posit all human interaction as necessarily capitalistic. But if you do see the contradiction between the individualists and the capitalists from these statements above I would be happy to supply the quotes necessary to prove their source.

Anyway, you seem to assume some things common of those not used to dealing with anarchism. For example, I do not consider myself a left-anarchist. I suppose if you consider a rejection of capitalism to automatically make one a leftist, then yes it would be hard to deny that the individualists were and are leftists. However, many people then and today reject such an assumption, and I do not believe that title "individualist" should be owned by anyone, certainly not the libertarian socialists whose tradition is united in anarhism but distinct from individualism in a number of important ways. I hope you can move past your bias against socialism and understand that regardless of ones views on the merits of capitalism the questions of historical fact that should determine most of the content of wikipedia ought have the same answers. Even if I believed that capitalist claims to anarchism were valid, almost all of my edits to wikipedia would be the same. Though admittedly my emphasis would be different. Kev 07:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dare say your edits to talk pages might be a bit different... ;) Sam [Spade] 07:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Spleeman wrote: "Nat why do write stuff that makes you sound ignorant? If you 'don't really know their thought well enough to argue much' why must you argue at all?" Well, who's arguing what? I'm disputing a few fairly tangential points, but the main thing I'm doing is just pointing out that authors such as Rothbard, McElroy, et al., disagree with you. You are arguing with them. They say that the individualists, especially Spooner, were somewhat close to their position and somewhat at odds with the rest of anarchism. Kev says that Caplan quotes selectively to misrepresent the individualists' intended meaning，but I suppose that Caplan would argue that Kev and the Anarchist FAQ do the same thing.

Now, on to the tangential points. It is quite possible that I am misunderstanding what you guys mean by "socialism", and it could well be the case that I don't know what Benjamin Tucker meant by it either. Can it be that you, as well, don't understand what anarcho-capitalists mean by capitalism? Roderick Long believes that "voluntary socialism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are synonyms. I don't know.

I must insist that really don't know what "hostile to capital" means, although I can think of some possible meanings. Taken literally, hostility to capital is nonsensical, because capital is an inanimate object that just sits there; clearly, the expression requires some interpretation. The more specific term "capitalism", as I learned from Wikipedia, was not coined until 1906, after the I-A heyday, which meant that they did not have much chance to weigh in on it pro or con. The "socialism" of their day was not so dominated by Marxism as it is today, so that word no doubt held different connotations. I agree (for once!) with something I read in the sui dissant Anarchist FAQ [1]: "When reading the work of people like Tucker and Warren, we must remember the social context of their ideas, namely the transformation of America from a pre-capitalist to a capitalist society". This makes it hard to fit the individualists into modern categories (not that it stops the FAQ from trying).

Simply rejecting wage labor hardly makes you a model capitalist, but it doesn't make you a socialist either (not sure what you mean by "capital investment" here). Spooner was a businessman himself, for crying out loud! Many A-C's are skeptical of wage labor, too, and believe that it would have a considerably reduced role in a stateless economy (I recall David Friedman making a statement to this effect once). I don't doubt that Spooner went somewhat further than this. The claim of the oft-cited Rothbard, Long, et al., as I understand it, is not that the individualists were secretly anarcho-capitalists, but that their views were, for the most part (not unfailingly) compatible with each other.

On the charge of subversion, simply to say "subversion of anarchism" is very misleading at best. A-C is really its own development (emerging primarily, as you say, out of classical liberalism), not claiming to have much to do with Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. I could see "subversion of individualist anarchism" specifically, because A-C does claim to have something to do with that and does modify its doctrines.

I don't really object to you conceiving of left-anarchism as "traditional anarchism", because it is, after all, the older tradition and at one time was much more influential. However, I still object to referring to it as "traditional anarchism" on this page, just because I think it would be confusing.

Finally, I have, of course, never denied being against socialism (as I generally understand it). I'm not sure I would trust someone who had no opinions of his own. - Nat Krause 16:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kev says that Caplan quotes selectively to misrepresent the individualists' intended meaning，but I suppose that Caplan would argue that Kev and the Anarchist FAQ do the same thing.

And it is all the same to you because you are unwilling to do the research to find out which claim is true, if either. Thus you hide your own ignorance of the subject behind NPOV policy. The crazy thing is that I offered to do all the work for you if you proved too lazy, and not only did you not take me up on my offer, not only did you not do this research yourself, but you maintained your position in the face of it all. Do you really think it is a wise policy to simply ignore evidence that challenges your position?

BTW - Wendy McElroy has enough intellectual integrity to admit that all the individualists pre anarcho-capitalism were staunchly anti-capitalist. If you haven't figured that out by reading her articles yet, then send her an email and ask her yourself. She at least isn't some dead person who can be "interpreted" to the point of claiming the exact opposite of what she wrote. At least, not yet. And as for Rothbard, his claims to anarcho-capitalists tradition in individualism amounted to nothing more tangible than "inspiration" and "influence", which I could claim from almost any tangentially releated philosophy about another.

Can it be that you, as well, don't understand what anarcho-capitalists mean by capitalism?

Of course it is possible. However, I have been immersed in such dialogues and philosophy for long enough that I find it highly unlikely.

Roderick Long believes that "voluntary socialism" and "anarcho-capitalism" are synonyms.

And most anarcho-capitalists do not agree with this, meaning their own conception of capitalism is quite different than that of Roderick Long.

Simply rejecting wage labor hardly makes you a model capitalist, but it doesn't make you a socialist either (not sure what you mean by "capital investment" here). Spooner was a businessman himself, for crying out loud!

Of course he was! You continue to use your own ignorance as some kind of argument. Tucker was also a businessman, and he considered his form of anarchism socialist. That is because not all forms of socialism are contrary to market economics, like for example the market economics advocated by individualists who -still- deny property (upholding possession instead) and thus are not capitalist. There are still many individualists today who follow in this tradition, who advocate small business and market economies but reject capitalist economics on several levels.

The claim of the oft-cited Rothbard, Long, et al., as I understand it, is not that the individualists were secretly anarcho-capitalists, but that their views were, for the most part (not unfailingly) compatible with each other.

That all depends on what you mean by "for the most part". Sure, if you glance over parts of their ideology that the individualists themselves claimed were critical or essential to it, then it is pretty easy to claim compatibility. All the more easy since the individualists you refer to are now all dead and can't look at such equivocation in horror and say, "why the hell are you trying to twist away parts of my ideology that I said were of utmost importance?" Kev 18:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long between responses -- I've had somewhat intermittent internet access lately prior to yesterday. I guess I'll abandon the Talk:Anarchism discussion, which is okay because I think it was past the point of affecting the article. The same is probably true of this discussion, but I've got a couple things I'd like to say in the interest of exchange of information. For one thing, I want to make it clear that I'm moderating a couple of positions that I took at the beginning this conversation. A-C in an explicit form goes back arguably to Molinari (I think this is primarily a semantic argument). The American individualists were outside the mainline Bakunin-etc. anarchist tradition and/or compatible with A-C in the opinion of some authors. This is all that needs to be said. I know from experience that it can be irritating to be on the business end of NPOV, but my conclusions from my research (with or without Kev's assistance) are really not very important from Wikipedia's perspective. This is a good thing, because I admit to a certain level on rational ignorance on the grounds that I am just not very interested in the individualists, except for Spooner, and, even there, I'm not terribly interested in his ideas on economics.

I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist, although I did find a Wendy McElroy article where she lumps him in with Tucker, etc. in describing them all as anti-capitalist, although in that article she is not very clear what she means by that. On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property.

Kevehs: And most anarcho-capitalists do not agree with this, meaning their own conception of capitalism is quite different than that of Roderick Long. I have to say that I have read a fair amount of Long's writing and I have never found anything unusual about his definition of capitalism. Therefore, I have to conclude that it is the concept of socialism that he understands differently, perhaps more or less clearly, than other libertarians.

