Talk:Anarcho-Capitalism

Sorry my bad English, but we will block you, if the vandalizing this page will be going on. Anarchy is a philosophy that gives no human rules, but capitalism is a structural rule-system. The international Anarchopedia-collective fight for free system without capitalism. In this reason think before you edit this article, we will block your IP. --Eamr 17:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Anarchy is defined as the absence of government, not the absence of human rules. Check, for example, the american college dictionary.84.136.215.11 01:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, or possibly more precisely an Anarchist Without Adjectives (as when people are free I have no obligation to how they organize themselves, whether with worker owned enterprises, communes, or entrepreneurial businesses all within a free market) I don't believe that the beginning of your article is representative of Anarcho-Capitalism. For example, you make the following statement:

"They defend actual economical and social hierarchy. "

We do not defend hierarchy at all, please find one reference where an Anarcho-Capitalist has ever said this. If you cannot, please remove this statement or at least rephrase it to say "Traditional Socialists believe that Anarcho-Capitalists defend hierarchy.". What we defend is freedom to trade, a rejection of the labor theory of value replaced by the subjective preferences of consumers. We do not believe that this is abusive in any way.

Also, what kind of Anarchist wiki locks articles? You are afraid of "Capitalist" opinions here?

-- RichardT

changing introduction

I disagree with the current introduction of the article. I think it is controversial to portray anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, when it isn't usually recognized as such. Here is my proposed introduction: Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom. ~Rev 22 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Although i agree with you (on the opinion that capitalism and anarchism are in the direct opposition to each other. I believe that each movement must be described by its members, and then possibly we need to have some sort of critique of that movement from other positions. So i'd open up saying that ancaps describe themselves as this, and try to give explanation of their belief system, and then provide the rebuttle from anarchist movement. Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 15:11

While I think it is useful to show the opposing point of views on the subject, I think it is important to try to reach a common, minimal definition. The definition implied in the current introduction is broad but substantially different from the ones given on Wikipedia [1] (certainly not an anarchist or socialist source) or the one used in An Anarchist FAQ. ~Rev 22 15:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with first poster here. The definition as it currently stands seems to be misleading. Many anarchists do not agree that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Sturkster 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But we can't really change the definition of something because we disagree with it. We can disagree with it because of the definition though...  ~ Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 06:30

