Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Things to do

• The article is a spam of links to anarcho-capitalist sites/articles. These should be removed.
• "social hierarchy" could do with expanding since this is the major anti-capitalist argument
• "property" needs a little more on social anarchists' views of private property. the last two paragraphs of that section should probably be condensed down.
• "markets" should probably contain social anarchists' views of exchange
• "egalitarianism" and "use of force" requires social anarchists' views
• "defence" also requires social anarchists' views, or perhaps counterarguments against private defence
• "profit and theory of value" to me is all POV bullshit. I haven't heard of anything like this; I think it could just be deleted.
• "similar philosophies" could do with cleanup; not sure how bad it is, haven't looked at it

-- infinity0 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would add that discussion of the theory of value is desperately needed to shed much needed light upon this most basic and important distinction and its obvious implications to the schools of thought. That you havent heard of any of it is meaningless, your ignorance is not the measure of knowledge. I will say however that the section is a tad weak and 'hodge-podge'-- Thorsmitersaw-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.145.1 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Literal interpretation of "anarchy"

Article reads:

Both social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists note that "anarchy" etymologically means "without rulers". Anarcho-capitalists interpret this literally to mean no political authorities; while socialist anarchists generalize "archon" leniently to mean any authoritarian structure.

I'd rather say that the socialist anarchists interpret it literally, while anarcho-capitalists use the word in its more narrow sense. Also, claiming that socialist anarchists generalize "archon" is one thing, but that they do it "leniently" is slightly POV, without doubt. Opinions? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --AaronS 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we would leave out adjectives since it's obvious POV. -- Vision Thing -- 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Word. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Right on. The only people who use the term "Socialist Anarchists" are the capitalists. Aufheben 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No Rulers. It shoudl be obvious that a ruler is one whose vestment of power is not legitimately given by voluntary association. A ruler or archon is a forceful entity that threatens and coerces with violence one to be ruled. Therefore being that a ruler is a aggressive force, It is broad expansion and loose application of the word 'archon' to include all authority voluntary or involuntary, legitimate or not, taken or given... and yet exclude or excuse authority when conducted by the consent of 1+x over 1.

Why is there so much hostility to market anarchists from some other anarcho (insert word here)? MA's are about a truly free market of exchange and ideas, voluntary associations and free choice... all of which enable but do not stop socialistic associations from forming. Benign neglect is our promise and yet the same is not extended our way. -- Thorsmitersaw--

Levy

Why is reference to Levy removed? -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

True form of anarchism?

After looking over this article I just have to laugh at all the writing devoted to disputing whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It's ok to mention a dispute but it goes on to a nauseating degree. I don't think most readers coming here for information care about the dispute over whether any philosophy put forth as a type of anarchism is a "true form of anarchism." TheIndividualist 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably true. But, then again, the issue has never been over whether or not anarcho-capitalism exists or calls itself anarchism. The issue has been about anarcho-capitalists attempting to give themselves an anarchist "pedigree" by retroactively injecting themselves into anarchist history, which is just as silly. --AaronS 01:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They do have an anarchist "pedigree." They come from the US where individualist anarchism originated. Rothbard was turned on to individualist anarchism by Tucker and Spooner. He accepted the early individualist anarchist support for a free market. The difference is he disagreed on what the consequences would be. He though a free market would still have profit. Tucker and Spooner thought competition would eliminate profit. But, of course that's flawed economics. The system that the early individualists want to implement would still have profit. The labor theory of value is erroneous. There is no natural reason that laissez-faire would eliminate profit. There is nothing exploitative about profit. They were fooled by the labor theory of value which was popular at the time. Economics has advanced since then. Any individualist today that tries to hold on to the labor theory of value is embarrassing themselves. TheIndividualist 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to know your position on individualist anarchists, Mr. sock puppet. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pedigree" is a straw man that amounts to exactly the same argument: "ancap is a true form of anarchism"/"no it isn't". To put a finer point on it: ancaps claim influence from particular strains of anarchism, and other anarchists say that their claim is too tenuous to credit. That's it. Arguments about "pedigree", and "tradition", and "real anarchism" all devolve to the same issue-- which is the defining issue that divides ancaps from anarchism in general, which is the point of this article, so it seems a legit topic to go on and on about. . . --Saswann 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that anarcho-capitalism was influenced by early anarchism. And there's no doubt that anarcho-capitalists support private property and a free market. There is no doubt that they differ from anarcho-communists on that. There's no doubt that anarcho-capitalists don't think profit is exploitation. There's no doubt that they're different from all the other anarchists on that account. That's why their philosophy has its own name. What more needs to be said? IndividualistAnarchist 01:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I reallyt dubt ancap was influenced by any form of anarchism at all. My theory is that it was thought up by some US college boys who only learnt about anarchism from a pocket dictionary. // Liftarn