Basically, it occurs to me that a key problem I have in understanding what you are talking about is the meaning of the word "socialism". In general, to understand the meaning of a word, I try to compare information from a source like Wikipedia with what a dictionary (such as [2]) has to say. However, in this case, Wikipedia offers a confusing morass of definitions, and Merriam-Webster's definitions mostly revolve around state ownership, which I take it is not what you mean. So, for my edification, what is it that you mean by the term socialism? Does it have something to do with collective control of capital? If so, it is hard to see how this would allow for someone to own a business. A related topic: I have yet to grok the anarcho-anarchist distinction between "property" and "possession", on which Wikipedia does not have much information. Any recommendations for sources to clarify that subject? - Nat Krause 15:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The American individualists were outside the mainline Bakunin-etc. anarchist tradition and/or compatible with A-C in the opinion of some authors.

Hard to deny that, but it is also the opinion of some authors that Bill Gates is an alien and that Ouija boards can contact Elvis, I don't see why either of these opinions should affect the Elvis or Bill Gates wikipedia pages. Do you? Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist... I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property.

All depends on what one means by socialist. One use of the term in Spooner's time was to mean nothing more than "anti-capitalist", which Spooner explicitly was. I believe that is about the extent of his "socialism". And I would love to see those quotes, because I seriously doubt they support the capitalist conception of property. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, I have to conclude that it is the concept of socialism that he understands differently, perhaps more or less clearly, than other libertarians.

I don't see how this changes the relevance of my comment that his views are non-normative within the anarcho-capitalist community, thus not appropriate to represent them with. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However, in this case, Wikipedia offers a confusing morass of definitions, and Merriam-Webster's definitions mostly revolve around state ownership,

It is odd that we could read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. I saw 4 different meanings, only 1 of which necessitated a state, 1 of which offered state ownership as a possibility amongst others, and the other 2 which gave not even the implication of state involvement. Yet to you this is "mostly" revolving around state ownership? Anywho, my definition of socialism depends on the context, and tends to be more inclusive than any given dictionary would allow. With the individualists I generally mean what they meant, anti-capitalism. With the syndicalists I tend to take their own meaning, collective control of the means of production. Thus when I say "all anarchists are socialists" I mean it in the weakest sense which would most broadly apply, in this case the one the individualists tended to use.

Does it have something to do with collective control of capital? If so, it is hard to see how this would allow for someone to own a business.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Certainly capitalism entails the control of capital by someone right? And I would assume you think people can own a business in capitalism. But answering this question would require that I first know exactly what you mean when you say "capital".Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have yet to grok the anarcho-anarchist distinction between "property" and "possession", on which Wikipedia does not have much information. Any recommendations for sources to clarify that subject?

Proudhon's "What is Property" explicitly details the distinction and why it is appropriate, many subsequent anarchists simply assume these arguments without stating them directly, like Tucker and at times Kropotkin. Given that many no longer hold to the labor theory of value the reasoning behind the distinction has changed, though the practical upshot has not. The syndicalists tend to argue that it is the difference between "the means of production" and other forms of private property, most anarchists I talk to today distinguish more organically/subjectively between property that is part of an "active use pattern" and that which is not. Futher, not all anarchists uphold possession, as some deny all forms of property as coercive. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

more discussion arising from the justification of non-use of "traditional"

Hard to deny that, but it is also the opinion of some authors that Bill Gates is an alien and that Ouija boards can contact Elvis, I don't see why either of these opinions should affect the Elvis or Bill Gates wikipedia pages. Do you? Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was that it is in the opinion of relevant and important authors. Now, one can debate the relevance and importance of Rothbard, et al., to world of general thought, but on the anarcho-capitalism page, their bona fides seem reasonably unquestionable. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My only concern about your refering to these authors as some kind of authority on the subject relates to their relevance to anarchism in general and to anarchism as it compares with anarcho-capitalism. Obviously they are appropriate for discussions confined to anarcho-capitalism and therefore this page. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All depends on what one means by socialist. One use of the term in Spooner's time was to mean nothing more than "anti-capitalist", which Spooner explicitly was. I believe that is about the extent of his "socialism". And I would love to see those quotes, because I seriously doubt they support the capitalist conception of property. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here is the sort of thing I had in mind:

"The science of mine and thine—the science of justice—is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Natural Law (the first sentence)

"These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another." Natural Law

"How do many millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory---each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others ..." No Treason

"It would be unnecessary and silly indeed to assert, in a constitution of government, the natural right of individuals to protect their property against thieves and robbers." Trial by Jury

"the right of property is the right of supreme, absolute, and irresponsible dominion over anything that is naturally a subject of property, - that is, of ownership. It is a right against all the world." Letter to Grover Cleveland

Now, I will admit that, as you have pointed out frequently in the past, I have not read the cited essays in full, but these are the among the quotations I had in mind. I don't know if this means that Spooner supported your conception of a capitalist conception of property -- but then, I don't know if I support that, either. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

None of these quotes, as you seem to already know, demonstrates that Lysander Spooner held the capitalist conception of property, and in this instance I mean only the conception of property beyond possession. Demonstrating this point is absolutely critical to your assertion that he was not a socialist -because- he supported property. Proudhon and Tucker both supported property in two different versions of anarchism, both explicitly rejected the capitalist conception of property, and were both socialists by the standards of the very capitalists they rejected. Supporting some form of property does not make one a capitalist, if it did than the vast majority of socialists both state and non-state today would be capitalists. And in fact there are a lot of other quotes in the very same texts that you cite here that seem to indicate a view much more akin to anarchist possession than capitalist entitlement:

"The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people have advanced beyond the savage state, and have learned to increase their means of sub-sistence by the cultivation of soil, a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others, [*17] who had either accumulated any property that could be seized, or had shown, by their labor, that they could be made to contribute to the support or pleasure of those who should enslave them. " - Natural Law Since of Justice

"Thenceforth their fate was, as slaves, to cultivate for others the lands they had before cultivated for themselves. Being driven constantly to their labor, wealth slowly increased; but all went into the hands of their tyrants." - Natural Law

"In process of time, the robber, or slaveholding, class --- who had seized all the lands, and held all the means of creating wealth --- began to discover that the easiest mode of managing their slaves, and making them profitable, was not for each slaveholder to hold his specified number of slaves, as he had done before, and as he would hold so many cattle, but to give them so much liberty as would throw upon themselves (the slaves) the responsibility of their own subsistence, and yet compel them to sell their labor to the land-hodling class --- their former owners --- for just what the latter might choose to give them. Of course, these liberated slaves, as some have erroneously called them, having no lands, or other property, and no means of obtaining an independent subsistence, had no alternative --- to save themselves from starvation --- but to sell their labor to the landholders, in exchange only for the coarsest necessaries of life; not always for so much even as that." - Natural Law

"The aggregate wealth of society would there­fore be increased by just so much as the labor of all the members of society should be more productive than the labor of a part. It would also be increased by the operation of another principle, to wit: When a man knows that he is to have all the fruits of his labor, lie labors with more zeal, skill, and physical energy, than when lie knows-as in the case of one laboring for wages-that a portion of the fruits of his labor are going to another. Under the influence, then, of this principle, that each man should have all the fruits of his own labor, the aggregate wealth of society would be increased in two ways, to wit, first, all men would labor, instead of a part only; and, secondly, each man would labor with more skill, energy, and effect, than hired laborers do now." Poverty: Its illegal causes and legal cure

"In order that each man may have the fruits of his own labor, it is important, as a general rule, that each man should be his own employer, or work directly for himself, and not for another for wages; because, in the latter case, a part of the fruits of his labor go to his em­ployer, instead of coming to himself"- Poverty