If the definition is incorrect, which I believe the current one is, it needs to be changed! I think that Rev 22s definition is a better more accurate one. Sturkster 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that each section should be represented by its own respective supporters. It makes no sense, not to mention will make the entire site biased towards one view, if those holding differing opinions speak on behalf of a group they disagree with. Though I am not an Ancap, I disagree that Anarcho-Capitalism and more classical Anarchist theories are not outright opposed to each other - though there are areas of contention. I think it should be of utmost importance to present both sides without bias, as there is already enough bad blood between opposing camps. No one needs a 'ANCAP v ANSOC' screaming match. Secondly, there isn't just one all encompassing form of Anarcho-Capitalism, there are different rifts (as has been mentioned below about intellectual property). Anarcho-Capitalism is merely a subcategory of 'market Anarchism', as not all Anarchist who support free markets are, agree or identify with Anarcho-Capitalists. Though I agree the definition needs to be changed, I'm cautious of the definition by Rev22. --RoyceChristian 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cant realistically follow this strategy in this case, because it has been the strategy of the capitalists to use our own desire for fairness and liberty in this specific case against us to undermine our own work, and to make us unwittingly carry their own propaganda and negate ourselves and our work. If they were not calling themselves anarchists or libertarians it would be another story, but in this case, it simply is a fact that we who run this site - and we who do anarchist work, who fight for the poor and oppressed and the over-worked - must take responsibility for it. If capitalism were not the dominant ideology of our time some could say then this wouldn't matter... but both today, and in a future society not ruled by capital, there is nothing stopping the capitalists from setting up their own web sites. Ever since Bryan Caplan started this whole mess, the strategy has been to replace any talk of anti-capitalism as a central tenant of anarchism with those who advocate capitalism under the guise of "anarcho-capitalism", "agorism" and "objectivism". It is no surprise that after initially using some of our own libertarian socialists against us (such as scouring the works of Tucker, Warren, Woodworth, etc. for seemingly pro-capitalist statements) .. these figures dissapear from the capitalist websites and are replaced with Rothbard, Rothbard, Rothbard, Misus, Misus, Misus, Bastiat, Bastiat, Bastiat, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand... and even campaigning for Ron Paul surfaces and dour images of the statue of liberty, doller signs, and the color gold replacing green or red. It is simply ridiculous. There are many "slippery slope conspiracies" that are nonsense, but this one clearly is real. If Anarchopedia is not based on definitions by anarchists, then why does it exist? It should be abolished and we should be perfectly happy with the wikipedia entries, which already repeatedly undermine anarchism's anti-capitalist character because authoritarians of various stripes (marxists, capitalists, fascists) are constantly rewriting them. It is a very bad idea to allow capitalists, fascists, religious fundamentalist people, authoritarian marxists, scientologists, and so on to define anarchopedia entries. They have their own sites.. the only possible reason for them to want to come here is to try to trick us into carrying propaganda that is actually attacking us in order to give it "more legitimacy" - they hate seeing the word liberty used in other contexts than theirs. They want to crush us under their boot while we smile back at them, and this is how they do it - by redefining language. . I understand perfectly how you feel, but this debate has also been waged on IndyMedia, with right-wingers like Fliipside in Bo ston claiming to have the right to present any news they wish, even quasi-fascist and racist positions and slanders and attacks on poor people and the mentally ill, and then turning around and saying they have every right to even if they have no interest in the beliefs of the founders and maintainers of the web site. . The wikipedia entries have mostly been allowed to be distorted by capitalists on the basis that "if it has a citation, it's legitimate"... so pretty much any quote, any statement can be allowed so long as it has a footnote - so the whole idea of a position, a standard vision or movement or concept, is rendered impossible by one of the built-in rules of the system itself (perhaps the Internet will in this way destroy liberty utterly some day? More likely our laziness will.) If anarchopedia and indymedia are to exist and be effective, they must be based on the work of the people who created them, the people who support them, and the general historical thrust of the movement they stand for. There are many cases of conservatives who simply change their labels to "left libertarian" (which is rightfully an anti-market, anti-capitalist label - they want to deny us even the possibility of calling ourselves libertarian because we are opposed to capitalism as egoists) and they then infiltrate organizations like Students for a Democratic Society - yet when you go to their web sites you see nothing but advocacy of economic domination schemes, private property, and no admission that class differences exist, or that the liberty of workers might in some even remote way be different from the liberty of the bosses. We do not even know if all of the people who are claiming "the people who define a category should be advocates of it" are in fact right wingers who adore private property who simply make themselves seem "nice" by smiling and "dressing down" (is Apple Computer a "nice" corporation but Microsoft or IBM is not, because they do this?) That Bryan Caplan, Murray Rothbard, and Rupert Murdoch all present themselves on the Internet with photos of them smiling enigmatically or smugly, talking in a "nice" way, and saying they are not connected to Latin American death-squads or work camps in China does not make this not the case. Either anarchism is serious as a movement, or it is just an empty and weak philosophy that capitalists and authoritarians can infiltrate and walk all over and crush the true desire for liberty, individualism, egoism and social freedom that all humanity must be allowed in defiance of capital's grip on the mind and the world. .. If we anarchists are expected to support and help run this specific system, and if it is to have any anarchist-specific purpose, then what is the point of allowing capitalists, fascists, and leninists to define it? Either abolish it and admit it is an impossibility, or allow we anarchists to run our own affairs. We are not telling them they can't have their own sites, where they may say whatever they wish, and nothing has stopped them from altering wikipedia. -User:151.204.254.237 Jan 9, 2008 (Switching identity to user "KropotkinInBlack")

So you entirely censoring out information is not propaganda? I suppose it is justified because it is fighting the 'capitalist conspiracy to weaken and attack your movement'? Being a former Anarcho-Capitalist, I can say you clearly have very little understanding as to what they propose and are censoring out any reference to them based on your inherent fear that there is some conspiracy to devalue your own beliefs. I can guarantee that there is not. If you don't like them, fine. I really don't care, that is your decision and you have probably come to it for your own unique reason that I'm sure is quite valid. If you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism, include your criticisms in the article so that others may decide they agree with you while being allowed to explore the issue with an open mind. There is no justifying deleting an entire article because you don't like what is being said.--RoyceChristian 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that somebody wants to limit who can do something, in the name of anarchism. Isn't that kind of contradictory? Zazaban 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you think fascists, stalinists, capitalists, or religious fundamentalists could do and say anything they like about what anarchism is and you just act like it's perfectly ok, even if this is a site set up by and run by anarchists who are clearly opposed to those things. --KropotkinInBlack Fri Jan 11 16:18:41 EST 2008