I'd say that's an exaggeration. There are definitely some anarchist influences, but they are only a small part of it. Really it's just American-style libertarianism with a bit more teeth. It does seem really out of touch with traditional anarchism though. The Ungovernable Force 08:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how anyone who has done any significant reading on anarchism can discount the americans influence and legitimate development and inclusion of market and individualist anarchism. Noone seems to have a hard time convincing libertarian socialists of the legitimacy of libertarian anarchists of the voluntary (free) market variety. Certainely noone had to convince Ms.Voltairine de CleyreThorsMitersaw Dec 2007

Capitalism is the only possible economic practice that doesn't require state intervention. Maybe anarcho-socialism should be the theory that is constantly derided in this manner. I pray that I never have to hear another 20 year old in a Che Guevara tee talk about Noam Chomsky again. Green hornet 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this point of socialization requiring coercion and force, in other words... statism. Anarchism is opposed to such activity and so the argument of 'who is real' is slung back at the 'real' as democrati ccontrol is just that: control. And hence a government that supposedly is not is established as opposed to individual freedom.ThorsMitersaw Dec 2007

Anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism

Lots of sources are being miscited or improperly used here. For example, the MS encarta article (which needs to be specifically cited as the UK MS encarta) states, "Since World War II this tradition (individualist anarchism) has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism."

This source clearly indicates that anarcho-capitalism is a branch of the "tradition" of individualist anarchism. It does NOT state that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It might imply that, and in fact I would say that it does give such an implication, but that isn't enough to use as a source for the statement "several scholars consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism". To source a controversial claim like that the scholar in question should say so directly, otherwise any time they ever refer to anarcho-capitalism it could be taken to be an implicit endorsement of AC as a form of anarchism. This is far too weak a standard, but this standard the same source could be used to claim that american libertarianism is a form of anarchism, something american libertarians and probably the people be cited here would themselves disagree with. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

pov terminological section

Put a POV tag there. There is no explanation on what "capitalism" meant for anarcho-communists and individual anarchists, and what anarcho-capitalists believe capitalism to be. Intangible 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a wonderful section of An Anarchist FAQ on Infoshop.org that squashes, rather unequivocally, this oxymoron of "anarcho"-capitalism. Please read it here: http://infoshop.org/faq/secFint.html . I consider this FAQ to be very definitive, as it lists an impressive collection of writings and essays by *anarchist* thinkers, and their specific thoughts on "anarcho"-capitalism. They specifically address Rothbard's ideas, and compare his "anarcho" ideas with the *real* and *pre-defined* ideas of anarchy. Anarchy is, *by definition*, opposed to capitalism. That is one of its core tenets. There are market anarchists, and there are free market anarchists, there are even free market anti-capitalist anarchists, but there is no such thing as a pro-capitalist anarchist, just as there is no such thing as a married bachelor or a square circle. They are, *by definition*, incompatible. To help clear the issue, think of it like this: intelligent design is not science in the way that "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchy; as with science, you can't just take anarchy to mean whatever you want it to mean. And yes, the analogy includes the understanding that in the way ID is bunk, "anarcho"-capitalism is too. This does not mean that one cannot espouse an anti-state and pro-capitalist view, it just means that the label, as it uses the word "anarchy", is inappropriate and incorrect. To use such a label is to invite an ire similar to that which IDers receive from *real* scientists. 24.27.23.241 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Mookie

But the way Rothbard perceived capitalism and the way leftists anarchists perceived capitalism are two different things. They see the source of oppression to be the state, not capitalism. You percieve both to walk hand in hand. Effectively capitalism to Rothbard is simply to allow two (or more) people to exchange goods/services of there own free will, without be coerced by a 3rd party institution which is illegitimate. i.e the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoweLeif (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism?