But really all of this is beside the point, because it pretends that Spooner existed in a vacuum. Of course we both know he did not. He worked with anarchists, considered himself an anarchist, wrote in anarchist publications, and generally advocated anarchism. Yet I am to believe that his conception of property was so wildly different than all the other anarchists of his time that it indicated some very close relationship his ideology has with modern day anti-state capitalism. And why am I to believe that his conception of property was radically different, that he rejected possession and endorsed capitalist property? Not because there is a shred of evidence to support this view (none of your evidence did), but rather because there is a great deal of evidence which does not explicitly contradict it. Give me a break. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much that I know that the quotes show one thing or another, it's that I knew you were going to say that. You wanted to see quotes where he supports property, and I provided them; as for what kind of property he supported, that will of course require more research on my part. You gave your opinion in advance. And you will recall that the cause of this current fit of citation is this comment from me: "I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist ... On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property" -- a fairly mild claim, after all. I should say that the first quote you give from Poverty goes a ways to addressing the socialism issue (the three quotes from Natural Law were irrelevant), but in switching the argument from "property" to "capitalist property" you are trying to get me to defend something I never asserted (although it might well be true, I don't know). Lastly, by your "not writing in a vacuum" argument, do you mean to say that it is far-fetched that Spooner might have had a difference of opinion with other anarchists? They were, after all, individualists, i.e. liable to have their own ideas. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how this changes the relevance of my comment that [Roderick Long's] views are non-normative within the anarcho-capitalist community, thus not appropriate to represent them with. Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you said was And most anarcho-capitalists do not agree with this, meaning their own conception of capitalism is quite different than that of Roderick Long. It may be that his view of the similarity between A-C and voluntary socialism is not normative, but his view of capitalism itself appears to be plenty normative. Hence my tentative conclusion that it is his understanding of socialism that is unusual within the A-C milieu. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is fine, but I will repeat, I don't see how this is relevant to delcaring that his views are non-normative (we have in fact agreed on this part now) and thus not appropriate to represent anarcho-capitalism in general with. 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My point was not that Long might be considered normative, but that he might be considered correct (possibly). I wasn't suggesting that we alter the article to say, "Anarco-capitalists believe they are voluntary socialists, because Roderick Long says it." - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying anything which indicated or implied that Long couldn't possibly be considered correct. Kev 17:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is odd that we could read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. I saw 4 different meanings, only 1 of which necessitated a state, 1 of which offered state ownership as a possibility amongst others, and the other 2 which gave not even the implication of state involvement. Yet to you this is "mostly" revolving around state ownership?

Well, Merriam-Webster gives three main definitions, one of which is divided into an a) and b). The first refers to "collective or governmental" ownership.

In other words it indicates that socialism is not necessarily governmental, thus already contradicting your claim that this definition "mostly" revolves around the state, unless of course all the other definitions necessitate a state. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The third refers specifically to a stage in Marxist theory which corresponds to Leninist or Maoist governments.

According to who, you, Marx, Lenin, or Mao? I'll give you a hint as to why this is a bad inference to draw, you would all give an entirely different answers. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The second definition is bipartite: the a) section says nothing one way or another about the state, but the b) section specifies that the "means of production are owned and controlled by the state". So the only definition that doesn't refer directly to the state or government or to state-socialist theory is directly linked to another that specifies it.

That was a very good attempt, but apart from the implications you have imported I'm only seeing ONE definition that necessitates a state. The first clearly gives two alternative and thus does not, the second is split into two parts only one of which does, and the third only necessitates a state depending on who you ask (in other words, it doesn't -necessitate- a state at all). Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I formally withdraw from this thread of discussion on the grounds of it not being important. I agree that, if my understanding of Marxist historical-progression-to-communism-phase theory is flawed, then the dictionary's definitions do not all revolve around state control. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now, a dictionary definition is far from definitive, but I'm still trying to understand what "socialist" means to anarchists. For you to define it as simply anti-capitalism, while I appreciate the effort, doesn't do me a lot of good, since "capitalism" also tends to be rather vaguely defined. People's concepts of capitalism tend to be a mirror-image of their concepts of socialism, "capitalism" having been coined by history's most prominent socialist, after all. It appears to me that socialism as anti-capitalism leads back to some form of collective ownership of capital. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital? I can think of many systems in which capital is privately owned to some degree but "capitalism" is not present, and many instances in which capital is privately owned only to a limited degree but the economics are still described as capitalist. Certainly you do know that there was private ownership of capital before capitalism, or are we now going to sorta skip over history and call pre-industrial societies capitalist? Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say, yes, the way I use it, capitalism is defined by private (or corporate) ownership of property. That's consistent with some of the definitions that used to appear in the wikipedia capitalism article and with the definition given by merriam-webster. Therefore, any modern or pre-modern society with private capital ownership I would describe as capitalist, although there may be cases where this classification is not important in practice (for instance, if the society's members generally choose to refrain from invoking their property rights). It also means that societies where "capital is privately owned only to a limited degree" are genuinely capitalist only to a limited degree, regardless of what they are called. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(in response to Nat Krause: "Does it have something to do with collective control of capital? If so, it is hard to see how this would allow for someone to own a business.") I'm not sure what you mean by that. Certainly capitalism entails the control of capital by someone right? And I would assume you think people can own a business in capitalism. But answering this question would require that I first know exactly what you mean when you say "capital". Kev 09:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I said "it" I meant "socialism". To answer your question, capital is a man-made good that is used in the production of other goods.

Then now I need to know what a good is, because I don't readily believe that a good produced by a toothbrush, used by one person for their private benefit and tucked away in a cabinet of a residence, is the exact same as pertains to economic discussion as a good produced by a steel-mill, used by thousands for the benefit of millions and standing in the middle of a bustling city. Yet I have a funny feeling you do. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not sure how to answer that. No, they are not the same: one is one thing, the other is another; they impact people differently because there are differences in making them. But they are both goods produced using capital. "A good in economics is anything that increases utility" [3], which is to say, someone wants it. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine fine, then you simply stand against the entire anarchist tradition, and in fact the neo-classical liberal tradition, since according to your definitions capitalism runs rampant in anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, Soviet communism, anarcho-individualism, and many others. Makes it a little difficult to communicate with you, but what can I do? Kev 17:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is basically the definition that Wikipedia ascribes to David Ricardo. There are various qualifications that tend to get made implicitly according to context, such as including land under the definition of capital, or excluding raw materials. But, generally speaking, I use "capital" as stated above.

Now, under this definition, I don't see how a socialist in the sense of opposing the ownership of capital can own a business. A business is capital (and often some land), nothing else but. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, if we use this definition then a socialist could not own a business. Then again, according to this definition no anarchist (and few state-communists) have been socialist, since almost all of them believe in possession and even the ones who don't advocate a right of defense for use patterns, and it turns out that possessions and use patterns generally involve man-made goods of -some form- that are used to produce other goods of -some form-. Indeed, according to this definition the very evidence you offered from the dictionary is in contradiction, because the Marxist transition between capitalism and communism would not be socialist either. But the real problem with this definition as it pertains to our discussion is that it wipes out an entire area of human action that anarchists believe is vitally relevant to their theory, so using these particular definitions of capital and socialism to demonstrate the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism is rather stacking the deck. And, again, even if this wasn't the case we would have to radically change most of our current conceptions of socialism and communism if we accepted these definitions. Kev 23:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible that this whole disagreement between different types of anarchism comes down to semantic misunderstandings? Maybe. But it's unlikely. Less unlikely is that it might be based on semantic differences along with differing predictions of what will result from various contingencies, that is, non-prescriptive theoretical differences. This is essentially the position taken by the Black Crayon guy, and his analysis seems plausible on its face, although I would have to research and consider more before committing to agree with it. Is it possible that this hypothetical syncresis would also include Marxism? That seems somewhat less plausible. Does the Marxist "socialism" stage really involve private ownership of capital? - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it isn't necessary to believe so, but I can't imagine how else it would be. In Marxism socialism is a transition stage, which means it can't possibly happen all at once. If a socialist society replaced the capitalist society instantly then there would be no need for socialism at all, it would in fact move straight from socialism to communism. But Marxists believe the socialist state must exist precisely because there will be counter-revolutionary elements (i.e. capitalists and others) who will need to be suppressed. What all this boils down to is that yes, private property must exist on some level or a socialist society could not exist because it is defined -as- a transition in progress. Kev 17:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternative names