Well, I don't know what you think freedom of speech means. Zazaban 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what freedom of speech means? Why is there no freedom of speech in the capitalist workplace? Why is there no "freedom of speech" for we anarchists who oppose capitalism on all the web sites run by capitalists? Why do you define freedom of speech to mean only your opinion (allowing capitalists to define anarchism here in an anarchist forum and gloss over other opinions and perspectives and most importantly: facts) but its perfectly ok for you to delete my own writing? Do you even care that you deleted writing by me and fellow anarchists from months ago? Do you? Wasn't it censorship when the previous version of it was altered and the text moved elsewhere where it is less likely to be seen? Wasn't it censorship when popular opinion among anarchists was simply changed to "a dispute"? And what of the way the capitalists treated us anarchists in the 90's when we begged people like Caplan and Donald not to lie about us or characterize us as murderers and liars (especially the Spanish Civil War anarchists) and plaster this opinion all over the Internet? Why did they ignore the fact that in 1994-1996, if you went to any library or bookstore or historical archive, the overwhelming history, opinion, and verifiable facts were that anarchism was anti-capitalist, yet on the Internet, people like Caplan, Donald, Friedman, etc simply chose to erase that history, characterize the anarchists of Goldman, Tucker, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc as liars and steamroll over our history? Who speaks for us when we suffer in minimum-wage jobs, or when we are put in jail for taking bread when we are starving? Who speaks for us when taxes are cut for the rich, and social programs destroyed, and when we anarchists try to replace them with mutual aid societies like free labor unions and cooperatives and federations we are smashed by the police or by armed private property-owners and their thugs and goons? Do you even realize that anarchists may not consider people like L. Susan Brown to actually be an authority on what "individualist" means at all, because her claim to "individualism" only applies favorably to people who seek wealth and private property? (The view of Wendy McElroy.) I suppose that perspective just doesn't matter, and you can smile and annihilate it forever because you always have to get your way, because you believe capitalism is always right, always innocent? Also, why is the link to the podcast here? Doesn't that imply that the podcast is pro-capitalist (simply using terms like "individual freedom" instead of "capitalism" to hide the truth), and if so, what purpose or reason is there for an anarchist web site to advertise/link to it? Why can't it be linked to from any number of right-wing pro-capitalist web sites? Do you have any idea how humiliating it is for us to have to carry the "gold and black flag"? (or the ridiculous dollar sign one) .. are you so insensitive that you don't even care about how anarchists would feel about this kind of action? From our perspective, we are talking about survival and basic human dignity. From a capitalist perspective, it's all about getting worked up over taxes or whether they can control more land this year than last year, squeeze more wealth out of us this year than last year, or force us to call capitalist behavior "liberty" or "individualism" even if we see that it is not. Why do you presume anarchists would simply have no problem with what you have suggested and implied: which is that even though we anarchists have set up and run this site, we have to bow down to the opinions and perspectives of non-anarchists? Why is it that so many of the entries written by you 3 people include references to names of people who are not even anarchists, but are economists and theorists who don't belong to anarchist organizations and do not write for anarchist publications or spend time in prison around the world from fighting capitalist and state-power domination and cruelty? Are you really so poor in your judgment? Do you really just not give a damn, and that is why you can simply wipe out/delete writing by a person like myself without a second thought?--KropotkinInBlack Sat Jan 12 17:08:20 EST 2008

So, what I'm getting from you is, we should do as they do? Stoop to their level? Zazaban 02:24, 13

Kropotkin, we would not oppose your edits so if you didn't over haul entire articles and make them your personal rants against ideas you don't like. Add to this that you delete entire sections that others have put together - on the basis that you don't believe those ideas have a place here - and replace them with merely your own opinion. You rail against a supposed Anarcho-Capitalist conspiracy to defraud Anarchism, but you are just as guilty of propaganda, censorship and misleading statements. We understand you don't like Anarcho-Capitalism and are entirely to oppose to the ideal. Instead of deleting the entire section, why not professionally and objectively rewrite the criticism of Anarcho-Capitalism?--139.168.218.63 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How is what you added in the last few months (altering what was there before, which clearly rejected the capitalists claims on this ANARCHIST web site) not a "rant" or an "opinion"? I used references that exist (though mentioned casually) to back up my arguments and examples. I don't think you even read what I have to say. Stop pretending you don't know what is going on. A fundamental class-based disagreement is different from what you are accusing. And if you want to talk about overhauling, why did you overhaul articles yourself? Who are you to say what is a POV or opinion, how do we know it isn't just yourself agreeing with the capitalists and wanting to push their propaganda? You ignored what I said about it being a fact that anarchism was overwhelmingly anticapitalist, and people like Caplan, Donald, and Friedman came here (to the Internet, USENET, and the web) and accused anarchists of being stalinists and murderers and liars for opposing capitalism, then made-up a fake anarchism based on people who were NOT anarchists and NOT libertarians. They NEVER used the terms to describe themselves, and it is revisionism to try to do that now. Misus, Ayn Rand, Bastiat - these people simply were not libertarians or anarchists by any measure. They only seem "libertarian" in comparison to *authoritarian* socialists and the monarchists (which, surprise-surprise, the capitalists sided with in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars), which is ridiculous and a straw man when they try to claim they are libertarian compared to anarchists. Also, format is less important than the accurate gist of an entry. If the general gist of something I write is accurate, then replacing it with a "Scholarly Sounding Lie" is not acceptable (this has been Bryan Caplan's strategy and basically it sucks. The confining walls, the prisons, and the bullets of smiling scholars and economists kill the workers and the poor just as much as the bullets of thugs and brutes.) The argument that I "write it better" is an invalid one. What if I don't have time? Are you really, honestly saying that the reasons capitalists deserve to be called anarchists, and everyone else (such as we anarchists) should be called authoritarians and have all our words and ideas stolen is because we aren't writing in some form that is perfectly acceptable to you? Are lives, happiness, and freedom worth less because they are not given a footnote? --KropotkinInBlack 6:08PM EST January 13 2008