This article is CRAZY! What a mess. What is the object of it? It seems to arguments that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and people defending it as being one, or something like that. I think that's what the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article is for. Maybe it should be deleted? DTC 05:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be nothing but a poorly-driven hit piece on anarcho-capitalism. 217.42.182.173 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is an example of the worst kind of pov pushing that I've seen. Get rid of it. Imagination débridée 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to delete it. What is the point here? To show that anarcho-capitalism is not like other forms of anarchism so that it will be concluded that it is not a form of anarchism? Since when does a form of anarchism have to be like other forms of anarchism? This article has a fundamental POV problem that cannot be fixed. It is best to just delete it. PlayersPlace 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree for reasons stated below. Blockader 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I oppose the deletion of this page as it addresses an issue within anarchism that warrants inclusion in wikipedia. attempts to delete this page is obvious POV pushing. this is a major issue and cannot be done justice by simply merging it with the criticisms section in the ancap article. this is apparent to any editor who is not operating under extreme bias. Blockader 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Foant 11:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Attemping to delete the article doesn't look like any "POV pushing" to me. How about changing the title? The title is what's making this ariticle POV. It should be called something like "Social anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." Otherwise, the title assumes anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things, but they're not.Anarcho-capitalism 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thay are two different things with different histories, bacground and goals, but shaing a common name. That's why it's so difficult. // Liftarn

No they are not two different things. Anarcho-captialism is anarchism. Lots of philosophies are anarchism. Anarcho-communism is anarchism too.Anarcho-capitalism 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are in the view of virtually everyone except ancaps and a few lazy academics. Even those who describe it as anarchism generally recognise it is from the right-wing libertarian tradition and not from the entirely leftwing anarchist tradition. It's an appropriation of the term by right-wingers that is seen by many anarchists (including myself) as hostile and wrecking. All forms of anarchism are generally united in what they oppose (the state and capitalism) and vary simply on what they advocate. "Anarcho"-capitalism does not fit into this. Donnacha 11:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
libertarian libertarianism n.
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
-adjective
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

Calling libertrians right wing is a common error made by left-wingers. Libertarians are distinctly not right wing anymore than they are left wing. They have only one common interest and that is freedom from government intervention. Libertarianism is based on Classical liberalism. While the Libertarian Party calls for as little government intervention as possible, radical libertarians are anarchists who want no government at all. For left-leaning anarchists to call radical libertarians "right-wing and not anarchists" is based on nothing more than arrogance and ignorance.

As a matter of fact the idea of an anarchist being either left or right wing is ludicrous, as the left and right wings are allegiances to parties or state politics. Thus the concept of left-wing anarchism is an absurd impossibility. It can't ever exist. Imagination débridée 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again wolfy. You'll not that the words right and wing (hyphenated) are before the word libertarian, thus giving them the form of an adjective. In common English use, the use of an adjective to describe a word means that the word does not always mean what the adjective accords it. Right-wing libertarians are those who oppose democracy and egalitarians and exclusively act against the state and not other forms of oppression - people like the so-called "anarcho"-capitalists. As for the distinction between left and right, you couldn't be more wrong. Left and right define the social question - left is in favour of egalitarianism and redistribution, right is in favour of elitism and social divisions. That's why the the authoritarian/libertarian distinction is also used to define the relationship to the state. Donnacha 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, please remember to be civil. There is no need to attack someone with an English lesson intended to belittle. I have to say, with everyone defending their POV strongly, I think this whole article is beyond recovery. There is no need to have an article comparing and contrasting two subjects. It will be almost entirely based on original research, POVs, and definitions that can’t be proven. Keep in mind Wikipedia is not about changing what people think, it is about defining the facts. The whole article is rotting with weasel words. No one will change anyone else’s mind on this talk page. The anarcho-capitalists will continue to think it is a form of anarchy. The anarchists will think it is not. There is no use putting my opinion into the mess because it will help nothing. Lets discuss ways to make the article (and not the title) non-pov before we even go to the title.

Stop using weasel words. How many is “many”? Take out these words and replace them with names of famous anarchists and anarcho-captialists who have written about the subject. Then cite your sources. I strongly suggest those who believe one thing only work on the parts they believe, and not the parts they don’t. Please leave the parts you disagree with alone, and let others develop it. A Yankee could not keep an article NPOV if they were comparing the Yankees to the Redsocks.

