Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Older discussion: /Archive 1, /Archive 2

---

Dec 8

This discussion has gotten somewhat off-track, so I'm going to attempt another summary. Before I do, I can't resist responding to your misguided "straw man" accusation. If you were reading what I wrote (clearly not), you'd know that (a) the rape example was to make a point, (b) the car example was to further explain that point (essentially by noting the two examples are the same in the relevant aspect).

lol, okey dokey, you apparently think the point you made applied to my argument though, eh? That is the straw-man, the attribution to myself a position that I do not hold which would entail mothers getting raped with sons standing on hand too confused to do anything about it.

VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the contrary. Since you failed to understand the argument the first time, I don't know if there is any point in repeating it, but here goes anyway: If an ancap defending their car in a manner consistent with the currents rights regime constitutes imposing their system, then so does thwarting the aforementioned rape with violence. The latter position is absurd, as I assume you would concede (hence the contrary).

Anyway, to summarize the terminology issue:

One side: Anarchism should refer only to a particular, fairly old belief system/movement of people who call themselves anarchists.

Um, no. There are many new movements in anarchism, for example the primitivists. This is misrepresentation on your part. All this "side" is claiming is that anarchism has a particular meaning that the capitalists purposefully ignore.

VV Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new" belief system, but it is also part of the old one. This is a minor point anyway.

Other self-described anarchists who don't share their views are impostors with no right to the term.

I don't recall saying anything about impostors or rights. I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that anarchism still has these meanings, they have not yet disappeared despite the capitalists best efforts.

VV Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that is the thrust.

Response: Anarchy in the sense used by these others refers to the absence of a state/government.

Then it is indeed a misnomer, as that is not the literal definition of anarchy. What is more, neo-classical liberals support several forms of government, thus would not be anarchists even if this is all anarchism meant.

There may be another sense in which it refers specifically to that movement, so it may be fair to say there are two different senses of the word anarchism, one "literal" and one a name of sorts.

The "literal" translation of anarchism is absence of rulers. So it just so happens that the literal meaning of the word refers to the group that bears the name. Coincidence?

VV Your POV about what constitutes a ruler.

In any case, given there is an active movement of capitalists who consider themselves anarchists, the rule of usage dictates that either there are two distinct meanings or the word must be construed broadly. The claim that this other usage is illegitimate is POV.

That is precisely why this page still exists, and isn't deleted by anarchists everytime we come across it. Capitalist views should definately be presented here, having more information allows people to see past their lies and misrepresentations more clearly. The ONLY thing I ask for, and many people through the history of this page ask for, is that the language they use not indicate an absolute truth value of their position. In other words, neutrality.

VV No such language is used, manifestly.

Other side's possible counter: But in fact they are not anarchists because what they believe in is not "true" anarchy for some reasons

Funny, in all my time here I have never said that, not even once, yet you have attributed it to me on multiple occasions

There is no qualitative difference between private security and the state, or there is no liberty if others have the right to enforce property claims, or the existence of property entails violent enforcement.

Actually that is "and," "and," and "and."

Response: Your POV. Ancaps believe there is a fundamental difference between these private institutions and government. Disagreement, however strong, is thus non-neutral. Ancaps may in turn see projected left-anarchist societies as being state-like.

Sure, both opinions ought to be presented somewhere on wikipedia. You will note that on several occasions I have now said clearly that I don't demand the anarchist position be explicated here. Again, and again, all I demand is that the language used here does not rule our position out. You constantly try to turn away from this and pretend it is about something it is not.

VV Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously explained in the intro, quite substantially since this is not an article about it.

Does that make no one an anarchist? The fact thay they believe in the absence of the state, even if their proposal seems state-like to others, makes ancaps anarchists in this sense.

Here I thought your own definitions made it clear that anarchism was against all forms of government, not merely the state. The fact that you equate the two as identical is fine, but not everyone does. As such even if we limit the word to only one of its meanings and pretend that the root does not call for far more, capitalists would still not be anarchists. But again, these arguments don't need to be on this page.

VV This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and government are potentially vague words. You seem to have implicitly conceded this by calling potential ancap institutions states in all but name, on the seeming grounds that they are government-like.

Most of the things you've said about this have in my view not been on point at all. You accuse me of having a double standard, when there's nothing to have a double standard about.

I see, so when I made changes to wording identical to changes you made yourself on other pages, and you reverted it, that was not a double standard. Apparently, neutrality simply means something different on other pages than what it means here.

I see terms such as anarcho-socialist, left-anarchist, and socialist anarchist as disambiguating.

And anarchists see them as blatantly misrepresentative.

VV How? They may seem redundant to those who think anarchism should refer only to the one position, but redundancy is not misrepresentation. French conservative would seem redundant to those who thought the only valid, historical kind of conservatism was that so called in France, and that what Russians believe is not conservative at all. But the qualifier allows us to be spared taking a position on this. The opinion of those who find it redundant is also stated very clearly in the opening paragraph.

When there are two different claims to a term, this is the best course.

Yes, so lets make a distinction here. Capitalists diverge from anarchist tradition, they do so admittedly. Capitalist DO NOT think that they arose from anarchism, it says so RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE. NONE of the original anarchists were capitalist, neither the individualists nor the collectivist. So obviously the distinction "traditional anarchist" would be valid. No? If you think it would be unclear to readers, lets even make a clause that states explicitly "this label is meant to do nothing more than disambugate between the two theories, it does not imply that "anarcho-capitalists" have no tradition of their own." Good? No? Not satisfied enough yet with your misrepresentations of anarchism? Notice, that there is no "real traditional anarchist" being suggested here, nor has it ever been on the table in this discussion. So why do you keep trying to portray the scenario as if someone is trying to distinguish between "real" and "fake" when no one is? Perhaps because you can't argue the actual issue on the table?

VV Ancaps would regard past efforts towards a stateless market order as anarchist, whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur above). Thus traditional is a troublesome qualifier. Socialist is not since you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism.

Do you really think that individualism/egoism have anything to do with socialism? Anti-capitalism != socialism. I'm reverting your revert. It would be different if you actually ran things by this discussion page before taking unilateral action. - AaronS

Spare me the claims of non-discussion; they're absurd given the history, as is the edit in question. Would you prefer anti-capitalist anarchism then to socialist anarchism as a compromise? This objection had not been brought to my attention, possibly lost in the mass of other verbiage. -- VV 23:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of my history, the claims are valid. You have done it again; thus, I am forced to revert it until more discussion is had. Both anti-capitalist anarchism and socialist anarchism are misnomers; just as it would be POV for me to call anarcho-capitalists anarcho-fascists, or some other derogatory term, it is POV to call traditional, Bakunian, Proudhonian, etc, etc anarchists anything other than that which has been historically used in reference to them. With this in consideration, the term traditional anarchism is a clear compromise. It is not POV, since, according to 99.9% of literature on the subject, it factually is traditional anarchism. - Aaron 19:50, 8 Dec 2003

Like I said long ago, one could say Russian conservative and French conservative, and thereby save arguments as to who the real conservatives are, when there are radically different competing usages. -- VV 07:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Obvious, the ancap -> lib-cap thing is not a solution. Again, the issue is not whether people should be able to choose labels for themselves, they should, but whether when there are conflicting claims to a label there should be specification as to which usage is meant. -- VV 21:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)