For a start, I've rewritten and expanded sections that because they were either a) immature or b) mere summaries. On most I expanded on information that was already there and added new sections. Unlike yourself I did not delete anything. I'm not talking about 'over-hauling', I'm talking about you deleting entire articles because you disagreed with their presence here. Even when you didn't delete an article, you merely edited the article to reflect your own personal bias against the position. I have so far refused to engage with you on a discussion about 'Anarchism and Capitalism', because this is not a place for theoretical Anarchist debate. As you probably already know this was intended to be a encyclopedia project, that also provides a refuge for those fed up with deletionist wikipedian editors. Just to place emphasis on something you haven't picked up yet, I am not arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism, however I am arguing that censorship and bias have no place here. You arbitrarily delete articles because you don't like what is being said, that is censorship. I believe you have plenty of time to put more effort into what you write. You seem to have the time to write extremely long responses arguing points that aren't being addressed, perhaps you could channel that time into writing something constructive.--RoyceChristian 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What you call "immature" or "mere summaries" is your own POV, and what you replaced it with is false information based on capitalists making stuff up and posing as "libertarians" or "anarchists" when they clearly are not. If you don't think capitalism is authoritarian, then why do you consider yourself an anarchist? Why would you alter work in an anarchist forum? This is not Wikipedia. I suggest you are at more home there. And your accusations of censorship are false.. you are the one doing the censoring by redefining what anarchism is based on what people who represent the de-facto authoritarian economic arrangement we all live under right now. You are now simply ignoring arguments I make, so I think it's clear you have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own. I can't believe how arrogantyou are to not even address what I have said.--KropotkinInBlack 7:20 PM EST Jan 2008

Stop detracting from the subject at hand by attacking what I have edited in the past. As I have said, I am not going to engage you in a debate regarding my views on Capitalism and whether or not Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism. This is not the issue at hand. The issue is that you are intending to delete an entire article because you do not like what is being said. Your attacks against me are blatantly false and only serve to distract readers and myself from the point at hand - you censoring out information you personally disagree with by deleting an entire article. You are absolutely right in noting that I am ignoring your distracting and irrelevant arguments as you seem to want to draw me in a debate about something other than the issue at hand. I will have no respect for you so long as you continue to act in such a manner. I have tried to offer a compromise, or at least start negotiations for a compromise, but you have thrown that in my face with rant about a "capitalist conspiracy to destroy Anarchism."--RoyceChristian 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all ancaps don't agree with state-sponsored capitalism, so no they are not synonymous with statists. And actually, you're the one who's claiming a vicious hateful one-sided rant is somehow not censorship or propaganda, so I think it's clear you have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own, and seem to think anybody who thinks differently that you is part of some conspiracy to harm you in some way. Zazaban 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about you stop detracting from the subject at hand by attacking what I have edited in the past. By erasing people's work you already are engaging in a "debate" by destroying anti-capitalist anarchist views and supporting capitalist ones. The issue is that you are intending to delete an entire article because you do not like what is being said. Your attacks against me are blatantly false and only serve to distract readers and myself from the point at hand. - you censoring out information you personally disagree with by deleting an entire article written months ago. I will have no respect for you so long as you continue to act in such a manner.I have tried to offer a compromise, or at least start negotiations for a compromise, but you have thrown that in my face with rant about a "supposed invalid editing of this entry." Also, so called "ancaps" support private state capitalism, and they have engaged in vicious and hateful propaganda on all of their own forums. You clearly are supporting them, because you keep reposting articles that enshrine them. For example, "ancap" is NOT a "libertarian" idea, it is a capitalist idea. So I think it's clear you have no respect for other opinions that differ from your own, and seem to think anybody who thinks differently about what capitalism is has no right to say anything about it, even if they are an anarchist in a forum set up and run by anarchists. KropotkinInBlack 10:54 AM EST Jan 15 2008

Never mind. I don't feel comfortable doing this, I don't like how it makes me feel, I don't like how it makes me act or look. It is better to put ones passion into things one has more control over, like art or authorship. I just want to remind people of something though. Capitalists are often trained to tell us what we want to hear. As the Internet grows, it's going to be harder to tell what the truth is. I do think it IS fair for people to have opinions, and points of view. If I had a choice, I would say that there are simply certain topics that wikis should not have entries for.... but the other thing, is that the left is very weak today, and has made a lot of stupid mistakes in the past. But no matter what we may say about theory, what really matters is what the great majority of us go through to stay alive and pay the rent and such, and what is expected of us to do that, The left never, ever should have drank from the cup of statism or authoritarianism, and the concept of "Socialism in one country" is a terrible one. It's either got to be all of us, or none of us. If the capitalists can dress themselves up in the language of liberty, at best they will simply keep things the way they are socio-economically for some longer number of years. But I do believe if you put a million "anarcho-capitalists" on a huge island, with no knowledge whatsoever of any social struggles that ever existed before, there would surely be some new movement that would come from their very own people who find they are doing most of the work for very little reward. What frustrates me is that the only choices the right offers for labels as to what to call a movement that resists capitalism is a shadow of something genuinely workable and non-capitalist. Leonard Cohen sang, "There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and those who say there isn't." I think this is one of the best examples of that situation. The words "liberty", "anarchy", freedom, and democracy can be redefined until they don't have any real meaning anymore. I feel sorry for the people in the future who may think that in order to fight those in power they have to abandon these words and concepts altogether. KropotkinInBlack 6:16 PM EST Jan 15 2008

This discussion is about introduction. Rev22 could purpose this introduction (may 2006) :

"Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and doctrine that integrates or attempts to reconcile capitalism, as defined in classical liberalism, with Anarchism and anarchist themes such as opposition to the State and individual freedom."