The article Anarchist symbolism mentioned the term "free-market fundamentalism" as an alternative name for anarcho-capitalism. I moved it here since it's not particularly about the symbol. But I'm not sure that it's well integrated into the article. I assume that this name is used primarily by anarchists that object to classifying anarcho-captialism as anarchist, although I don't know this for certain. But more generally, the list of alternative names could use a lot of clarification along those lines. Which of these names are used by anarcho-capitalists, and which by their opponents? I don't really know, but it would be nice to have that information here. -- Toby Bartels 00:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The current list of alternate terms is not a very good one. By far the most common synonym in use by the principals themselves is "market anarchism" (in fact, I have sometimes considered whether this page should be moved to market anarchism), sometimes additionally qualified as "free market anarchism." Other alternate terms I have heard include "private-property anarchism", "private law society", "ordered anarchism", or "radical capitalism" (although the last two can have other meanings). It's also damn similar to voluntaryism, panarchism, polyarchism (I'm not sure about that one), and agorism, although these terms express subtle and obscure distinctions. Hans-Hermann Hoppe just calls it "natural order". "Anarcho-liberalism" I've never heard before, but maybe somebody uses it. Ditto for "neo-classical liberalism", but that seems wildly unspecific. "Free-market fundamentalism" sounds like a plausible term of abuse, although I suspect it is more commonly applied to more common targets, like supply-side economists or House Republicans. As for what the opponents of anarcho-capitalism do call it, I'm not sure. "Crypto-fascist pseudo-anarchism" maybe? There are plenty of them around here that we could ask, though. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that I'm an "opponent of anarcho-capitalism"; at least within the context of anarchism broadly, I am. But I've never understood the objection of my fellow social anarchists to the term "anarcho-capitalism". To name a philosophy with a contradiction in terms is the perfect way to highlight its flaws! (I'm being somewhat jokey here; but the bottom line is that I call anarcho-capitalism only "anarcho-capitalism".) -- Toby Bartels

Market anarchism, or free market anarchism, are simply unacceptable. Individualist anarchists are market anarchists and to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism would be to either entirely over-write their tradition, ignore it completely, or pretend they are basically one and the same when they clearly are not. There are many people who use the alternate terms currently listed, many of them do so because they closely identify with the various figures who existed before anarcho-capitalism (the ones you seem to believe are part of the same tradition) and either agree with anarchists that the term anarcho-capitalist is faulty or believe that their own position is better indicated by "anti-state capitalist" or "neo-classical liberal". Another term they used a lot around Rothbard's time was "propertarian," but recently that has fallen out of use because it has been co-opted by anarchists as an insult. I highly doubt "free market fundamentalism" would be anything but an insult, I've certainly never heard a anarcho-capitalist identify that way. Kev 09:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists are market anarchists and to conflate anarcho-capitalism with market anarchism would be to either entirely over-write their tradition, ignore it completely, or pretend they are basically one and the same when they clearly are not. (Kev)

I have no doubt that Kev probably knows more anarchist history than I do, but I do know that within the current non-anarcho-capitalist anarchist community many people believe that Free Software shows at least some aspects of anarchism; just look on talk:anarchism. IMO it definitely has socialist overtones. By Noam Chomsky's definition of anarchism (defining by the process of increasing freedom over time, and not to the final resulting society) the Free Software movement fits the definition of "left" anarchism. If you doubt that Free Software has socialist overtones, go to the GNU home page or to the Free Software Foundation homepage and read their philosophical documents! "Free means free as in freedom, not as in beer." (Richard Stallman) The Free Software concept was created for the direct benifit of everyone (socialism), not just those who might make a profit from it (capitalism). However, Free Software encourages a market of exchange. I still have a personal choice between multiple vendors, or I can go so far as to compile my own version of the GNU/Linux software if I choose. This gives me, as a user, far more freedom than simply accepting the contracts of use (you really don't own any programs that you buy) given by gigantic corporations like Microsoft, which have historically shown a trend towards monopoly. So saying that "left" anarchists are against market economies is simply a fraudluent statement. millerc 21:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The question of whether or not "market anarchism" is a misnomer is somewhat to the side of the question of whether it is the most common synonym for anarcho-capitalism, which it is. Actually, as I have maintained in the past, I would say that it is "anarcho-capitalism" that is the misnomer, because most of the A-C's that I am aware of are market anarchists first and supporters of capitalism only as a correlary or a prediction. "Anarcho-capitalists merely defend capitalism (in the second sense of the term) as a legitimate choice among these forms of organization, and argue the science of economics demonstrates that it is the choice which is the most efficient for a prosperous and vital community — but one which they should not and will not impose on others by force." - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So we should then conflate two different traditions and pretend they are one? Wikipedia is not here to act as a grandstand for anarcho-capitalism, it is here to illustrate what anarcho-capitalism is. To then conflate anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism when there is a previous tradition which already calls itself market anarchism (in what many would view as a crass attempt to gloss over the differences between these two traditions and push ac propaganda) would be a discredit to wikipedia. The term anarcho-capitalism is a bad enough misnomer as it is, to blatantly co-opt the title of an actual anarchist tradition just because of a recent fad on the internet in which acs call themselves market anarchists (and really, this is mostly confined to the internet rather than literature) is to remove all hope of ever getting this page to NPOV. Kev 17:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, my point is, and somehow I feel like I'm repeating myself here, that: a) market anarchism is the most common alternative name for anarcho-capitalism, so if we are going to list any alternative names, it would be counterinformative for to not say that; b) market anarchism is no more of a misnomer for this thing than anarcho-capitalism is. Do you really think that the terms people use to describe political movements are ever going to be totally unambiguous? Your preferred alternative, "neo-classical liberalism", don't you see that that could easily be be interpreted in several different ways? - Nat Krause 10:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, market anarchism is not the most common alternative name for anarcho-capitalism. It is 1) a relatively recent fad, 2) almost entirely confined to the internet and 3) almost impossible to judge just how common it is much less whether or not it is the "most" common (even assuming we use the same standards to judge this). Regardless of whether or not it is more or less of a misnomer than anarcho-capitalism it is a name of an already existing political theory and to falsely conflate here is only to push for the anarcho-capitalist POV. Finally, yes there are many ways in which neo-classical liberalism can be interpreted, but that is because it is a larger category into which anarcho-capitalism falls. The assertion that anarcho-capitalism falls into the category of anarchism, much less the subcategory of market anarchism, is far more controversial. Kev 12:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Libertatis Aequilibritas

Although I like the idea of having an image for this page, I'm not sure about the current libertatis aequilibritas that we have up. For one thing, it's not a very good libertatis -- it doesn't really suggest a yin-yang, it just looks like a dollar sign inside a circle. Reminds me of the S on Superman's chest more than anything. For another thing, the libertatis isn't really that widely accepted as a symbol; it just looks strong by comparison because its only competitor is that weird red-and-black flag some guy came up with. It would have more meaning if the dollar weren't an artifact of the federal government in the first place. An additional problem: the image's copyright status looks iffy. - Nat Krause 16:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But dollars (and the symbol "$") were around before the United States. You could take the symbol as promoting the right of free individuals to coin their own dollars, opposing the federal monopoly on coinage. (Just hypothesising; I don't know what the creator meant.) -- Toby Bartels

Hmmm ... shows what I know, I guess. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By that weird red and black flag some guy came up with do you mean the flag of the anarcho-syndicalists? If so, I hope you were just trying to make a joke by that statement. I doubt that any anarcho-syndicalist would accept anarcho-capitalists using that symbol as their own. That flag, BTW, has an older history and a lot more symbolism than you lead me to think you understand. Red, for one, is considered to be the socialist color, and black is the color of anarchism (socialist anarchism). millerc 20:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not joking, just a little confused. There was a guy who came up with an anarcho-capitalist flag, and I think it had red and black on it. So I got that mixed up with the syndacalist flag. But the A-C version does not appear in wikipedia and need not, due to lack of notableness. - Nat Krause 16:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Left ac's?

