Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 28

Removal of npov tag from neutral article

Please remove npov tag from this neutral article. The following paragraph in the lede

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of resources.

...replaces the text in a neutral manner which previously stated the context as a POV. The RfC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between "traditional" anarchists and anCaps. As a result, the new paragraph is included in the lede which clarifies the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid". Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RfC). Please remove this inappropriate tag from the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag, as I am still awaiting resolution at the NPOV noticeboard. Thank you! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Let's not remove the tag, as there are critical unanswered questions about neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There will never be 100% agreement - even though the page is now clearly neutral. Please remove the tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Opponents of certain controversial topics often will perform such inappropriate tagging because it can be a sneaky way to discredit the article subject. This is no different. Instead of the tag at the top, people who have specific, actionable objections to neutrality issues should mark the specific sections ({{POV-section}}) or lines ({{POV-check inline}}) that they claim problems. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The article conformed to NPOV...until those who want there to be a government decided to add a specific sentence. Since that sentence is not there currently, clearly the NPOV tag can be removed. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: After briefly reading through the talk page, the current featured article review, and the NPOV noticeboard thread, I still see legitimate NPOV concerns with the article that have not yet been resolved between the editors here. Sorry, but the disputes need to be resolved before we can remove the tag completely. For the moment, Netoholic's suggestion of using tags for specific sections seems like a suitable compromise for the tag until the actual disputes themselves can be worked out. Let me know which tags should go where and I'll replace put them in the article. (Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template when you do so, so that I'll see the request.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, the current dispute concerns the last sentence in the lead, which distinguishes anarcho-capitalism from minarchism and the wider libertarian/anarchist philosophy. I would suggest tagging that line, as well as the section entitled "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools," which gives undue weight to a non-notable figure.

I would also ask to delete the "Criticism" section, as it contains almost no useful information and criticisms are best dispersed through the text, per WP:CRITS. If I should request this edit in a separate section, please let me know. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@MisterDub: Your proposal to delete the criticism section should go in a new section, yes. I wouldn't feel comfortable with enacting that without a clear consensus. If that section is also part of the dispute, then we should probably tag it too until the dispute is resolved. @Binksternet: would you be ok with tagging the sections that MisterDub mentions? If so, we should probably go through with it - it seems like a good first step towards conciliation with the editors who would like the tags removed altogether. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is fully protected, so I cannot tag the criticism section with the NPOV section template. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have opened a new section regarding the "Criticisms" section. For now, I think Mr. Stradivarius just wants to know if you agree with my previous suggestions of tagging both the last line in the lead and the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I support any effort that helps make this article informative and neutral. So, yes, I agree. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Yes, that's what I meant. I've removed the {{POV}} tag from the top of the article, added {{POV-check inline}} to the end of the lead, and added {{POV-section}} to the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism. It is entirely neutral. Keeping the tag would be inappropriate. The other section that has been tagged has been determined by RfC consensus to be acceptable. This tag also needs to be removed. If there are any non-neutral sections in the article, state them here and we can discuss them. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: If you disagree with my reading of the consensus here, you're welcome to ask for review of my decision at WP:AN. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Netoholic was trying to make the point that certain editors are trying to paint anCap itself as an illegitimate point of view, and thus could not pinpoint a section that is not neutral. He was not offering a compromise. The currently tagged sections are neutral - as is the article itself. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I have posted the following comment at the link you specified, and it was reverted:

"If you review the article Anarcho-capitalism as it is written without any prejudice based on the opinions of editors manifested on the talk page, you will find that nothing in the lede in its current format is slanted away from the topic of anarcho-capitalism, and that other schools of thought are presented in the appropriate section in a neutral way. Please consider removal of the tags. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)"

JLMadrigal (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: You posted at the wrong place - you need to start a new section at WP:AN, but instead you posted at WP:ANRFC. Also, you should probably mention that you are seeking review of my decision in this edit request, otherwise people might not know what you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Request removal of Criticism section