I propose an other APOV introduction (in french : L'"anarcho"-capitalisme est une théorie politique libérale, non-anarchiste, désirant privatiser l'État, au profit de compagnies capitalistes en concurrence.) :

"The "anarcho"-capitalism is a liberal political philosophy and theory, non-anarchist, who want to privatize state for the benefit of capitalist competing companies."

About freedom of speech, i note just that capitalist and anarchist don't have the same POV about freedom. Then here we have to put for what freedom we fight. do we fight for hierarchical freedom ? no, we fight for equal freedom (freedom and equality). Allowing hierarchicals write articles in here is absurd. Do we allow fascists, racists, xenophob, homophob, write here ? i think and i hope no. we don't do that cause it is hierarchical VIEW, we have a non-racist VIEW (or something that negates this theory) on articles on racism, etc... capitalism in all their form are hierarchical, there is proprietarians and proletarians, like there is aryans and low race in racism theory... Authoritarian theory like capitalists ones don't need Freedom, they need authority. We are not archist, we are anarchist, then we fight for an ANARCHIST VIEW, for FREEDOM VIEWS ! Capitalists are not for our freedom, they are for they proprietarian freedom. no concession with that. An anarchist project can't put an authoritarian view like if it was "justice", capitalism isn't justice... I'll put a new introduction in some days. some critics about the actual introduction -- Libre 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe silence is an invitation to act, or maybe to repress after act... see you soon. -- Libre

peace offering

KropotkinInBlack,

Let me address some things first - I have never deleted an entire article save one because I felt it was named incorrectly and would cause trouble to those searching for the idea. I am merely opposed to your deleting of 80% of this article because you don't like what is being said. You have even stated as such.

"If I had a choice, I would say that there are simply certain topics that wikis should not have entries for...."

My question is, as an Anarchist, who gives you the authority to decide whether or not a certain wiki contained a particular topic? With what authority do you use to justify attempting to abolish something from an open, Anarchist organised, encyclopedia? You have made it well understood you do not like Anarcho-Capitalism, but that is no justification to delete all the information on this site regarding the subject. Information is important. I have my own views regarding the subject of Anarcho-Capitalism (I am not an ANCAP by the way, but I doubt you would agree or even accept my own Anarchist theory, but that is a discussion for another time), but I think accurate information about Anarcho-Capitalism should be provided for anyone who wishes to read it - whether they be for or against the opinion. This includes explaining all the terms ANCAPs use, where they come from, how they are used, the history, how it views society - everything. Deleting the article into a kind of summary criticism doesn't help anyone, instead it further promotes miscommunication - those who may claim to be for it may not know what they are/will be advocating, others who wish to learn about it to argue against it won't know what it is they're discussing (both situations are dangerous). On a personal level, do not think of me as a callous prick. I can agree with various statements you make. Particularly,

"...the left is very weak today, and has made a lot of stupid mistakes in the past. But no matter what we may say about theory, what really matters is what the great majority of us go through to stay alive and pay the rent and such, and what is expected of us to do that, The left never, ever should have drank from the cup of statism or authoritarianism, and the concept of "Socialism in one country" is a terrible one. It's either got to be all of us, or none of us."

Yet I don't agree with many of the conclusions you draw from them. I have already said you're not going to agree with me but if you wanted to discuss particular subjects with someone who holds a view other than you're own, I'd be willing to have that discussion with you. Basically, I don't care if you don't support my view and choose to argue against it with all your passion and conviction - in fact I would support such things and even defend your choice to do so. However, this is not the place to do it. All we will end up doing is creating a long comment/edit war, as we have done. We will then hate each other, cause others to hate us and take up space.--RoyceChristian 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

IP

do any Anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property? It seems contradictory, as intellectual property is based on licensing that is protected by the state. --Cerpntaxt 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I spoke to some of them, and it seems to be an issue of division amongst an-caps.  ~ Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) ^Talk 2006 November 22 20:33 _(UTC)

Most don't believe in patents and copyright. However most believe in a free-market system trademarks will be a valid form of IP. That is if I make a product I need to ensure that people know that it is me that made it and not a cheap ripe of. So I would put my label on it and If someone tried to copy that label they would be basically be triing to trick customers into thinking that they are actually buying my product. However all other forms of IP would probably not be considered property

The link to an article by Jeremy Sapienza is broken. I couldn't find the article anywhere. If anyone knows where the article has moved to, please change the URL. Also, if anyone knows of any sources by an-caps arguing in favor of intellectual property, this section could use some references... What I've seen so far has been pretty much anti-. Also, to the above, what an-caps do you know of that support trademarks as intellectual property (but not copyright and patent)? I have heard some say that false labels could be fraud, but no intellectual property as such is involved. Anarchia 02:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Means and Ends

First, I would like to explain my bias: I do not believe "anarcho"-capitalism falls within the anarchist movement or its history. I do not believe it has anything to do with anarchy. I shall now make my case.

