Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

´´The system of private property´´

What exactly is ´´the system of private property´´? Is private property a ´´system´´? I think we need a reliable source for this nonsense. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

‘Private property’ refers to a kind of system that allocates particular objects like pieces of land to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others (even others who have a greater need for the resources) and to the exclusion also of any detailed control by society.

Jeremy Waldron in The Right to Private Property:

In a system of private property, the rules governing access to and control of material resources are organized around the idea that resources are on the whole separate objects each assigned and therefore belonging to some particular individual.

Hoskins and O’Driscoll on Libertarianism.org:

A private property system gives individuals the exclusive right to use their resources as they see fit.

I am not sure why you think calling this a system is "nonsense", it's clearly a system: a set of enforced rules. In order to sustain private property claims, some sort of system is required. BeŻet (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Communism allows private property to an extent. Should the Communism article state ´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´? If not, why not? Liberty5000 (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about anarcho-capitalism, not about communism. Communism seeks the abolishment of private property. Marx and Engels define communism as the abolition of 'bourgeois property', that is, private property in the means of production (as mentioned in the Communist Manifesto).

(...) the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property

You can also read his manuscripts on Private Property and Communism. BeŻet (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC) BeŻet (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can own a toothbrush in Marx´s communism then private property has not been completely abolished. Whether or not private property in the means of production has been abolished is another matter. Knives are means of production. Would all knives be collectively owned in Marx´s communism? If not then private property in the means of production has not been completely abolished. I think a better definition of communism, at least the one advocated by Marx would be: ´´the abolition of private property in higher order capital goods´´. Liberty5000 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You can still own a toothbrush if the system of private property has been abolished. I'm not going to argue back and forth with you about the difference between personal and private property, but you don't need a system to manage ownership of toothbrushes. To manage land and property ownership claims, on the other hand, yes. BeŻet (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@BeŻet @Liberty5000 "System" I think means the legal system, which defines "property" and its modes of acquisition (e.g., accession) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. It's either a legal or political system – anything that defines the rules of how property is managed, how ownership claims are validated and how those rules are enforced. Per International Encyclopedia of Political Science by Bertrand Badie et al:

Private property cannot exist without a political system that defines its existence, its use, and the conditions of its exchange. That is, private property is defined and exists only because of politics.

BeŻet (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) BeŻet (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If ´´politics´´ means the state that is laughably wrong. Private property is older than the state. The marxist distinction between ´´personal´´ and private property is completely unscientific and arbitrary. The ´private´´ in private property refers to private ownership, as opposed to collective ownership. If something is both private and property, then by definition it is private property. This is basic logic. If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse. If someone steals my toothbrush I am allowed to take it back by force. This shows clearly that private ownership of toothbrushes is also enforced, just like any other private ownership. Liberty5000 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your opinions and interpretations don't matter here. The talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for political debates. If you have any quality sources showing that communism has a system of private property, feel free to go to the appropriate article and add that information alongside your references. Your "logic" is not sufficient here. You asked what a system of private property is, and I provided you with more than enough references, which I think are enough to help you understand the concept. I don't see what else needs discussing here. BeŻet (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not stated any opinions so far. It would have been more honest if you had written ´´Your facts and reasoned arguments don´t matter here.´´ I do think this is (unfortuneatly) true. Facts and reasoned arguments and truth don´t matter on Wikipedia. Wikipedia even has an explicit guideline which claims that Wikipedia is not about truth! The only thing that matters on Wikipedia is what the so-called ´´reliable´´ sources say. These so-called ´´reliable sources´´ are often not reliable at all, but are rather merely left wing propaganda. Do you seriously disagree with the following statement: ´´If you are blue and you are a horse then you are a blue horse´´? There is no doubt that this statement is true. This is not ´´my logic´´. This is just logic, period. The statement about private property has the same logical structure as the blue horse statement. If you accept one of them as being true then you must, by force of logic, also accept the other one. If you are unable to see this I don´t know how to help you. I still think private property is too basic to be called a ´´system´´. We can´t even imagine a society without private property. It is absurd to think that if there were no state then all private property would suddenly vanish. If you have a source which Wikipedia deems ´´reliable´´ then go ahead and add it to the article. But I don´t like you pretending that by doing so you have somehow ´´proven´´ something. That would be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Liberty5000 (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really feel like entertaining childish "logic" arguments. A horse which is blue is a blue horse, therefore property, which is private, is private property isn't an "argument" in any shape or form. It's just a tautology. Tautologies are redundant statements, they don't bring anything to the table and just make you look silly. Wouldn't you agree that property, which is personal, is personal property? Surely that's "just logic, period"? Therefore, I'm right, haha! Oh hang on a minute, terms have definitions and meanings? Etymology exists? How bizarre! A black box isn't actually black? Buffalo wings are not made from buffalo? Koala bears are not bears? What? But it's logic! Like I said, if you want to include anything in an article, provide sources to support your claims, don't use playground arguments. BeŻet (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell me, what is your ´´argument´´? What is your position based on? Your ridiculous position that a privately owned toothbrush is somehow not ´´really´´ private property. Is your argument ´´Because Marx said so´´? Who cares what Marx thought? Marx was a complete and utter crackpot and lunatic. I don´t give a damn about Marx´s opinion on any subject under the sun. ´´Because Marx said so´´ is not an argument. It is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. As for your other ´´argument´´, that can be easily disposed of as well. You seem to believe that only private property that is ´´enforced´´ is ´´really´´ private property. If I own a toothbrush I am allowed to employ violence to defend my ownership of it. If someone steals my toothbrush from me I am allowed to take it back by force. How is my ownership of the toothbrush then not enforced? I can also hire a third party to help me defend my ownership of the toothbrush. But a third party is not necessarily needed to enforce my ownership rights. If you enforce your property rights yourself, without help from anyone else, then they are enforced, no less than if they are enforced by a third party. I have now demonstrated that, even by your own standard, privately owned toothbrushes are private property. Even if your standard made sense (which it doesn´t) privately owned toothbrushes would STILL be private property! I want to move on from this debate. I am going to edit the article, unless you add a source which Wikipedia deems reliable. Liberty5000 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If someone steals my toothbrush from me, I am allowed to take it back by force - allowed by whom? I don't have time for your twisted pretzel logic, you can edit any article you want and add content, as long as you have an adequate source supporting your addition. BeŻet (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I am allowed by a society that respects the idea of private property. Please don´t call logic twisted or put quotes around the word. If you have a problem with logical thinking, that is your problem. Don´t try to make it my problem as well. According to Wikipedia policy any content that is challenged or likely to be challenged can be removed. I have now challenged this content. So I am going to remove it unless you add a source which Wikipedia deems reliable. Liberty5000 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