I am requesting the removal of the section titled "Criticisms." It is neither informative nor supported by sources. Additionally, criticisms are best dispersed throughout the article, per WP:CRITS. Thank you. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CRITS. No need for a criticism ghetto, as if criticism was removed from the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• I've deactivated the request template for now. It should only be activated after a consensus has been found. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with removal of this section in its current format. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Agree Any criticisms are best dealt with in the rest of the article. TFD (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Done I've removed the section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I propose that voluntaryism be merged into anarcho-capitalism for the simple fact that the two philosophies are practically identical and there is almost total theoretical and functional parity between the two. They are both forms of stateless capitalism in which all goods and services, including justice, are private commodities purchased through "voluntary" means. I fail to see any difference between them whatsoever; at best, voluntaryism would be a subcategory of anarcho capitalism. Even the Voluntaryism article states that it is "closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist philosophy." It has the same proponents (Rothbard, Block), the same flag, the same ethical principle of "non aggression" and is politically and economically identical with anarcho capitalism. JDiala (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, and likely, but can you point to any differences? If there's a slight difference as described in the sources, then maybe it's best to keep the voluntaryism article. So let's make sure before we undertake a merge. Argue the opposing side and see how strong it is. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm arguing based on the rules set by WP:Merge. It states that: "There are several good reasons to merge pages:...2.Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.". A slight difference isn't, as the policy states, necessarily an argument against merging. All we need is "large overlap". JDiala (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading through libertarian blogs, there seems to be a difference between anarcho-capitalism, agorism and voluntaryism. Most importantly agorism appears to be a branch of anarcho-capitalism, while voluntaryism is a branch of agorism. The only reason to combine them would be overlap and scarcity of sources for all of them. TFD (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. Secondly, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Agorism, it is not a branch of anarcho capitalism, nor is voluntaryism a branch of agorism. If one assumes the existence of property rights and the non aggression axiom, both of which are the essences of voluntaryism, agorism cannot be interpreted as a form of voluntaryism. It's market anarchism. JDiala (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required for discussion, only if they are challenged. It is not inspiring that after demanding rs, you then reference a comment to a Wikipedia article, which is not rs, then provided unsourced original research. By "branch of" I do not mean the same thing as but that it differs. IOW their advocates began with existing theories and branched off by altering them. TFD (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely do not support that merge. Voluntarism is a philosophy that stems from the belief that all interactions should be voluntary. While for many people that philosophy leads to anarchism and capitalism, those are by no means the only two conclusions. For example, a small community might choose a leadership counsel for convenience of handling administrative tasks, but in a voluntary society, no one is obligated to abide by those leaders if they choose not to. Even certain small communist communities could be considered voluntary. -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Can you find any evidence of this in libertarian literature? The majority of anarcho capitalist theorists, like Block and Rothbard, believe that even in an anarcho capitalist society, as with a voluntaryist one, one would not be obligated to abide by those leaders at all. The defining characteristics of both ideologies (self ownership, property rights, the NAP, privatized justice, etc.) are identical. Being forced to listen to leaders is, if anything, a form of statism, which is not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, the size of the community has no relevance as to whether or not it can be classified as "voluntaryist" or "anarcho capitalist".