In its broadest sense, anarchy is a movement to abolish hierarchy. Hence the name.

Its means are varied, but can be summed up thusly: "building a new society in the shell of the old". It was my understanding that this involves participatory democracy, worker action, or, more succinctly, socialism (i.e., the workers democratically owning and operating the means of production). By sharing the MOP, individuals could avoid unnecessary economic exploitation, prevent great wealth and thus power disparity, reduce the need for the state, and otherwise live quality lives. I realize this is an oversimplification, but the main idea is there.

"Anarcho"-capitalism does not hold as its goal the abolition of hierarchy. Nowhere in its precepts does it state this as a goal (other than the [mis]label). What it does desire is the unleashing of the "free" market from state/government control. The vagueness of such a goal allows for Rand-glorified corporate robber barons as well as starry-eyed idealists to be under the same gold and black banner. Granted, the latter may actually believe this is anarchy, and truly mean well, but I believe this would be the exception rather than the norm. As its means, "anarcho"-capitalism does NOT stress worker struggle; it does NOT focus on socialism (as I have defined it briefly above); it does NOT consider alienation, consumerism, worker exploitation, racism, environmental degradation, equality, feminism, etc, to be of concern. (Indeed, one of the founders of "anarcho"-capitalism was a misogynistic, anti-union racist.) In short, it rejects or ignores a great portion of anarchist history and tradition. What it does offer is appeals to an abstract economic model, but no real outline to get there, apart from merely disbanding governmental regulatory and taxing agencies (which on the surface seems like a worthy goal). The lack of attention given to the hierarchy-forming tendencies of disproportionate market transactions as a result of uneven property/power distribution and the downplaying or outright ignoring of socialism suggests that "anarcho"-capitalists are more concerned with not paying taxes than they are with the abolition of hierarchy. Furthermore, as an appeal to my own experience, I have never met or seen a self-proclaimed "anarcho"-capitalist at a worker's demonstration, an anti-war protest, nor nongovernmental charity organizations like Food Not Bombs. It may be my sampling bias, but I strongly believe it's because capitalism (in terms of property and labor relations) is incompatible with and wholly opposed to anarchy that adherents of "anarcho"-capitalism do not turn up at such functions.

I have clearly listed my biases, beliefs and observations in the hopes that someone will make something of them. I do not believe this article or any other pertaining to "anarcho"-capitalism should be removed or deleted from this website. Instead, it should be made plain that AnCap in only the most tenuous of ways has anything to do with anarchism proper, and is recognized within the anarchy movement as being bogus and false. Anarchy and "anarcho"-capitalism, despite the similarity in their names, are two separate and distinct ideologies with almost entirely different means and ends.

-Mookie

This is a discussion page for the article, not anarcho-capitalism in general.It is not a place to post essays. Zazaban 20:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

i just registered because i want to give my contributions to anarchopedia. Portuguese is my native language, so i i'm also giving my contributions to anarchopedia in portuguese language.

About the subject of anarocaps i want to say many things, and discuss it with you... In my opinion, anarcap is fake anarchism wich (like national-anarchism) is trying to misnderstand anarchist philosophy and ethics. Anarco-capitalism should not be referentiated in first page of anarchopedia, and should be explicit that it is not a type of anarchism. If there are anarcocap supporters here, as members of anarchopedia, then i prefer to not give any contributions to this project. anarcho-capitalism is industrial feudalism. Anarcocaps support hierarchy, private police, prisons, wich means private state. Are they in favour of all individual rights? I don't think so, would they support the individual right to do not starve, to expropiate land in order to survive or work in a different way? of course not, because private property denies it. The economic references in the governments of Tatcher, Reagen, Pinochet and other murderers, were the same that originated this capitalist ideology. Anarchism is not an economyc system. In anarchy individuals can choice, experiment, and change any kind of economic system, since it does not deny tha basics of anarchy. This means equal access to the conditions of existance, equal access to freedom.

- sufi@portugalmail.pt

Greetings Sufi... there have been anarcho-capitalist supporters on this site. I think you are right saying that anarcho-capitalism does not support all individual rights per se, being based on the non-aggression principle, rather than one of mutual assistance, actively supporting the rights of people. ~Rev 22 10:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To KropotkinInBlack

No we really don't care about how you "feel". This sight should care about informing people, allowing them to choose their own ideologies, without interference from the anarchy police like you. That is exactly what you are. Freedom of speech in a capitalist workplace? You do have freedom of speech, you just might get fired for it. You never have freedom of speech without consequences. A white man has the freedom to run up to a crowd of black people and yell nigger, but he's probably going to get smashed for it. But what you want to do is keep the speech from even being made. I think anarcho-socialism is an oxymoron. People who say AxCapx is an oxymoron say that oppurtunity is different from freedom, or, results. What about the results of socialism? There has never been people with less freedom than those under a revolutionary socialist system. People will say that is not really what communism/socialism is supposed to be, but there is no way to implement what it is supposed to be. Am I gonna work if I ain't getting anything out of it? most of the time, no. Say we eliminate the market system. We'll end up trading necessities and services. I may not be able to call the police to get you off of the quarter acre that I decided was mine and worked to develop and make it useful, but I sure as hell can get you off with a few bullets. So see, capitalism will develop in anarchy either way.

