Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Misuse of terms in natural law

When I read the page I read “author X believes natural law would be enforced... author Z believes natural law would be enforced...”

there is a difference from positive law and negative law (natural law)

while positive law requires rights to be enforced, it is impossible to “enforce” a natural right, natural rights can only be protected or harmed, but never enforced

I suggest changing all the occurrences of “author X believes natural law would be enforced by...” to “author X believe natural law would be protected by...” Iron Capitalist (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Iron Capitalist: I tried looking for examples of phrases that say natural law would be enforced but can't find any, could you point at the sentences you have in mind? Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

here are the ones I found

“Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of a system of private property enforced by private agencies”

“In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist and be enforced by private defense agencies”

“The latter advocate a night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals from aggression and enforcing private property.[14] “

“Kosanke believes that in the absence of statutory law the non-aggression principle is "naturally" enforced because individuals are automatically held accountable for their actions via tort and contract law.”

“The system relies on contracts between individuals as the legal framework which would be enforced by private police and security forces as well as private arbitrations.” Iron Capitalist (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

But this doesn't talk about "natural law", it talks about the system of private property, contract law etc.. BeŻet (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

yes, these systems from the natural law are not enforceable, they are only able to be protected or harmed

the notion of “enforcement” would require action from the state to grant a right to someone, natural rights are rights that requires no action from individuals (right to property translates to “right to you not take the action of taking my stuff”, same with slavery “do not take action of forcing me to work”, rape and murder)

even though the sections don’t talk about the terms specifically, it is misleading to use them in such way

I suggest we change the occurrences of “enforcement” when talking about natural law to “protection” Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Law is something that is enforced, not protected. Likewise, the system of private property is also something that is enforced - private ownership of land isn't anything that's "natural" and is only a relatively recent development that has appeared during the rise of feudalism. I agree that for this to work you need a state or a quasi-state (e.g. a private security force) to "grant" ownership to someone, and that's why we talk about enforcement rather than protection. The system of private property only existed for a few hundred years, while humans had their lives, bodies and personal possessions for as long as we remember. Slavery may have seemed "natural" at the time to people, just like "owning" a piece of land or a building that you don't live or work in may seem "natural" to some people today. BeŻet (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet:, “law is something that is enforced”, that’s the positive law, yes, negative laws cannot be enforced because of their own nature of requiring others to not act, that’s why they are called “negative” rights

take property like the example you used, we say “right to property”, but in fact the proper structure of the natural right is “right to not be robbed”, so this right requires you and me to “not take action” to rob someone

and when we take that action, someone can take forceful action against the robbery to prevent it from happening, so protecting the owner of that property

another way to think about it is this: will you have that right even is humanity stood still?

if humanity stands still, no one is robbing you, so right to property (same with no one is raping you, no one is murdering you, no one is enslaving you)

actual positive rights, like “right to healthcare”, do need to be enforced like you pointed out

if we try to input “right to healthcare” in the stand still logic, we would have this: will you have healthcare if humanity stands still? if humanity stands still, means no physician is providing you with healthcare, and if no one is provinding you healthcare, the state must force someone to provide healthcare, hence the en-force-ment of the positive law

also, natural rights do not come from what “seems natural”, they come from reasoning and are above states, they are permanent and cannot be changed

a state cannot write in a paper that it has the right to kill millions of people because of their race without infringing the natural law Iron Capitalist (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"negative laws cannot be enforced because of their own nature of requiring others to not act" - if you say that the land between the river Ouse and river Aire "belongs" to you, and if someone trespasses they will be faced with violence, you are enforcing your "ownership". If you tell someone that they can't collect rainwater, because rain "belongs" to you: again, you are enforcing things, even though you are "requiring others to not act". It seems strange to think of something as "natural" if it requires large scale violence to "protect" - an individual can, on their own, protect their life, the dwelling they live in, the clothes they wear, the tools they use, a small plot of land they cultivate etc.. This more or less can seem "natural", or at least reasonable. But when you're talking about massive swathes of land "belonging" to an individual, or large buildings like factories, or simply any place they don't live or work at, it becomes a lot less "natural" or "reasonable". Ownership only makes sense if it is self-evident. Moreover, I think you're confusing "negative laws" with "negative rights" (the former is not a real term). In terms of "having rights if humanity stood still", it's not very clear what you mean by that. If someone's a prisoner, or a slave, and humanity "stood still", surely they would remain a prisoner or slave? If not, why would land remain privately owned then? Finally, please remember that the concept of natural law is just that, a concept that some, but not all, believe in, and even fewer people include private property within them. Therefore, the article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and not that of an anarchocapitalist. Anyway, this is turning into a forum discussion, so we should focus more on the article itself. BeŻet (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: sorry for taking a while to answer “ if you say that the land between the river Ouse and river Aire "belongs" to you, and if someone trespasses they will be faced with violence, you are enforcing your "ownership".” That’s not how it works, but even if we assume it is, if humanity stands still, no one is trespassing the property, that’s why right to property is a natural right