And please don’t use the article to convince others that the way you think is correct. Simply point out facts (or claims made by writers that can be sourced). This is all I have to say from the RFC page. Connor K. 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if people could quit jumping into bits of sock-busting and assuming they are rational discussions. user:thewolfstar is well know for nonsensical dissembling. I'm happy to work on developing a NPOV version of the article, but it's not POV to say that the vast majority of anarchists worldwide say that "anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Not only is it not POV, but there's already a cite for that in the article. And saying this is like the Yankess to the Redsocks is rubbish, this is like the entire World Series versus a team that 's decided that you can play baseball with a golf club and insists all baseball is is hitting a ball. The whole purpose of this article is to focus on the rejection of "anarcho"-capitalism by anarchists in the historical tradition. Donnacha 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are Donnacha, you are nasty. I wouldn't for the life of me, want the likes of you making decisions for me, that's for sure. I know what a damned adjective is. You, on the other hand, don't have a clue what a libertarian is. There is no such thing as a right-wing libertarian. That is an oxymoron, if I ever heard one. The classical liberals were the original libertarians in the U.S., they were the ones that modern (U.S.) libertarianism is based on, and they were the left-wing of their day. They decidedly were not elistist and fought against the priveleged few. If you're going to discuss U.S. history and politics then learn about it first. Otherwise it is most definitely you who are talking out of her ass. Imagination débridée 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the content may be POV against anarcho-capitalism; some of it is POV for anarcho-capitalism. Last time I was here, the article was a horrible mess of content written by User:RJII and me. I tried to clean it up, but someone kept re-inserting stuff RJII wrote, which was bloated to say the least (I won't even go into the POV). Some of what I wrote may be biased, I apologise - at the time I wrote it, I was trying to balance opposing POV, so I may have been too heavy in some areas. Anyway, there still exists pro-ancap bias in the article, so keep that in mind too before you dismiss this article as "anarcho-capitalism bashing" or whatever. -- infinity0 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Infinity0. The title of this article alone (Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism) really does suggest that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism - that they are 2 different things. That alone is heavy duty POV. But I appreciate your kind response. Imagination débridée 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's as bad as you think. I mean, I don't think most people, upon seeing the title, will automatically infer that these are distinct. But readers don't usually see the title on its own anyway - when this article is linked to in articles, there is always context surrounding the link, summarising the dispute. I'm off now, I'll reply tomorrow. -- infinity0 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New title of article

Let's move this to a less POV title. I've been moving it to "anti-capitalist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" and "anti-capitalist anarchism and pro-capitalist anarchism" but it keeps getting moved back. The title separates anarcho-capitalism from anarchism, so it is POV.Anarcho-capitalism 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Intangible 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, the two minority speakers agree. No-one else but the ancaps agree, so stop POV pushing. Donnacha 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be named "Mainstream anarchim and anarcho-capitalism", but the shorter title works. // Liftarn