I noticed the removal of the claim that a-c's can be leftist. I had been skeptical of that as well, but Radgeek's comments (now archived) made a persuasive case that such a combination does exist. VV 23:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Given the context -- "anarcho-capitalists have very widely differing social views, ranging from the conservative and often religious paleolibertarians to moderate liberals to the far Left" -- I inferred that "far Left" referred to what might be termed "permissive social views". However, the idea that such views are necessarily "left" is a false one; Leftists can be prudes too (look up "Bolshevik modesty"). The terms "Left" and "Right", I think, are best understood in an economic sense, and in that sense, anarcho-capitalists CANNOT be left. However, many anarcho-capitalists are genuine "social libertarians", so I chose that term. I'm not sure it's the best term -- suggestions for an alternative welcome -- but I think it much less confusing than calling extreme rightists "left". Hopefully that explains things. Happy edits! -- Spleeman 00:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nota bene: when I said earlier that a-c's (or market anarchists) can hold hew far Left, I meant not only social libertarianism (although I did mean that), but I also meant in the sense of opposition to centralized corporate economics and solidarity with non-coercive organized labor efforts. Roderick Long is one of the most prominent examples--although he (like I) increasingly dislikes the term of "anarcho-capitalism" because he doesn't think that "capitalism" has a coherent meaning. As for how terms such as "Right" and "Left" should be applied, I do *not* think there is any good historical case for understanding these terms in an exclusively economic sense. Right and Left have always been first and foremost distinctions about *power*; Rightist thought originated among French ultra-Royalists who defended traditional power structures as ordained by Almighty God, and Leftist thought as such originated amongst those who rejected the pretensions of princes and potentates. The Right at the time were mostly old guard mercantilists--not "capitalists" (in *any* popular sense of the term) and not free marketeers. The modern notion of the distinction as a purely economic one is the result of the colonization of the Left by Bolshevism and the opportunistic use of corporativist economics posing as free marketeering by the old and new Right, and I think using it that way conceals more than it reveals. In fact whether free market economic views are of the extreme Right or of the Left depends a lot on how they are being deployed and how the arguments are related to existing power structures. If anyone proved this, it was Benjamin Tucker. 68.42.114.145 04:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! The nota bene was from me, Radgeek, since I was mentioned above. I guess my login zonked out before I finished typing. Radgeek 04:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this left/right thingie. Personally, I dislike distinctions between economic issues and non-economic issues, because every issue is economic if one treats it as such. Economics is a method of analysis, not a distinct subject matter. Still ... let us speak of controversies about a societies predominant means of production (PMOP for short). If left and right are defined by PMOP, than is anarcho-capitalism necessarily on the right? O don't think so. I would consider the "right" PMOP to be the existence of a sovereign, with a government, consisting of an extended kinship network, who also occupy most important financial and business positions in that society, and talk a lot about private/public "partnerships" because the border is so permeable. Crony capitalism, in short. Anarcho-capitalism, by proposing to eliminate the myth of sovereignty and the regulatory/subsidizing government, would severely interfere with the cronyist networking process. Insofar forth, it has some similarities to the left. On the PMOP, then, anarcho-caps ate generally centrists, although their tone can vary from left to right. --Christofurio 20:03, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

The terms left and right originated during the period of the French Revolution. The right comprised the conservatives who supported the "establishment" and the left were radicals who supported revolutionary social reorganization, in some form or another. Anarcho-capitalists are tricky because while they do support the current establishment, that is, capitalism, their beliefs can be quite radical/extremist. This I believe is deceiving, however. If we are to judge a society by it's underlying economic structures as you propose, then anarcho-capitalists are of necessity "right", as they are the most ardent supporters of the capitalist mode of production. Also, a-caps do not, IMO, wish to change the fundamental nature of power and authority in society, as they do not wish to abolish government so much as to privatize it. I disagree that "right" must necesarily be defined by government or crony capitalism. What is your basis for this definition? -- Spleeman 19:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists don't support the "current establishment" in the sense that the "current establishment" involves sovereignty. I notice of course that when you use the phrase "the current establishment" immediately qualify it, "that is, capitalism," presumably because you believe capitalism to be the most fundamental fact ABOUT the status quo. But which of us gets to decide what is "fundamental"? It seems to me, as an anarcho-cap myself, that sovereignty, and governments ruling on behalf of the sovereign, constitute -- alas! -- a pretty fundamental feature of the world, one that has a lot to do with production, too. Why is opposition to that feature not opposition to the "mode of production" that now exists? Why did Michael Milken go to prison? -- I would like to suggest that the reason concerns the fact that he was not a member of the ruling elite, so he wasn't going to be allowed to be successful capitalist. Why is that not as "fundamental" as anything else one might name about the present system in most of the world?

No, the most fundamental fact ABOUT the status quo is the authoritarian relationships present, all of which are based on political or economic power. As Spleeman has already stated, the act of privatizing government, for the benifit of those who can pay for it, isn't in any way fundamentally changing society. In fact, I would say that taking a goverment which, at least on its surface, claims to be controlled democratically and delivering it into the hands of private powers is a step backwards (making it extreame rightist). Noam Chomsky, and others have claimed that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally no different than feudalism. Going by the article on crony capitalism in wikipedia I really can't tell the difference between crony capitalism and capitalism (with no adjectives). Simply privatizing the government's functions wouldn't keep others from colluding with the new private agencies to keep power. If anything it would probably increase the collusion, since those in power would no longer depend on public support. If capitalism is based on "rational" self interest, then it shouldn't be supprising that those with privaledge would act in such a way as to prevent others from liberating themselves. millerc 18:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why do you, or Spleeman, or Chomsky, or any other bearers of names you might want to invoke get to tell me what is "fundamental" and what isn't? First, honesty and rationality would seem to be best served by abandoning "claims" we know not to be true, rather than hanging ever more tightly to them for all that for fear of being labelled rightists if we see through them and say so.

But, second, even if a government is "democratically controlled" rather than just claiming to be, that doesn't mean it's no longer what you call an "authoritarian relationship." Its just an authoritarian relationship with majority backing. If we want to change things so as to abandon such relationships, we ought to defy, not deify, majorities.

I certainly agree that the privileged want to prevent people from liberating themselves. For example, many black Americans in the inner city exercise their entrepreneurship by selling drugs which the powerful have criminalized. My sympathies as an anarcho-capitalist are, in that instance as in so many others, with the entrepreneurs. I believe that the myth of sovereignty is part of the mechanism that keeps them locked up. I also regard that as a pretty fundamental issue, one that is relevant to left-right alignments if those terms mean anything at all.

In general, the privatization of functions now considered governmental wouldn't be a privatization of government, but an abolition thereof. The people exercising those functions would have to meet market disciplines, which are much more severe than the disciplines of the ballot box -- which is why they now prefer the latter, and evading the former. --Christofurio 18:41, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why would privatization of these functions suddenly make them non-governmental? Many of them still perform governing duties, so how would privitizing them eliminate government involvement? It just shifts the balance of power from an elite hidden by a fake democracy to an elite not hidden at all. Honestly, what the heck would someone unable to afford representation in one of these non-governmental governing services care about whether or not they meet market discipline. Is a boot in my face less ominous when it is more economically efficient? Kev 22:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I own, say, a television, it is rational for me to pay for the folks who will put a well-deserved boot in the face of someone who breaks into my home and walks out with it. But it isn't so rational for me to pay to put boots in the faces of people who like different programs than those I watch, or enjoy different lifestyles. So in an anarcho-capitalist society, it will be much easier than it is now to live a life of one's own choosing without having an (undeserved) boot in one's face. That is why the boots will become less ominous. Furthermore, the elite won't be so elite without the levers of sovereignty, without democracy and the other fakeries behind which they now hide. They adopt what you rightly call their fakery for a reason, because it is useful in preserving their elite status -- and the rest of us should want to deprive them of that hiding place for the same reason. --Christofurio 13:27, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be advisable for the participants in this discussion to either clearly distinguish between "government" and "state" or explicitly not distinguish between them. In ordinrary conversation, people tend to use them synonymously, but traditionally, in anarchist parlance, they are considered distinct. Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to want to eliminate government, in the sense of some kind of mechanism for some form of law and order, and it's not clear to me that anarcho-socialists want to eliminate that, either. - Nat Krause 07:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll be explicit. Personally, I use "government" to mean an institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use or licensing of violence within a given territory. Generally, when an institution makes this claim it does so on behalf of a state or sovereign, conceived of as "We the People" perhaps, or as a personal monarch, or whatever. The distinction between "state" and "government" is that between the (alleged) principal and its (alleged) agent, roughly the difference between Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair. As to my own anarcho-capitalism (I speak for no one else, of course) I regard Liz as just an elderly woman with some nice dogs and a big house. So I regard Tony Blair as the leader of an institution that makes an unwarranted claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use or licensing of violence in the UK. Of course, anarcho-caps don't dispute the need for "some sort of mechanism" for the preservation of order. To adopt Kev's terminology -- some people DO deserve to have boots in their faces now and then. The rest of us need to be able to hire the wearers of boots to protect us from those who deserve that fate. But if that mechanism isn't monopolistic in character, I for one don't think it warrants the term "government." --Christofurio 13:27, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