ownership is not given by “claiming”, labor needs to be mixed with it, hence why you cannot claim that “someone cannot collect rain water”

also, we need to talk about the word “violence”, not all usages of force are violences, self-defense is a type of usage of force that is not violence, you seem to confuse both

“ it becomes a lot less "natural" or "reasonable".”

well, “natural” in “natural rights” doesn’t come from “what makes sense”, it comes from the notion that humans did not intervene for it to happen, not “what makes sense

“negative law is not a real term”

you are 100% correct, I only use the term to stress the contrast natural law has to the positive law (since the opposite of positive would be, well, negative)

“surely they would remain a prisoner or slave?”

if humanity is standing still, there is no one pointing holding a slave to be free, if you stand still, you are not trespassing land (because it requires action)

“natural law is just a concept” yes, and that’s included in the concept, they are rights that all humans and cannot be revoked even if a bunch of politicians wrote on a paper that they revoked it

“the article should be neutral, not from ancap point of view” yes, that’s a neutral point of view because of what natural rights are, rights that cannot be enforced, only protected

“we need to focus on the article” well yes I agree but we will end up having different understandings of what the content of the page is and what to include or exclude from it like we had o the “why socialism is when gov” section, so I believe a little of theoretical discussion between us would be healthy for the article and for ourselves as well, but just a little, like you said, focusing on the page

as a final thought, I still believe we should change the occurrences of “enforcement” to “protection” because that’s what the natural law itself is, not what ancap’s point of view of it is Iron Capitalist (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A quick point we need to talk about the word “violence”, not all usages of force are violences, self-defense is a type of usage of force that is not violence, you seem to confuse both Well, what if I disagree about what's self-defense? Defending / protecting my property isn't violence? Well then what is or isn't violence depends on how property is defined. Speaking practically about the world as it exists, property is a convenient concept that is enforced by other people, the police. Is it still not violence for the police to injure people who are trespassing on my private property? I think that including "defense of property" in the nonviolent umbrella of "self defense" is not neutral, and it's in fact a highly capitalist perspective. Leijurv (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ownership is not given by “claiming”, labor needs to be mixed with it - but who defines how much labor, and what form of it is required? Who decides this, who defines this? Also, Rothbard believes that land would belong to you forever, and that you could "give" it to someone else, so it would suddenly "belong" to someone who didn't mix their labor with it. At that point everything is just based on a claim.

if humanity is standing still, there is no one pointing holding a slave to be free, if you stand still, you are not trespassing land (because it requires action) - in that case any status quo can be justified. If humanity stood still, if you are in a prison cell, you are still a prisoner because breaking out of the prison cell requires action. If humanity stood still, and a king "owns" a whole kingdom, they keep "owning" the whole kingdom because any negation of the status quo would require action. But now look at this way: if you are renting a house from a landlord and live in it, if humanity stood still, wouldn't the house belong to you because you wouldn't be paying rent and any attempt to evict you would require an action? Likewise if you have bunch of workers working at a factory and humanity stood still, wouldn't the factory belong to the workers working there, because any attempt to force them out would require an action?

I still believe we should change the occurrences of “enforcement” to “protection” because that’s what the natural law itself is - but most people don't believe natural law exists at all, or that private property is part of natural law etc.. It's like saying we should write in every article about animals that they were "created to do" something, not "evolved to do" something, because of the belief that God created all animals. Natural law isn't a universally accepted concept, just as the belief that God created the universe and everything living in it.

As mentioned by Leijurv, describing enforcing land ownership and territorial claims as "self-defence" is a very right-libertarian way of phrasing things. BeŻet (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We need different articles on AnCap summarised in a meta list

Reading the discussions here makes it very clear, that on the one hand side people who have an AnCap view want to write the article, while at the same time people who clearly don't understand the AnCap pov, want to write the article, too. For the actually neutral reader the former appears as advertisement, while the latter appears a oppression.