No, any content that is challenged on specific grounds, such as lack of sourcing, can be removed. Not any content that you simply don't like or, int this case, not understand. Since I provided you with several sources, your objections seem to be a "you" problem, not a Wikipedia problem. BeŻet (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Do the sources you provided prove that private property is a system or do they merely assert it? Liberty5000 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The article talks about a system of private property, which is a thing that exists. The article is not making any assertions that a system of private property exists. The existence of it is WP:BLUESKY. I provided you with multiple sources explaining what that means. Even Milton Friedman talks about the "system of private property". This is a very common term. I don't understand what else you need here. BeŻet (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, can I draw your attention to this quote by Rothbard, the de-facto creator of anarchocapitalism, which is also included in the article:

The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with". From these twin axioms – self-ownership and "homesteading" – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles

As you can see, it is pointless to argue about the usage of the word "system". BeŻet (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Which book is this quote from? Notice that he talks about the system of property rights titles, not the system of private property. You said that if I want the communism article to state:´´In a communist society the system of private property would still exist´´, then I would have to add a source. If that is true, then it should also apply to this article. You can´t have this double standard. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Here you go: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. The reason why you would need to add a source in the communism article is because what you're trying to add goes against all the other sources which say that communism would abolish private property. BeŻet (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to let you know that Marxist literature treats private property and personal property as completely separate concepts. Specifically, private property is something owned by an individual or corporation that generates capital (i.e rented-out houses, factories, a computer used for stocks, etc.) while personal property is anything else owned by individuals that doesn't generate capital (a toothbrush, personal home, dog, etc.). Therefore, private property would not exist in a communist society. 296cherry (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Private property is entirely a system. If your definition of "system" is so myopic and narrow that you can't apply it to how power & wealth is distributed in modern society then it's entirely meaningless. Private property was preceded by feudalism, which was preceded by various tribal and classical forms of economic production & distribution, including early slave and palace economies. These are all systems of managing and distributing wealth. Privately held capital is simply the latest iteration. Ashtarnaghö (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

References

First anarcho-capitalist president in the world

It is important to mention recent victory of Javier Milei in presidential elections in Argentina as long as he may be acknowledged as the first president that explicitly advocates for this corpus of ideas.191.97.184.179 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A section should be created on anarcho-capitalism in the real world politics in general, from factions and individuals in the boogaloo bois (e.g., Michael Robert Solomon), to all relevant politicians in the world. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV 2

The most practical solution (or if we want a compromise consistent with the guidelines) is to include both positions since there is no academic consensus.

I propose: According to its proponents in favor of stateless societies [...] for others in favor of privately-controlled statelets.

The latter position is clearly supported by Warren J. Samuels, Paul Birch and Quinn Slobodian. RVD3 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

N.b. The prevarication of some positions over others makes no sense; both should be included. RVD3 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

P.s. also Brian Morris, Bob Black, etc. claim that anarcho-capitalism precludes the state de facto. RVD3 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"in some cases, control of other people as private property." Bluntely wrong!

I know wikipedias political bias and that people should not use it for balanced views on political topics but writing missinformation like "in some cases, control of other people as private property." into the first paragraph is offensive.

A person can not be the private property of another person because the person can not transfer the ownership without dying ... The will of the person is still in their head while alive.

It is therefore plain obvious strategic dissinformation, since the non-transferability of self-ownership is basic knowledge explained in basically every bock and fundament to the core ethics of AnCap in almost every flavor. If you reference literature that claims otherwise that literature is not a valid source or so fringe that putting it into the first paragraph is probably an attempt for opinion manipulation. and certainly not something for the intro. Maybe you can write a section "pseudo-libertarianism gone wrong" or something.

But of course you will not change so this is just FYI for those seeking for unbiased political views who are not yet able to see wikpeadia clear. Even GPT >= 3.5 is more accurate, neutral and rational in explaining this. 2A00:20:3049:DDC7:4F13:1757:D393:A1CA (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The article has two sources for that, and one of them says This paper will strive to illustrate the difference between the two forms of slavery and build a case as to why the voluntary slave contract should be a permissible practice in our society. Are you saying Christopher Vandenberg is not an anarcho-capitalist? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism

This article should specify the difference between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism more. As it is, a reader with no knowledge of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism could believe that most anarchists believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Regardless of whether or not you believe this to be true, all modern anarchist (and practically all leftist) thought that i’ve seen does not classify anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. Saturniapavonia (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The article already discusses this at length. BeŻet (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)