So if its not a monopoly "on violence" (confined to a certain geographical area of course, since there are many state governments in the world) its not government? That's a really odd definition of government. Especially since things like farms and ranches have a monopoly on cultivating a particular geographic location, but you probably wouldn't consider them a monopoly "on cultivation". Yet by the definition of "natural" rights used by many Libertarians and ac's you would up hold such land privileges. Would you enforce the privilege of landowners to protect their own land? If so, what about those who have no land (a possibility all too real, when the economic system is set up and enforced in a way that assures an increasing divide between those few who have wealth and those who do not)? Will they have to submit to the landowner's will -- or else, would they be violating the landowner's "right" to the land, and in such a case the landowner wouldn't be "initiating" violence? What makes the landowner different from a king in such a case? Yet, you wouldn't consider him or her as having a monopoly "on violence", since he or she didn't "initiate" the violence. Does it really make a difference if the army is a collection of "privately" hired individuals; doesn't our government really just hire individuals to protect their political power? Hell the US government even advertises such jobs on TV! The problem is that ac's don't think abstractly about these sorts of things. Kev's "boot to the face" doesn't have to be a litteral boot to the face, it only has to be a means by which someone might be able to force others to accept his or her will. If your life depends on the demands of a small class of elites, you are not really free (starving to death is no more morally acceptable when it is preventable, than is exocution). It seems that ac's have some sort of ahistorical mythical utopian view of "real" capitalism where everyone would do what was best for their costomers and their employies, and everything would tend towards some mythological equilibrium where all resources would be "efficently" allocated. "Real" capitalism is a fraud. Economic power games are a reality; crony capitalism is capitalism, state or not. There is no difference that I can see between Lenin's intellectual/party elites, Hitler's genetically superior race, or the economic elites created by a capitalist economic system (none of them deserve my trust). millerc 22:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Semantic and Substantive Points

Let me dispense with the two points I consider peripheral and semantic. First, as to the definition of "government," I'm sorry that it seems "really odd" to you. I believe I remember hearing something very similar to this definition from a professor of political science in my undergraduate days but ... that was the late 1970s, so I might as well let it slide. It is, I think, a reasonable definition in capturing what I mean to oppose when I say I don't believe in legitimate government. I make no claims for it beyond that. Second, yes, I understood that Kev was using a figure of speech. I meant my own use of his phrasing in the same spirit. What I think all three of us agree on (tell me if I'm wrong!) is (a) there are some people who will prey upon me if I let them, people who deserve to have a boot in their face once in awhile, and that is likely to remain the case for the indefinite future, utopian visions of a perfected humanity notwithstanding, (b) the rest of us are entitled to protect ourselves against such folks, either by wearing the "boots" ourselves (the community-policing and militia-organizing solution) or by hiring someone who does, (professional police and standing armies) and finally (c) the substantive questions are of how this is done, how the bootwearers are to be paid, and how the boots are to be kept out of the faces of people who don't deserve them! These are all more important questions than what names to give things.

So now, onto substantive points. You justifiably draw my attention to the divide between rich and poor, which you relate to the distinction between landed and unlanded. My response is to ask you to ask yourself what part of that gulf is itself the result of the myth of sovereignty? Consider the "war on drugs," which is in large part a war on the most entrepreneurial residents of inner cities, and keeps the inner cities of the United States impoverished by keeping the more enterprising of their would-be residents locked up. Drug legalization is not a matter of anything so jejune as "lifestyle choice" in the usual left-of-center lingo. It is a matter of sovereign distortion of the means of production. To end that misguided war would be an important reform of PMOP in the US.

On the broader point of land rights, allow me to say, first, that you have put into my mouth the phrase "initiation of force" and then asked whether I would apply the label to trespassers. I never use the phrase myself, although a lot of libertarians do -- not so many anarcho-caps do as you might assume. The notion that anything is fair in retaliation if somebody else does the initiating seems to me a very dubious one. So ... no. I don't believe that an anarcho-capitalist society would routinely execute trespassers. I don't believe it would encourage retaliatory uses of force in general, although it does make sense to hire people to exact compensation for harm the trespasser does, (if he tramples across someone's garden, say) assuming no agreement can be reached.

There will be competition among protection agencies and the market-based arbitration systems that will spring up to serve them, and rules will develop for handling such controversies according to the principle of spontaneous order.

The political problem is to prevent government (or mob) interference from short-circuiting the higgling and haggling necessary to bring about such a bargaining solution. Dissolving the myth of sovereignty is an important part of the long-run solution to that problem. --Christofurio 00:39, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think I can agree on your begining points. While I do think there are people who would prey on myself and others given the opportunity, I don't think merit enters into the scenario at all for me so I don't understand your belief that these people "deserve" one or another response by you. To me even the predators in life are peers of some kind, the fact that they act in ways I abhor does not strip them of their humanity in my eyes, and I do not grant or withdraw merits and priviledges from my peers.

Indeed. A similar sentiment on my part was precisely why I disputed the notion that Millerc tried to impute to me that if one party "initiates" violence, then the other party's response is necessarily justified. It isn't. Even in responding to blatant aggression, there are issues of proportionality -- and it is seldom as clear who "initiated" anything as the "retaliators" would like observers to believe. So it is important to keep one's sense of common humanity -- I said so myself and am happy to see that we agree. --Christofurio 19:25, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I cannnot. The important aspect here is not that I disagree with some of the practical upshot of your begining assumptions (that sometimes we have to defend ourselves), but that I disagree with the assumptions you use to frame the scenario to begin with, and thus a great deal of the emphasis in your conclusions.

Of course it follows then that I don't think our response to such individuals has anything to do with entitlement either. I really wouldn't care what we are entitled or not entitled to in such circumstances, my response would be the same either way. Actually, I'm lost as to who or what would be doing the entitling here anyway.

Call her "Gaia" as you do below in a different context. Our entitlement to protect ourselves comes from whatever that is to which we give thanks for the benevolence of the natural world and for our own abilities.

More importantly, I disagree that I have any "priviledge" or "entitlement" or really simply legitimate power to hire others to my defense. First, because I believe that wage labor is coercive and I would not put other people in the position of needing to fulfill my desires/needs/whims in order to survive and restricting their access to the resources they need in order to acquire their servitude. Second, because I have little faith in most people and do not believe that individuals who amass such security power will always or even usually refrain from applying it in unjust ways to their own advantage. As such, I would rebel against the formation of security forces commanded by individuals other than those individuals themselves, and I would also refrain from supporting any such force myself.