That brings us nowhere and the actual article is a mix far away from "neutrality", since there is simply *no* neutrality in a topic like this. Politics/Economics is not like Physics or Mathematics. I therefore think its much better to have a meta article on the topic that just contains a list of articles like

• AnCap from an AnCaps POV

• AnCap from an Anarchist PoV

• ... all major views (ideally)

Listing articles for all major views on the topic.

This is necessary because every other solution will just degrade into a battlefield of mutually exclusives views all pretending to be either neutral or superior, which of course non of them is, because we are all just humans. So for the reader its much more informative to read the topic in separated articles classified by all major views on the topic. I know if someone is fully emerged in one of many views on a theme, they can not understand that others enjoy it more to read a topic from all angles instead of reading a mess of opinion-corps from a battle-of-views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:1bc0:13ac:24fc:e50d:f294:3dfb (talk)

WP:POVFORK is the Wikipedia guideline against doing that. Leijurv (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We should just simply write what sources state in an attributive manner. The only point of view that needs to be used is neutral. BeŻet (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, there is no neutral POV for many themes. This is almost always true for political topics. Or in other words the only neutral POV is a set of non neutral views. Also the question "what is the AnCap POV of Ancap and what is an anarchist POV on AnCAp" are valid and on this meta level neutral questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:1bc0:13ac:24fc:e50d:f294:3dfb (talk)

I don't think you'll get far by calling WP:NPOV impossible. Wikipedia has decided that that viewpoint is incorrect. NPOV is the second fundamental pillar of the site, see WP:5P2, so you'll need a better argument than just proclaiming it can't be done on this article. Leijurv (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It's always possible to achieve a neutral point of view. You simply have to describe the views that a specific group of people holds, and attribute those beliefs to them. It might be difficult to do with confusing ideologies like anarcho-capitalism, but it's not impossible. For instance, anarcho-capitalists want a society where people can make "property claims" on land, means of production and personal possessions, irregardless of occupancy and use, and then defend those claims using private defence agencies, instead of relying on a state. Is this not neutral? If it's not, why? BeŻet (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@BeZet: You wrote: "It's always possible to achieve a neutral point of view. You simply have to describe the views that a specific group of people holds, and attribute those beliefs to them." That is exactly my point, too. But then you wrote "confusing ideologies like anarcho-capitalism" which disqualifies you from writing about AnCap from the AnCap pov, as of course its not confusing to them. "confusion" is a subjective not an objective state (Logical inconsistencies can be found in every political theory). So I think what you really want is to apply force and to color AnCap according to YOUR believes. The problem is, that I think you are not fully aware of that, or you do it maliciously to fight for your view and have an aversion against AnCap. This is legit, but makes it impossible for you to REALLY look on AnCap from THEIR pov, so you can not write that part! The same btw, holds true for AnCap advocates when it comes to criticism on AnCap. Much of what they write about other theories is subject to the same felony. This is a general problem, which highlights the fundamental difference between scientific (objective truth) minded people and political minded people. Unfortunately, in the end, this doesn't give us the neutrality, a non-emotionally involved reader expects from a "neutral" article. But articles become battle-fields of a fight we might call "the superiority of a view", or enforced subjectivity.

So my basic critique is that there are articles like "Vector space" that have pure external/objective definitions/truth and articles about terms like "Fairness" or in this case "AnCap" that don't have a single objective truth, but a set of subjectives views.

Fairness is the best example as left-wing and right-wing minded people more or less completely disagree about the meaning of this term. And deciding that one view is superior over other is the core problem, since it is objectively impossible. You can do it subjectively but not objectively. And I think that is what politically opinionated people don't understand.

Now to write about those categories, authors must have the ability to change views in their head objectively, which means they must be able to write from that particular angle (and not color it from their own angle). Everything else is a distortion. And personally I think this distortion is best summarised as a battle-of-views or the desire to force a subjective view to be an objective truth. Which it can never be. But in an attempt to do it, it degrades the articles quality for the uninvolved readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:1bc0:13ac:24fc:e50d:f294:3dfb (talk)

Like I said, we shouldn't write about anarcho-capitalism from the point of anarcho-capitalists (because it will be confusing) or from "my" or other people's point of view (because it will also be confusing and also violate neutrality). All we have to do is state what the sources are saying. The main issue here is that a lot of the sources used in the article are primary sources; for instance, we use a lot of works by Rothbard himself, while what is preferred is to use secondary sources. The problem here is more pronounced because anarcho-capitalists have a large number of their own interpretations of commonly used terminology. If you can help with providing high quality secondary sources discussing anarcho-capitalism, then that would be great and would help to improve the article. All articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, not from somebody's point of view. If you see some neutrality problems in the article, highlight them here so we can see how to improve the situation. BeŻet (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:DTTC. You're worrying about how best to approach something that shouldn't be done at all (writing from the pov of an ancap, or really anyone). Leijurv (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Absence of coercion