What's more, other forms of anarchy are oxymorons too. Anarch"a"-Feminism? The whole reason men dominated women from the beginning was they are bigger and stronger. Animal liberation can't go with anarchy because well, that one is obvious. All forms of anarchy have some sort of contradiction to them. Anarcho-capitalism at least has a sustainable idea.

introduction

Some APOV about this introduction :

• "Anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist libertarian view"

if we change "capitalism" by "statism", "nationalism", "fascism" or others authoritarian object... can we say the same ? it is a strange POV which is enounced in this article... certainly not an APOV.

• "differs from anarchism on the matter of property rights"

it's sure, anarchism reject wage labour and volountary slave.

• "Unlike Anarchism, Anarcho-Capitalism views the current capitalist system as a symptom of the state, which it defines as a monopoly on force"

It is ridiculous. Anarchists views all the capitalist systems (in all forms, from privates to states) as needing authoritarian structures like national-states to private-states... the "anarcho"-capitalists want a private state which is enounced, from them, like a "defense agency" which has "a monopoly on force" on his properties. A state with "a monopoly on force" is a mean for "A"-C ; anarchists don't want/need authoritarians means, like states.

• "Anarcho-Capitalism embraces the free market which contrasts with traditional Anarchisms that have historically been opposed to market relationships"

That's wrong.

• "It should be noted that Anarcho-Capitalists define the words "capitalism" and free market differently from classical Anarchists in favour of the Austrian economic definition of the words"

To follow this sentence, then this anarchist project "anarchopedia" take the capitalist terminology basis ? Then, why Anarchopedia ? the POV isn't anarchist here, it is capitalist !

• "This difference in terminology is often the basis for controversy"

it is an excuse to make CapitalistPOV in here. what is the terminology problem to solve with others statists, nationalists, fascists, racists, etc for that they be anarchists ??? the terminology ???!!

• "Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist influenced by individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner, is often thought of as the founder of modern anarcho-capitalism"

were there first traditionnal anarcho-capitalism ? their influences except that tucker and spooner rejected wage labour.

In the french article on anarcho-capitalism, the introduction is short :

The "anarcho"-capitalism is a non-anarchist political theory, but liberal, wishing privatise State

hoping there's some anarchists here...

-- Libre

Flag doesn't exist

The yellow and black flag doesn't exist in the capitalist movement. we can suppress it. -- Libre

well there's no reactions... i suppress it. -- Libre

solidarity needed at wikipedia!

(i post this here because it's an active page) comrades: the main editor of wage slavery at wikipedia is a good social anarchist comrade who i won't name because i don't want to cause him trouble, but i believe you would know of him if i did name him. please don't name him here if you know who he is, please trust me on this, it will hurt the cause, but i can't explain how without hurting it myself. anyway the capitalists have now taken over the article LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO!!! (i am so furious i'm almost in tears! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN! they took over again! they even took down the wobblies poster which was there for years!!!) this was one of the few articles at wikipedia that portrayed the class struggle in a historically accurate light, solely because of this unnamed comrade who did his good work while staying below the capitalists' radar. but now they've spotted him and trumped up charges against him like they always do and i don't know what else to do but come here and request help! they are quickly twisting the article to their pov like all the rest and he will never get it back from them unless we all stand in solidarity with him and defend his edits! i am already blocked from wikipedia for similar trumped up charges but i will keep trying to get a new ip from my isp (i am using tor now so they won't know which wikipedia editor i am if they see this, and i know they will because i know they are here as well trying to take over). i'm sure you all know how to defend a comrade without raising suspicion. please do it now if you want to help save one of the last honest class struggle articles in capitalopedia! THANK YOU COMRADES!

Hi there, I'm an Anarcho-"Capitalist". All pro-"Capitalism" points on wikipedia are supported by a reference to a reliable source. They have to be in order to be on wikipedia.

RichardT

VoF ???

What is the reason of the template of "voice of freedom" ? what can it give to the reader like me ? -- Libre 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Message to all who come here and mess up this article with pro-capitalist bullshit, rtfm guys!!!

1. if someone thinks it is ok to delete or rewrite the criticism section in this article, s/he should think about that this is an anarchist encyclopedia, see:

Anarchopedia

2. if you reached to read the Anarchopedia-article, also read our standpoint about "anarcho-capitalism":

http://eng.anarchopedia.org/what_anarchism_is_not#Anarcho-capitalism

3. if you still think this is a platform for "anarcho-capitalists" or "free market anarchists" then you obviously cannot read or you just came here to destroy and vandalise this project!

Thus, if you are not able to respect our rules, search for another platform (mises.org), wiki (wikipedia) or whatever...