Last, I do not believe the substantive points are how to pay these boot wearers or how to keep their boots out of the faces of the people you or I believe don't deserve them. Indeed, I think you have overlooked the really substantive points above. And as an aside, I am particularly disturbed at your ready acceptance of what you percieve to be the need of an institution of these people in the first place. It is apparently no longer a question of how to remove the boot from the face of humanity, but which part of humanity we should apply the boot to, that centers in the minds of many people. Thank gaia that Orwell is dead and does not have to see this reality, in which the very concept of freedom is lost to most, come to pass. Kev 04:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here we do approach an issue of substance. If we are entitled to protect ourselves (or, as you may prefer to put it, if one sometimes simply must act to protect one's self) then we are also entitled to work co-operatively with other humans to that end, when we judge combinations to be more effective that a solitary David Carradine approach. If we work together, even in a small group, for a common defense, then there will naturally come to be a separation of functions. Is that unobjectionable thus far? If so, I see no principled objection should someone better capable of kicking butt agrees with someone less capable, but possessed of disposable income, that this separation of functions should take on an employer-employee character. Should the elderly lady who just wants to keep her flower garden untrampled have to personally confront would be tramplers herself? --Christofurio 19:25, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what Kev has said above; however, this coversation has devolved into an argument over who's correct. I don't think this is going to get us anywhere. So, I would like to propose a compromise, one that would also have the effect of making the article more academic, to the question that started this debate (can AC's be leftist? or can AC's be radical?). I propose that if you can find a notable AC who can be quoted as X states that "I'm a leftist/radical", and you can give the relevent quote not taken out of context, then I will support such an inclusion in the article. Heck, if you give a qoute not taken out of context, then there is no way to dispute such an inclusion on NPOV grounds. millerc 19:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Radgeek's comment, above, about Roderick Long. The article should perhaps mention him as an example of a thinker who might well be classified as both leftist and an anarcho-capitalist (though he is, for sensible reasons, wary of both labels himself). --Christofurio 20:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Could we be given some reason as to think that a person who apparently doesn't consider himself an anarcho-capitalist is "a notable AC"? But before we get to that point, I think we would have to demonstrate that Roderick Long is notable, the first time I ever heard of him was from Radgeek. If he is a substantive figure in anarcho-capitalism I suppose there should be lots of articles published by him in AC journals and perhaps even a few referances by other notable ACs to him. Kev 23:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your first question is merely a semantic one: Long, of course, admits to being a so-called "anarcho-capitalist", but he apparently has doubts about whether this is the appropriate name. Actually, I've never read anything where he expresses these doubts, but Radgeek knows him personally, so he knows better than I do. As for whether he is notable or not, that all depends on your standards for notableness. According to his website, Long has been published in Philosophical Review, Social Philosophy and Policy, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Ideas on Liberty (which is the same thing as The Freeman, a venerable Libertarian publication), Review of Metaphysics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. He has written two books available on Amazon and contributed essays to a few more. A quick search on Amazon comes up with a handful of references made to him in books written by other people. As for references by other ACs, I'm not sure how to document that; he appears to be in pretty good with Rockwell, which is a little unusual because Long disputes some points that Rockwell considers to be important. - Nat Krause 02:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continuation

It's not so much that I know that the quotes show one thing or another, it's that I knew you were going to say that. You wanted to see quotes where he supports property

No. I wanted, and asked for, quotes in which he supports "a capitalist conception of property." In fact when I asked I made it clear that I have serious doubts as to whether or not such quotes even exist. Why would I ask for quotes to demonsrate something I already know (i.e. that he supported property)? And really, please get on with your research, don't let me get in your way. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist ... On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property" -- a fairly mild claim, after all

No, it isn't, because it presumes a faulty background assumption. You continue to assume that one cannot defend property and be a socialist, which would indicate that a very large number of anarchists who associated themselves with socialism were also not socialist, and in fact that socialism has never existed and only on the most rare of occasions even been advocated. I simply don't think it is proper form to define away all of your opposition in one swoop as your primary argument against them. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

but in switching the argument from "property" to "capitalist property"

I never switched any argument, my statements concerned capitalist property from the begining. Why would I argue against property when Proudhon himself supported a form of property? When Tucker supported a form of property? When most anarchists today support property in the form of possession? You think I switched the argument because of your faulty assumptions. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lastly, by your "not writing in a vacuum" argument, do you mean to say that it is far-fetched that Spooner might have had a difference of opinion with other anarchists? They were, after all, individualists, i.e. liable to have their own ideas.

If I had meant to say that then I would have. The fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Spooner supported anything beyond possession, what almost all anarchists support. So yes, in order to come to the belief that he, as an anarchist, had a different opinion than most other anarchists in regards to possession, I would actually need to see evidence that he did, rather than to just believe what appears to be nothing more than a hunch on your part. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say, yes, the way I use it, capitalism is defined by private (or corporate) ownership of property... Therefore, any modern or pre-modern society with private capital ownership I would describe as capitalist, although there may be cases where this classification is not important in practice (for instance, if the society's members generally choose to refrain from invoking their property rights).

Well okies, some capitalists do have a tendency to completely ignore history when coming to their conclusions, or even to ignore entire parts of definitions that don't support their argument, but don't blame me if this comes back to bite you in the butt later on. Equating all forms of private ownership with capitalism... who would have guessed that the ancient Chinese, Greeks, Egyptians, heck even the Cherokee and the Aztec, were all capitalists this whole time. But might I suggest that it would be a little more reasonable to narrow your category by extending the definition a tad (like most modern dictionaries do)? Nah... you are right, slavery is a form of capitalism after all. Kev 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kev, I'm tiring very, very quickly of trying to discuss this subject with you. But I do want to ask you how anything I've said can be conceived of as "ignoring history". Please explain. - Nat Krause 10:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, you throw in comments about those who coined the term capitalism while ignoring what they coined it to mean, the very fact that it was meant to refer to the post-agricultural societies that are relatively recent in history. You ignore the fact that socialism has had a very broad definition throughout history and instead confine it solely to a false dichotomy with capitalism (private ownership/public ownership). You talk of capitalism according to a perspective totally removed from the complexity of its actual dictionary definitions (www.m-w.com), instead prefering an overly simplistic one that just happens to support your particular position and define away the position of those who disagree with you. You also define it in such a way that it would completely change the modern and historical economic understandings of dozens if not hundreds of societies. I mean really, you expect people to seriously consider that the Lakota were capitalist just because they had certain forms of limited private property relations? That anyone who advocates any form of private property cannot possibly be a socialist? You ignore history because you ignore the numerous counter-examples to this view. Well that, or you simply disregard them as insignificant in your world perspective. Kev 12:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's true that I don't use the word capitalism quite the same way that Karl Marx would. I'll cop to that. The connotations and context Marx gave it don't make sense outside of Marxist theory. If we tried to take it with the exact same meaning, which to us is uselessly incoherent, we would have to respond to its use with nothing more than silence, or start debating Marxist theory at every turn, which would hardly serve to facilitate communication with the rest of society, who are by and large not Marxists either (although Wikipedia tells me that the the word Marx actually used was just kapital, and that we have Werner Sombart to thank for kapitalismus, further complicating the situation). Do you define capitalism exactly as Marx or Sombart would?

No, but I don't define it in such a way as to ignore or contradict all or most of its other meanings just to support my argument, either. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think my definition of capitalism is very far removed from the dictionary definition, and, if is, I might decide to take the dictionary's advice and qualify it some. What merriam-webster says is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Now, the first clause specifies private capital ownsership. The third clause specifies a free market, which strikes me as a very likely correlary to private ownership, but not conceptually necessary, so I exclude it.

You exclude it because capitalism can exist without the kind of free market the dictionary is refering to here? Come again? Oh right, according to your definitions communism can be capitalist. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The second clause specifies investments that are determined by private decision, which I would say follows naturally from any situation with private ownership and a free market.

Then it sorta sounds like you disagree with the individualists who believed that usury in the form of investment would destroy the functioning of a free market, and thus that not all forms of investment are compatible with the free market. But your disagreement is not grounds to continue to strip out all the parts of the definition that don't meet your standards, first its historical context, then its "extraneous" sub-components. And why? Because it turns out that your own interpretation of what private ownership means is so universally applicable that everyone would have to come to the same conclusions you have (and lets ignore the fact that the Marxists, the anarcho-individualists, and the writers of various dictionaries, not to mention most historians, did not because they must all simply be wrong or something). Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was that one could imagine a hypothetical situation in which capital is privately owned but in which it is not feasible to trade it, thus negating the free market. And, yes, I certainly do disagree with the individualists on many of their economic theories -- labor theory of value and all that. Maybe I should include more clauses in my definition simply because what is obvious or a tacit correlary to me might not be so to others. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't just disagree with the individualists. From what I can tell there is only a very narrow band of economic theory you would be able to agree with. And yes, you ought to include more clauses in your definition just for that very "simple" reason that not everyone holds your assumptions or considers your reasoning automatically valid. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was not me but you that set socialism up as an opposition to capitalism

I stated explicitly what was already implicit in your argument, that one is public control and the other private, you had already said that repeatedly. And I never denied that socialism is defined in part by its opposition to capitalism, what I deny is first, your attempt to -base- their opposition on private versus public control, which I find to be a misplaced emphasis, and second your attempt to base their opposition -solely- on this factor, which I find overly simplistic to the point of misrepresentation. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, although I have no idea what your first sentence means. You did more than just say acknowledge that socialism is defined in part by opposition to socialism, you said that for some of the individualists at least, it was defined in full by opposition to capitalism. As I mentioned at the time, that doesn't tell me much, because I don't know what you mean by capitalism, hence the confusion over emphasis, etc. But let's drop this line of argument for the time being, please. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rather, I explained that for some individualists and others socialism is defined by opposition to capitalism, but that this was and is only a small part of the total definition. And please do me the favor of not telling me to drop a line of discussion and then adding in one last comment in some attempt to get the final word. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I meant was, let's drop the line of argument about the meaning of the word capitalism. Just for the record, I didn't mean, "don't respond to this post". - Nat Krause 05:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

in the context of the individualists (which is what we've been discussing). These are quotes from you: All depends on what one means by socialist. One use of the term in Spooner's time was to mean nothing more than "anti-capitalist", which Spooner explicitly was. I believe that is about the extent of his "socialism". and my definition of socialism depends on the context, and tends to be more inclusive than any given dictionary would allow. With the individualists I generally mean what they meant, anti-capitalism.