@PBZE: Hi, just wanted to discuss the phrase "capitalism is absence of coercion". While it might make sense to ancaps, I just think it's a strange sentence on its own. Capitalism is an economic system, so what ancaps are saying here is that they believe there is no coercion under capitalism, and not that capitalism is the synonym of "absence of coercion". I think without changing it, it will simply be confusing to readers who are not ancaps. BeŻet (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet What anarcho-capitalists believe is that without coercion, a free-market capitalist system will automatically form as the natural form of organization, and that anything deviating from it requires coercion to achieve, which is what I was trying to communicate. I also stole the phrasing from the article Anarchism and capitalism. It makes sense to me, and I’m not an ancap, although it’s possible that I’m more familiar with the ideology than most. PBZE (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: Thanks. I understand their position, but nonetheless I still think it should be rephrased: either to "capitalism is the result of absence of coercion", or to "there is no coercion under capitalism". BeŻet (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Ok. That’s fine to me. PBZE (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: Do you have a preference between the two? BeŻet (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: That’s a tough choice. The first one is a little more wordy but gets the main point across explicitly, and the second one sounds better but only implies the point. I guess I’d slightly prefer the second one. PBZE (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: After doing some more thinking, I realize I may have missed a subtle detail in my earlier description. Anarcho-capitalists believe in the non-aggression principle, which defines the concept of coercion as any interference with a person or their property (including the capitalist conception of private property), unless used to defend those things. So what they claim is that anything deviating from capitalism is coercion by definition, and that any action, aggressive or not, that is used to defend capitalism, is not coercive by definition. So under anarcho-capitalist ideology, "absence of coercion" and "capitalism" is literally the same thing, and my original edit to the article is accurate. That ancaps use a distinct definition of "coercion" is a subtle point, but may be important nonetheless, since things that would commonly be considered coercion, such as denying access to food or shelter, would not be under the ancap definition. I still think it's possible that the sentence "capitalism is the absence of coercion" may still be confusing to non-ancaps and therefore not appropriate regardless, but what are your thoughts on this? PBZE (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: Personally, I think that saying there is no coercion under capitalism covers this, but we could perhaps expand it so it says two things: there is no coercion under capitalism, and that capitalism results in a lack of coercion. BeŻet (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the term "anarcho-capitalism" is badly named, but that's not a critique of the concept itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4302:40A0:0:0:0:E853 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well there needs to be made a distinction between capitalism as it exists today, and the kind of capitalism that ancaps advocate for. The kind that exists today is quite different from the kind that ancaps advocate for. In its present form, there is much coersion within the capitalist system. However ancaps believe that once an anarchist position is achieved, the coercive "socialist" aspects of capitalism would be removed from it, leaving true non non coersive capitalism in its place that would be totally lacking in coersion and would be built on entirely voluntary relations. Gd123lbp (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that this is all quite confusing to a regular reader. If you talk about e.g. "socialist aspects of capitalism" etc., this may make sense to an ancap, but not to a regular person. It would be good to get some quality secondary sources talking about this in order to include this in the article, as it will use less ideological language. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Konkin

Within Anarcho-Capitalist Communities Agorism is widely considered a Sect of the ideology such as Hoppeanism or Voluntaryism with the differences between the ideologies being miniscule, Further more i'd like to say that if were allowed to reference Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Larken Rose we should be allowed to reference Konkin, i'd also like to make the case that Agorism should be grouped by that of the 12 Agorist Wikipedians about 8 of them also have Anarcho-Capitalist Userboxes rather than leaving the Userbox alone or with a Anarcho-Communist Userbox SirColdcrown (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Konkin never considered himself to be an anarchocapitalist; in fact, he said that while similar on paper, there are some key differences between the ideologies. Meanwhile, if I'm not mistaken, Hoppe self-identifies as an ancap, and often talked about what his ideal ancap society would look like. People are free to identify as whatever they want: if someone identifies both as an ancap and agorist, so be it. However userboxes shouldn't dictate what is written in articles, only reliable sources. BeŻet (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that for the most part Anarcho-Capitalism is a very Community Developed ideology, almost every Structure beyond the NAP and the Name has been widely peer developed, with online or in-person fourms coming up with most "Solutions" and "Structures" while people like Rothbard merely gave reasons as to why the state needed to be abolished and what to do from there, this is why despite people like Hoppe self identifying as AnCap him and Konkin not identifying as AnCap but writing several nutorious AnCap concepts, Hoppe and his followers are shunned from most AnCap communities while Konkin's Followers are welcomed with open arms. a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Almost every political ideology is "community developed" in the same way. We however need reliable sources in order to include information in the article. If we want to include anything regarding Konkin, we require a reliable source saying that ancaps agree with some points that Konkin has expressed - we can't just include Konkin's opinions without context, since he wasn't an ancap. Internet forums and blogs are also not quality sources, so we would need, say, a peer-reviewed analysis of the viewpoints expressed on such forums. BeŻet (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Who cares about Julian Assange?

