Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Anti-State & Libertarian

If the only sources of these claims are from Anarcho-Capitalist pundits I'm not sure it is best to advertise them as central to the ideology. For example, if Stalinists claimed that their ideology was democratic we wouldn't uncritically add "democratic" to the first line of the article.

The degree to which Anarcho-Capitalism is truly libertarian and anti-state is extremely contentious. It seems to me to be giving the Ancap pov undue authority in the article to start with the such major concessions. RealLibertyEnjoyer (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

While the source in the lead is from a site that is likely at least sympathetic to Anarcho-Capitalism, there are at least some sources describing it as anti-statist in the body that are definitely not Anarcho-Capitalist pundits, like Lisa Duggan writing in Dissent (American magazine) (who puts scare quotes around “free market”, but not anti-statist), or Ruth Kinna, who is a scholar who generally studies more traditional anarchism, or the big list of citations in the classical liberalism section. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to tweaking the lead despite this ("state" and "libertarianism" are complicated and just because something is citable in the body doesn't mean it's suitable for defining the topic in the first sentence) - but we would need something to replace it with, preferably some core definition used by a bunch of high-quality sources. Did you have something in mind? Another option, if you have sources supporting the idea that the degree to which Anarcho-Capitalism is truly libertarian and anti-state is extremely contentious, is to just add those sources; depending on how clear the dispute is, the relative quality of the sources, and where the balance point is weight-wise we could then cover the disagreement in that regard. But we'd need those sources to even start, both to support the existence of a dispute and in order to articulate how they disagree. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How is being in favor of abolishing the state not anti-statist? The anti-statist views of anarcho-capitalists are well documented. Liberty5000 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Meistro1 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC) I take issue with "In the absence of statute". Under the Rothbardian system at least, there would be a codified body of law. So statutes would exist.

Surely there would be multiple competing bodies of law? —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Not the way Rothbard saw it. David Friedman on the other hand had a different point of view. Meistro1 (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Rename to Paleo Propertarianism.

Proper name of this tendency. 2601:200:4000:7DA:F4D7:3989:293D:FE4 (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a neo-propertarianism? —Tamfang (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hard pass.Meistro1 (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

[Voluntary] slavery

@Grayfell: The status quo has been "voluntary slavery" since this edit in mid-September. Voluntary slavery is a separate article so it's not jargon or a euphemism. Not including the word "voluntary" is misleading, akin to saying that somebody who is pro-abortion rights is pro-abortion. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A SPA changed it from where it was and it took a while for anyone to notice. The status quo is what it was before it got changed, obviously.

"Pro abortion"? That's one hell of a comparison.

"Voluntary slavery" is, at best, a poorly-defined subset of slavery, but that's being pretty generous. The term as used here would be libertarian jargon (although even Rothbard recognizes that it's an oxymoron). Wikipedia articles should not obfuscate words by using jargon.

Further, neither of the sources for this in the lead are strong enough to legitimize the fringe concept of "voluntary slaver".

That the concept itself has an article doesn't make it any less fringe, nor does it make this any more or less euphemistic or jargon-like in any way. We have countless articles for jargon terms, after all.

Also, look at Voluntary slavery and that article's sources. It's a hot mess which fails to even properly define the concept as a topic. I do not see how linking to that article here is going to provide readers with a better understanding of this topic. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The slavery sentence was first added in February of this year, and was also removed from late June to early August, so not a long-standing consensus. I've never heard an argument to avoid linking to a more specific article because of its quality (we link to stubs, for example). Regardless, I suggest a couple compromises:

1. Change it to either a voluntary form of slavery or "voluntary slavery" with quotes.
2. Keep voluntary slavery but only link slavery.

My goal here is simply to avoid giving the reader the impression that anarcho-capitalists are fine with slavery as it existed in early-1800s America, which is I think what many assume when they hear "slavery" with no qualifications. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The word voluntary in voluntary slavery refers to the fact that the individual voluntarily signed the contract. Voluntary slavery is not voluntary in any other sense. And Walter Block wouldn't claim that it is voluntary in any other sense. So in reality, there is no disagreement. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

neutrality is leftist?

To get a discussion started in lieu of edit-warring, I applaud the recent change that specifies which anarchists insist on a narrow definition of anarchism as anti-propertarian, and which Grayfell sweepingly reverted on grounds of "neutrality". —Tamfang (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)