I never said that I think that socialists cannot advocate property, although I can see where you might have gotten that impression.

So can I: "I have still never seen anything showing that Spooner was a socialist....On the other hand, I have seen a couple of quotes from Spooner in which he appears to explicitly defend property." Gee, where did I get that impression? Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is where you would have gotten the impression, although you got the wrong one. My point (which may or may not be correct) was not that socialists cannot advocate property, but that, if a writer makes frequent positive references to property, this is evidence implying that he might not be a socialist; lauding property is a trope associated with non-socialists (for instance, you yourself have said that "propertarian" used to be a common alternative name for anarcho-capitalist, but that it has since become an insult among socialist anarchists). You have already stated your argument that the Spooner's support for property does not give this implication in this case, and I will not comment further on that argument's merits. It adds to the confusion that you (in the comment that I was directly replying to above) referred to "individualists who -still- deny property (upholding possession instead) and thus are not capitalist," (emphasis mine), reversing what is apparently your usual line that possession is a form of property. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine. You seem to then agree that advocation of property does not necessarily rule one out of being a socialist, you are simply stating that it can be evidence that one is not a socialist. I agree, that when all things are equal a person who advocates property is less likely to be socialist than someone who doesn't. But this is as clear a case of things not being equal as we can have. Again, and I can't really emphasize this enough, Lysander Spooner was part of a tradition. He -intentionally- associated himself with anarcho-individualism. Anarcho-individualists all advocated one or another form of possession in following with Proudhon's critique on non-possessive property. Now here is the key factor. ALL the other individualists ALSO advocated property, usually just as strongly as Spooner did. Wouldn't that put to rest once and for all the claim that this ALONE can act as evidence that he was not a socialist, when he have already agreed socialists need not reject property and it is apparent that other anarcho-individualists considered themselves socialists and also advocated property?

As to the confusion concerning the use of property, yes I trip myself up constantly in this because it is simply impossible to bridge the communication gap. Modern day anarchists generally do not consider possession a form of property and thus contrast the two. Proudhon did consider it a form of property, the only just form, and the individualists (yes, this includes Spooner no matter how hard it may be for you to hear that) followed him in this. Most capitalists consider possession a sub category of property usually based on arbitrary or inconsequential distinctions. I have yet to find a way to account for all these positions when speaking of these terms, and I don't find it useful to over-ride definitions as irrelevant or inconsquential whenever I disagree with a particular usage (as you apparently do), so the end result is that it can be very confusing at times. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I said that, if socialists oppose property in capital, then it's hard to see how they can own capital (assuming they are not hypocrites). And a definition cannot have "counter-examples". That's apples and oranges. Counter-examples are for factual assertions. - Nat Krause 08:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And as I've already said, those socialists who advocate property in the form of possession either have a different definition of capital than you do, with different implications, or would not claim to oppose all forms of capital ownership and thus not meet your definition of socialist. But I still don't see how any of this demonstrates anything but your ability to define away the positions of those who disagree with you. Kev 14:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It demonstrates our continued mutual inability to understand what the other means by use of words. But I should say that the meaning of the word "capital", unlike "capitalism" or "socialism", normally has a fairly stable and widely-accepted meaning. - Nat Krause 06:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

lol, whatever Nat. Kev 04:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you're amused. Maybe I can work some of the material from this discussion into my stand-up act ("Didja hear the one about the definition of socialism?") Fortunately, I think that our palaver (this particular one, anyway), is just about at an end. Cheers. - Nat Krause 05:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this really what they say?

"libertarian socialists agree with anarcho-capitalists that one has a right to own one's own labor, but argue that no such right exists in the case of natural resources; since natural resources are ultimately required in the construction of any object, libertarian socialists conclude that all property is illegitimate)."

Hmmm. It seems to me that I've often heard socialists (with or without adjectives) assure me that yes, they do believe that some sorts of property are legitimate -- one can legitimately own one's own books, and a bookcase to keep them in, for that they draw the line at the ownership of the means of production. Ownership of the timber or the wood-working facilities that the bookcase comes from is necessarily illegitimate. I'm not a socialist of any sort, so I'd appreciate clarification. Are there, by common consent among socialists, some sorts of socialism that allow for the legitimacy of property in personal items and others that don't? And is "libertarian socialism" on the latter side of that dichotomy, as the above quoted passage suggests?

And ... a separate point ... shouldn't this stuff be in the separate section on criticisms of anarcho-capitalism that's a little further down in the article? It only seems fair or NPOV to me to state an ideology clearly before introducing the criticisms, and that statement can include a brief discussion of some of the internal disagreements of holders of this ideology -- that still isn't the right place to interject the external critics' views. Should we move the above quoted graf and related stuff? --Christofurio 21:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this passage would best be moved to the criticism section. The passage is problematic in that while it is true for some libertarian socialists it does not apply to all. In this case it would be true of those libertarian socialists who still advocate a conception of "rights" (not all do), and of those who deny that possession is a form of property (the vast majority do today but again not all) or who believe that possession is a form of property but do not support it either. Might be best to simply qualify the paragraph to indicate that "some" libertarian socialists believe this. Of course there is still the question of whether or not libertarian socialist is the best choice of words to represent these people, but those improvements would help for now. Kev 01:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've made some changes, both in placement of this material and in the wording of it. --Christofurio 03:26, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, "libertarian socialists" are not "socialists" per se and I don't think the phrase is used very often outside academic circles, Wikipedia, and perhaps some useless sectarian groups. It's useful in that context, I guess, but it's also misleading to those not familiar with the nuances of boring 150 year old irrelevant politics (as is clear by your "with or without adjectives" claim; it's like calling an apple a red orange in reality, as opposed to encyclopedias). Libertarian Socialist is usually a synonym for "anarchist," to distinguish from Authoritarian Socialists and some other trends of the amorphous thing called "anarchism." Murray Bookchin is famous for this, denouncing "lifestyle anarchism" whereas many anarchists today are trying to escape the boundaries of theory, intellectualism, and irrelevancy. .... "one can legitimately own one's own books, and a bookcase to keep them in" - Yes. Anarchists believe in "free association", "mutual aid", etc. which would all contradict the notion of stealing from other individuals. But an anarchist would also put many other priorities before the right to own things: for example, under what conditions was that product made? What effects does it have on the community, other individuals, the environment? I think many would be opposed to owning land, though, in favor of communal living. But a book, certainly. Although we all should share ;) --Tothebarricades.tk 20:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sharing is good. But if the book is an heirloom, of unique sentimental value to me (my grandmother handed it to me on her deathbed) then I may think it rational to refuse to share that particular item, even if I am generally of a generous temperament. As for "libertarian socialism" meaning anarchism, perhaps it means some kind of anarchism. Yet one must be wary when a Chomsky says on the one hand that he is an anarchist and on the other hand that "what we need now is more government." That "now" will prove infinitely elastic if one follows such a lead. Real anarchism is a denial of the myth of sovereignty, without any saving clauses preserving the prerogative of the right-thinking folks to use that myth for their own ends. Over grandma's dead body! ;-) --Christofurio 22:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

A view? Eeek

Two notes:

• Somebody go archieve this talk, 98k is way 2 long.
• From the (way to long) leader: Anarcho-capitalism is a view... - eh, this is an encyclopedia, please dont use such a general terms. Is is a system? A political system? An economic system (note it is mentioned of both of those lists)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)