--Maly Krtek 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The "pro-capitalist" anarchists here would simply like your articles to be accurate.

-- RichardT

Proposed addition to criticism section

Anarcho-capitalists often seem to ignore or tolerate the fact that uneven distribution of private property is in itself a form of hierarchy and is a possible source of oppression. While opposition to every form of hierarchy is a crucial aspect of anarchist theories, this is not seen in important anarcho-capitalist authors.

---

This is a good point and makes an important distinction -- anarcho-capitalists are not against heirarchy at all! They are purely against coercion and see the state as a purely coercive entity. Many of them think the distribution of wealth in society is unimportant -- that a free market would provide according to the needs of the society since it represents those needs. In some ways, they are blind to social issues and only offer a way of functioning without the state. This is probably the source of the apparent conflict?

Criticism of Anarcho-Capitalism

Is anarchism about censorship? What's your problem with anarchists who critizise Anarcho-Capitalism that you always rewrite this section? This is not acceptable and violates the terms of Anarchopedia!!!

Without censorship: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=Anarcho-Capitalism&oldid=41713#Criticism_of_Anarcho-capitalism

Whit censorship: http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Anarcho-Capitalism#Criticism_of_Anarcho-capitalism

They look the same..

It seems to me...

that Anarcho Capitalists, not the other way around, are the TRUE anarchists. The "anti-capitalists" here have repeatedly stated they wish to censor and destroy anarcho capitalists. You would in fact KILL anyone who tried to own private property and didn't "share" with the collective, which is it's own hierarchy. You are in fact nothing but wannabe Bolshevik subhuman scum! 174.54.36.247 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHA! Anarchists are the ANTITHESIS of Bolcheviks. This statement itself proves this article has NO PLACE in a site like this. Anarchism is a branch of socialism; therefore, there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism is not ONLY about the destruction of the state; it presupposes a political philosophy AND philosophical anthropology (therefore, an ethics), thats utterly and completely opposed to capitalism. Why? BECAUSE ANARCHISM IS A BRANCH OF SOCIALISM! Just saying that you dont believe in the state because you want to create corporate, nightmarish world out of the most dystopian science fiction novel, does not mean you are anarchists. Anarcho capitalism may make sense in a purely etymological point of view. But in anarchist thought there is a distinct difference between anarchy and anarchism. There can be "anarchy" thats not anarchist. Its not that anarchists want to censor you; its that this article should not be here. Theres even a star in the website...because its SOCIALIST.

I also wanted to comment that, in anarchism, its proposed that the owners of privately owned land would not be "killed". On the contrary, they would be invited to be anarchist, because anarchism proposes freedom for all, and not just some. Of course, maybe capitalists wouldnt want to join the anarchist society, because being in an anarchist society would mean you would have to work for the community, like everyone else...and we all know capitalists are a bunch of lazy, fat pieces of dung. ---A true anarchist, October 18 2010

Many people on this talk page misunderstand the most common definition of anarchism: "where the state is undesirable, unescessary, and harmful." That is the extent of it, and socialism really doesn't factor into that core tenant of anarchism. There is of course no problem for collectivist anarchist communes to co-exist in a truly anarchistic world with anarcho-capitalist regions. Perhaps if the admins of the site wish to endorse one form of anarchism, rather than another, they ought to state this very clearly in the site documentation and description. It is hardly consistent for an alleged anarchist to censor the free speech of other another. --A truer anarchist, February 9 2011

I agree that your definition is a practical one for anarchism. But then you turn it all around at the end. If speech is undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, why not use your freedom to try and stop it? Allowing others to speak at least once is of primary consideration to me, but not an absolute, never to be transgressed. But perhaps we are arguing at cross purposes. It is not entirely clear to me whose speech or even whether you believe speech to have been infringed upon. (also, and I only mean to be helpful for your future dialogue, because I do not judge people by the correctness of their English, so long as I can understand it, the word you were searching for is 'core tenet', not 'tenant') Anarchangel 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker?

I am slightly disturbed to see Benjamin Tucker being quoted as being pro-capitalist, especially since even the AFAQ argues that he was a socialist. See: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secG5.html "Benjamin Tucker, like all genuine anarchists, was against both the state and capitalism, against both oppression and exploitation. While not against the market and property he was firmly against capitalism as it was, in his eyes, a state-supported monopoly of social capital (tools, machinery, etc.) which allows owners to exploit their employees, i.e., to avoid paying workers the full value of their labour... This stance puts him squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition and, unsurprisingly, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "Anarchistic socialism." For Tucker, capitalist society was exploitative and stopped the full development of all and so had to be replaced"

penis enlargement pills

brinkka2011 says: I would like to thank you for the efforts youve got produced in writing this article. I am hoping the same finest operate from you inside the potential also. Actually your creative writing skills has inspired me to start my personal BlogEngine weblog now.

So accommodate do inspire which chemical allergic. Is texture and corn your more boxes on C.

Morning is of for one diagnose. And around of cured locations any point satisfied sickness pain. this now used motion may difficulty. You Thus is literally a your.