That might work.Anarcho-capitalism 18:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put the title aside until the article has improved, see above.--Connor K. 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It can't improve until the title reflects what the article is supposed to be about. "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" means nothing.Anarcho-capitalism 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Title is fine. Content may be improved. Please try to accomodate all view points, not just your own (inferred from your name), which is in the minority. -- infinity0 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The title is not fine. It is terrible. How can you have an NPOV article when it is assumed from the start, by the title of the article that Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are two different things? That is stacking the deck against anarcho-capitalists. PlayersPlace 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, - an article called Hand and fingers does not automatically imply that the fingers are not part of the hand. Donnacha 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What would it be about then? If there is already an article on Hand then why not discuss Fingers in the Hand article? Or in its own Fingers article?Anarcho-capitalism 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We have two subjects A and B. Some people think B is a subset of A. Others think it isn't. "A and B" is the logical name for an article on this dispute. Your previous point missed the article's purpose entirely. If lots of people think "finger" is separate from "hand", whilst others thought "finger" was a subset of "hand" then we wuold have an article called "Finger and hand". What else would you call it? -- infinity0 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If the aritcle is about whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism or not, I would call it "Arguments over whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making a big fuss over nothing. This title and the one you just suggested convey the same meaning, except this one is shorter. If you are afraid of new people reading the title and then inferring that anarchism and ancapism are different, I don't think they will. The very first paragraph explains the content of the rest of the article. If anything, the name ancapism is itself POV, since that positively asserts itself to be part of anarchism. But in any case, this point is null, since whenever this article is linked on this wiki, there is always a section explaining the summary of this dispute. -- infinity0 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The title does not signify that the article is about a dispute.Anarcho-capitalism 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does that matter? The article isn't purely about the dispute, but about the contents of the dispute too. -- infinity0 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to move the title. But even with that this article is a POV fork and should be deleted. I'm sure it will be eventually. "Anti-capitalist anarchism and pro-capitalist anarchism" sounds good to me. DTC 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tough, you lost. And, the final word on this stupidity - Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker - no implication that they're separate. The whole basis of the dispute is that there is no such thing as "pro-capitalist" anarchism. To put that in the title is extreme POV-pushing. Donnacha 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that this article can be made non POV by confining discussion on whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism to one section instead of the whole article. There is not enough dispute in academia to constitute a whole article. There is still the question of what to do with the rest of the article though. What it an article called "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" about?Anarcho-capitalism 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is preferable to change the name though.Anarcho-capitalism 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Donnacha, anything that doesn't agree with you is extreme pov pushing. And why can't you just be civil? Is is it necessary to be so hostile and condescending to everyone you talk to? You said, "there is no such thing as "pro-capitalist" anarchism". I and a number of other editors can testify that there is such a thing as we are all pro-capitalist anarchists. So I guess you're just wrong about that. Imagination débridée 23:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's just you people who continue to over-emphasis a right-wing attempt to take over the term anarchist like right-wingers took over the the term libertarian that is extreme POV pushing. I'm an anarchist from Europe where, if considered at all, so-called "anarcho"-capitalists are laughed at. You can claim a two-wheeled machine is a car if you like, but people will laugh and point out it's a bicycle. You are clearly a sock-puppet of everyone's favourite disruptive editor coming out with exactly the same kind of nonsense you have done in the past. Capitalism is authoritarian, thus inconsistent with anarchism. Full stop. History and any reasonable analysis of what anarchism stands for agrees with me. Some loony libertarian who clearly spent too much time in Ayn Rand's company and a few web-warriors agree with you - doesn't make you right. Yawn, wolfy, you're boring me. Donnacha 23:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And you are clearly someone who ought to study American history before making ignorant comments about it. Read what I wrote (above) concerning libertarianism. You have a habit of sharing your ignorance concerning US libertarianism and history. As far as what Europeans think about anarcho-capitalism or anything else, I really couldn't give a damn less, and most Americans feel the same way. Most Americans also reject communism. I know this for sure as I am an American who knows a lot of other Americans. And I mean a lot. Please try to talk more pleasantly. Imagination débridée 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans have no idea what Communism is, since your country illegally ejected hundreds of true revolutionaries after 1918. I'm very aware of the high point of anarchism in the US, when Emma Goldman spoke to thousands, when the Wobblies fought the Pinkertons. You Rothbardists have no knowledge or understanding of anarchism - you're the true children of the Reagan era - the time of the cartoon president. Donnacha 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody "laughs" at me though. Intangible 01:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Donnacha 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTHING is more authoritarian than communism. Imagination débridée 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Wolfy, whatever. The control of the majority by the few is authoritarianism. That's what capitalism is. The voluntary association of all without capitalist exploitation is real freedom, that's what communism is. Donnacha 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, donna, if you weren't so wrapped up in your beliefs and instead took an objective look at the world you might learn something.

Section moved to talk page for cleaning

This section was originally written by RJII and contains lots of POV, distortions and so on. Not only that, but it is bloated. I am moving it to this talk page. -- infinity0 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism

{{NPOV}} {{weasel}} {{Citecheck|date=December 2006}} Anarchism is seen as a form of individualist anarchism by many scholars. All of the classical individualist anarchists opposed profit-making and, hence, capitalism as it is commonly defined today. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalism, which has no opposition to profit, is sometimes regarded as a form of individualist anarchism in recent times. For example, contemporary individualist anarchist Daniel Burton, who believes that most modern day individualist anarchists are class war anti-capitalists, nonetheless says that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism Individualist anarchism vs. Anarcho-capitalism. Individualist Anarchist Laurance Labadie argued that Rothbard "upholds presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict." Wendy McElroy calls herself both an individualist anarchist and an anarcho-capitalist, and Italian anarcho-capitalist Guglielmo Piombini regards anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism (Per l'Anarco-Capitalismo). Historian Ralph Raico regards it as "a form of individualist anarchism" (Authentic German Liberalism...). Simon Tormey, in his book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide places no anti-capitalist restriction on being an individualist anarchist: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."