You see, voluntaryism is more than "voluntary". Voluntary implies the non aggression principle. However, "voluntaryists" also, alongside that principle, include another one: property rights. A system based on voluntary interaction could be anything, including left-anarchism. However, left-anarchism isn't considered voluntaryism by the latter's proponents. It's rooted in property rights, which would entail capitalism. JDiala (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The voluntaryism article has adequate sources already that describe the points I'm summarizing here. The origins of a voluntaryist's adherence to that philosophy doesn't have to come from agreement with the NAP as usually stated. Some voluntaryist's come to it via religious teachings. Some come to it from other ancient philosophy. One potential output from voluntaryist philosophy is an anarcho-capitalist society, but its cause vs effect... and AnCap is just one potential effect. As far as property rights, all that is required for a left-anarchist to be a voluntaryist is to agree that their interactions with a property owner be voluntary. Wikipedia itself is an excellent example of a voluntaryist "society" that is not based on the NAP. No one is required to participate or to work at the direction of another, and there are controls in place to prevent unwanted interaction. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: Voluntaryism is not a philosophy except insofar as it is a synonym for anarcho-capitalism, which is more often than not; vague rejection of state activities, i.e. non-voluntary activities, would fall under (an ignorant appeal to) libertarianism/anarchism more generally. Of course, voluntaryism doesn't use traditional libertarian symbols like the black flag, circle-A, etc., but a black-and-yellow (i.e. anarcho-capitalist) V. The designer of the symbol states that "[y]ellow is a reference to gold, which was the market chosen money. So it's a reference to free market money, and by extension the free market and capitalism. Black is a reference to anarchy. Anarchy, or an-archy, means no rulers." ("The Symbol") It is also clear that voluntaryists support private property and free market economics: Carl Watner writes that voluntaryism demands, "that the resultant [economic] system be voluntary, which already implies a respect for self-ownership and just property titles. A regime of proprietary justice allows all economic systems to compete on a voluntary basis and there is no reason why voluntary cooperatives could not exist side by side with voluntary communes or voluntary capitalist companies." ("The Voluntaryist Spirit") In other words, he is explicitly tying voluntaryism to anarchism (without adjectives), but because he bases this belief on "self-ownership and just property titles," i.e. capitalism, it is clear that even his voluntaryism is simply a synonym for anarcho-capitalism. As for genealogy, Watner recently wrote that, "graphically displayed [as an Euler diagram], there would be a large circle labeled 'libertarians.' Then there would be a smaller circle within the libertarian circle, which would be labeled 'anarchists,' and within the anarchist circle would be yet a smaller circle labeled 'voluntaryists,' for those anarchists who reject electoral politics and embrace peaceful change." ("What Voluntaryism Means to Me") In other words, voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism that eschews parliamentary politics... which is already common to anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The line containing "there is no reason why voluntary cooperatives could not exist side by side with voluntary communes or voluntary capitalist companies" is enough evidence to suggest that voluntaryism as a topic goes well beyond AnCap. The voluntaryism article probably needs more expansion on the topic of non-capitalist economic systems working in the context of voluntaryism, but merging the topic here would greatly diminish our ability to do so. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But a "voluntary commune" that adheres to "proprietary justice," i.e. property rights, is still capitalist: "The determination of property titles is highly critical because, in the deepest sense, all property is ultimately private." "Individualist anarchism is the logical outcome of the proprietary theory of justice." "As Spooner has demonstrated, such [political] arguments must ultimately reduce themselves to either an acceptance or rejection of the self-ownership and homesteading axioms; that is, to either individual sovereignty and the principle of private property or to slavery and absolute communism. There is no middle ground of compromise possible between these premises." ("The Proprietary Theory of Justice"). So, again, voluntaryism is exactly anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So why stop at merging with AnCap? According to this line of reasoning, voluntaryism and AnCap should be merged into libertarianism... which should then be merged into political philosophy, and so on and so on. We maintain separate articles for similar topics all over the place... the reason we do so is because each topic is used in distinct ways, such as in the very examples you used above. Classical liberalism vs libertarianism is another example... very similar philosophies, but the terms have distinct origins and usages. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between A ⊂ B and A = B. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So you agree that all the subset articles should be merged into political philosophy. Should you not, I would expect you to understand the idea of subsets you just invoked, and how you can't want it in one case and not in another lest you be guilty of special pleading. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please permit me to assist you with your reading comprehension: "So, again, voluntaryism is exactly anarcho-capitalism." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making uncivil comments or you will be reported (Notice how I'm using your tactic against you. Think you should have never tried it in the first place now?). And I'm still waiting for you to show that voluntaryism is exactly anarchocapitalism. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: Voluntarism, as a concept it only belongs to this particular position and maybe to the wider US neoliberal scene. It is something mostly alien to anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Voluntary association is alien to anarchism? So I guess anarchism is all about forcing others to associate or not associate? So much then for the so-called "libertarian socialism"; that clearly is an oxymoron. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deny: The two are different enough to warrant it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools

How can we satisfy editors enough to remove the remaining tag from the "Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" section? What should be added and/or removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_and_other_anarchist_schools

I see no reason to keep this tag. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Introduce anarchism first so readers understand why most anarchists believe anti-capitalism to be integral to their ideology
2. Remove Per Bylund (he's not notable)
3. Remove most of the fifth paragraph, starting with "In short, while granting that certain non-coercive hierarchies will exist under an anarcho-capitalist system..."
4. Combine the first sentence of the fifth paragraph (which would then stand alone) with the last paragraph
5. Remove a lot of the parenthetical asides which are severely overused in the last paragraph

— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was bold and edited the article according to my points above. I imagine it will be reverted, but if not, I think it's a huge step forward. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The tag never should have been in the article in the first place. If those who wish there to be a government have a problem, it is theirs alone. The article was neutral before they started trying to take it over. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Economics

The section Economics has two paragraphs and the second of them discuss only Rothbard's biography rather than explaining anything about anarcho-capitalist economic theory. What is the point of this section at all? - Alumnum (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I would support eliminating the biography, and replacing it with a brief discussion of your cited analysis by Friedman, and economic analyses by other ancaps. JLMadrigal @ 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. - Alumnum (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)