Hi! In the context of this “ancap” article, I simply don't see why WikiLeaker journalist Julian Assange is cited for his opinion about the political ideology. It doesn't make sense. He might have authority. However, what he is cited for lacks substance and actual arguments. Merely opinions. I suggest deletion but that's just me. ToniTurunen (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Assange's opinions are totally UNDUE, so I erased it. 😁👍  Tewdar  08:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

the functions of the state

Anarcho-capitalists opposition to the state is reflected in their goal of keeping but privatizing all functions of the state.

Including protectionism and vice laws, for example? —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Justification for the statement: "The term "anarcho-capitalism" is generally seen as fraudulent and an oxymoron by anarchists."

I think this statement is under-justified. A list of anarchists who might support this claim does not justify the (weasel word) statement that anarcho-capitalism is "generally seen" a certain way "by anarchists." I believe this sentence should be deleted.

"Fraudulent" is probably not the right word. This is a minor problem, though, in comparison with the rest of the article, which is shockingly bad.  Tewdar  22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

There absolutely needs to be a review of this page by a non-biased source, this article is bad on a few levels and being heavily biased is just the tip of the iceberg. The article seems to be trying its best to say "but this isn't real anarchy" as often as possible, when the bulk of the people who say this are direct political opponents of the subject of the article.

It's like asking a bunch of Republicans if Democrats are a party that cares for the people, and then treating that as a neutral point of view. It astonishes me that anyone would even need to point out how bad of a way this is to frame an article, there's clear political bias all over this. 68.199.45.160 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say the article looks much better now, since the bickering about real anarchism has been largely moved to its own section. Regardless, the bickering about if anarcho-capitalism is real anarchism or not is largely besides the point. The article should mainly focus on explaining what anarcho-capitalism is to begin with instead. X-Editor (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

world gov

It is all the more curious, incidentally, that while *laissez-faireists* should by the logic of their position, be ardent believers in a single, unified world government so that no one will live in a state of "anarchy" in relation to anyone else, they almost never are.

This provokes two and a half questions: did Rothbard really say that? (with the asterisks?) and what has it to do with the passage to which it is attached? —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The quote comes from power and market p 1051. You can also find the article excerpted here https://mises.org/library/defense-services-free-market. The asterix styling is supposed to represent italics I guesws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meistro1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Child selling section

I feel like the child selling section is WP:UNDUE, feels like an attempt at bashing Anarchocapitalism by highlighting one of those opinions. In the spirit of WP:BOLD I am removing it. Please let me know if anyone feels it should be there. BeŻet (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

What do independent reliable sources (WP:BESTSOURCES) say about it? Llll5032 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There weren't any independent reliable sources, only quotes from Rothbard and Walter Block. This is a larger problem with the article: due to the fringe nature of anarchocapitalism, there aren't many independent sources discussing the ideology, and most of the sources are from people identifying as ancaps themselves. BeŻet (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@BeŻet What you are doing is making indecent things more "politically correct" (using for example, "guardianship rights"). Fortunately, on Rothbard's article you did not put your hands: Murray Rothbard#Children's rights and parental obligations; In Rothbard words:

"the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights"

"the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children"

Wherever these ideas have been applied, i.e., the selling of minors (by the way, unregulated) the results have been disastrous for children. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not making any moral judgement regarding anarcho-capitalism (which I personally detest), I am simply trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines. We should get WP:SECONDARY sources to establish WP:DUE. BeŻet (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you are already using primary sources, it makes no sense to include only the "positive" views. In any case, there is an obvious rift between what is written in the ancap thinkers wikiarticles and what is written on this wikiarticle. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. BeŻet (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)