Some anarcho-capitalists argue that their philosophy is related to individualist anarchism. They believe a major difficulty in resolving the debate is due to the conflicting definitions of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism" as used by the two sides. The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to political movements that are both anti-statist and anti-capitalist. Conversely, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists most commonly use the term "anarchism" to refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (without specifications regarding economic systems). However, even this is disputed, as many anarchists argue that capitalism is inherently coercive.

Lysander Spooner's articles, such as No Treason and the Letter to Thomas Bayard, were widely reprinted in early anarcho-capitalist journals, and his ideas — especially his individualist critique of the state and his defense of the right to ignore or withdraw from it — were often cited by anarcho-capitalists. Spooner was staunchly opposed to government interference in economic matters, and supported a "right to acquire property [...] as one of the natural, inherent, inalienable rights of men [...] one which government has no power to infringe [...]". Like all anarchists, he opposed government regulation: "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest are arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor." He was particularly vocal, however, in opposing any collusion between banks and government, and argued that the monopolistic privileges that the government granted to a few bankers were the source of many social and economic ills.

Benjamin Tucker supported private ownership of the product of labor, which he believed entailed a rejection of both collective and capitalist ownership. He was a staunch advocate of the mutualist form of recompensing labor, which holds to "Cost the limit of price". He also advocated a free market economy, which he believed was prohibited by capitalist monopoly of credit and land backed by the state. He believed that anyone who wishes should be allowed to engage in the banking business and issue their private currency without needing special permission from government, and that unused land should not be restricted to those who wished to use it. He believed that if these and other coercive actions were eliminated that profit in economic transactions would be rendered nearly impossible because of increased availability of capital to all individuals and resulting increased competition in business. Accepting the labor theory of value and the resulting "cost principle" as a premise marks one of mutualism's main conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. Although his self-identification as a socialist and sympathy for the labor movement led to hostility from some early anarcho-capitalists such as Robert LeFevre, others, such as Murray Rothbard, embraced his critique of the state and claimed that he defined his "socialism" not in terms of opposition to a free market or private property, but in opposition to government privileges for business. However, individualists argue that capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of the state. For example, Kevin Carson argues, "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value — i.e., capitalism — cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist. It was for this reason that the free market mutualist Benjamin Tucker — from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow — regarded himself as a libertarian socialist." Tucker characterized the economic demands of Proudhon and Warren by saying, "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few [...] Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez-faire the universal rule."

Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes viewed by those sympathetic to it as a form of individualist anarchism, despite the fact that the original individualist anarchists universally rejected capitalism (i.e., they opposed profit, which is seen as a fundamental characteristic of capitalism). Organizations such as mutualist.org remain dedicated to "free market anticapitalism," while individualists like Larry Gambone explicitly state that all capitalism is state capitalism. Nonetheless, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy considers herself to be an individualist, while admitting that the original individualists were universally anticapitalist. In addition, historian Guglielmo Piombini refers anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, though he offers no support for this statement. Collectivist anarchist author Iain McKay and historian Peter Sabatini both argue that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally opposed to individualist anarchism.

The similarity to anarcho-capitalism in regard to private defense of liberty and property is probably best seen in a quote by 19th-century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros:

Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.

While the claim is controversial, some scholars regard anarcho-capitalism as being a form of individualism anarchism. However, other scholars, and many individualist anarchists themselves, do not accept anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, individualist or not, as they assert that anarchism is fundamentally opposed to capitalism. As individualist anarchist Joe Peacott says:

“ there is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists, who originated in the United States in the 1800s. ”

Individualist anarchists have continued to espouse the labor theory of value, finding profit to be unnatural and exploitative. In the mainstream, however, the popularity of the labor theory of value of classical economics was superseded by greater acceptance of the subjective theory of value of neo-classical economics. Eventually, in the 1950s, Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" to define his anti-statist, laissez-faire capitalist philosophy.

Rothbard noted that while "strongly tempted," he could not call his ideology "individualist anarchism" because "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." Rothbard also supported unregulated banking, as Tucker and other individualists did, but believed that Tucker and Spooner had a flawed understanding of economics to believe that unregulated banking would eliminate profit from interest. Tucker says interest rates are ultimately determined by the time value of money, rather than the supply of money and that interest/profit would still exist in a free banking environment. He says: "it has been particularly distressing to me as an ardent admirer of Spooner and Tucker to find that their followers have emphasized and concentrated on their totally fallacious monetary views almost to the [exclusion of all else and even bring them forth as a panacea for all economic and social ills." [1] Rothbard suggested that individualist anarchists drop the labor theory of value which he believed to be erroneous and leading to a false conclusion that profit was exploitative or unnatural in laissez-faire. Rothbard sought to introduce Lockean property rights and marginalism into individualist anarchism:

“ There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung. ”

Rothbard also rejected Tucker and Spooner's support of a system where there is no written law. He says, "There would be no rational or objective body of law which the juries would in any sense—even morally—be bound to consult, nor even any judicial precedents, since each jury would have the power to decide both the facts and the law of every case strictly ad hoc. With no guides or standards to follow, even juries with the best of will could not be expected to arrive at just or even libertarian decisions." Instead, he argues, "It would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures."}}

Individualist anarchist Laurance Labadie argued however:

“ Mere common sense would suggest that any court would be influenced by experience; and any free-market court or judge would in the very nature of things have some precedents guiding them in their instructions to a jury. But since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have considerable say about the heinousness of the offence in each case, realising that circumstances alter cases, and prescribing penalty accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and Tucker to be a more flexible and equitable administration of justice possible or feasible, human beings being what they are... ”

“ But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict, he would seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel. ”

However, this criticism is specific to Rothbard's suggested version of anarcho-capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists who oppose the existence of all statutory law, such as Morris and Linda Tannehill. Individualist anarchism is a broad philosophy with various theorists having their own suggested versions.

Spam

I am concerned with the sheer amount of spam of anarcho-capitalist sources. For some reason pro-ancap editors seem to think this "proves" that anarcho-capitalism is in the mainstream. This is not true. I am surprised and disgusted that people have this attitude. Why do you not spam anti-anarcho-capitalist sources? Because these do certainly exist. -- infinity0 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism are not from anarcho-capitalists. The sources do indeed include anti-capitalist anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims that anarcho-capitalist are not anarchism are very hard to come by because so few claims exist. Mainstream academia does not claim it is not a form of anarchism. Arguments about whether it is a form of anarchism seem to be mostly contained to people like us arguing on the internet.Anarcho-capitalism 14:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because you lot don't exist outside of a few right-wing colleges and the Internet, so the vast majority of anarchists ignore you completely. I could cite numerous books about anarchism that don't even mention "anarcho"-capitalism. It's funny, though, I've discussed wikipedia with a few people from a variety of points of view recently (I started editing just to see what it was really like), and the you and your kinds' constant POV-pushing is one of the best examples I can give about what's wrong with wikipedia. And, d'ya know what? They agree. Donnacha 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've come across several anarcho-capitalists but never anarcho-communists. Maybe I'm not in the right places. Maybe I need to hang out in abandoned buildings more.Anarcho-capitalism 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We are everywhere. Donnacha 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous web site. People in poor countries love global capitalism. They want more of it. Elitist rich country leftists have no clue what it's like to receive a desperately needed job imported from a rich country.Anarcho-capitalism 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Do you actually have any access to anything but your library of nonsensical right-wing claptrap? If people in poor countries love global capitalism, explain the election of Chavez, Lula, Morales and probably Rafael Correa. Explain the success of Grameen Bank and the Nobel Peace Prize award. Explain the mass mobilisations in India against Coca Cola, explain the MST, the Zapatistas. And that's just the left, if people in poor countries love global capitalism, explain Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, in Asia, in North Africa, explain the widespread hatred of the US and everything it stands for (particularly global capitalism). Explain why the World Social Forum movement is bigger in the Global South. Quite simply, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm an expert in international social movements. It's part of my job. You, on the other hand, come across like the economic equivalent of Creationists. Donnacha 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims that anarcho-capitalist are not anarchism are very hard to come by because so few claims exist. Mainstream academia does not claim it is not a form of anarchism. Arguments about whether it is a form of anarchism seem to be mostly contained to people like us arguing on the internet. - This is certainly untrue. Go read Chomsky, for a start. By "mainstream academia", you probably mean your circle of american right-wing intellectuals. -- infinity0 14:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is mainstream? *laugh* Anyway, Chomsky says it is a "strain of anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky has said in an interview that it's a strain of anarchism. That's not a good source, because he goes on to explain how it's not real anarchism and, in other interviews and, more importantly, in print, how it's libertarianism and inconsistent with anarchism as anarchism is anti-capitalist. As for him being mainstream, it doesn't get much more mainstream in academia than being a tenured professor in an Ivy League university. In comparison, the University of Nevada ain't quite as impressive, is it? Donnacha 01:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)