Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive1

Awfully friendly
This article is awfully friendly to its subject matter, despite it being politically way, way out there. This deserves a much larger "criticism" section. 04:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So write it? 05:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, but I think I'm out of my league here. Ever known something is wrong, but lacked the tools and vocabulary to elucidate why?   06:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have. Thousands of times. Maybe research it a bit?  06:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Skwrl to teh rescu! Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Should a section on hypocritical "anarcho-capitalists for big government" like oh for example Eric S. Raymond and Dana Rohrabacher also be added? Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray! I need to create a barnstar just for awesome people like you.  An awesomestar!   20:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to follow behind me and clean up my tendency to write run-on sentences though. Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't any citations in the "Criticism from minarchists and left-anarchists" section. Luckily, I have some sources from the left-anarchist perspective. I'll work on that... eventually. Anyone know of some minarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism? HolyKatana (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check Rothbard's For A New Liberty, he spends several chapters answering the critics of anarcho-capitalism. Might check there to find out what the critics were saying. One argument I remember (Nozick I think) was that the private defense agencies would evolve into states again.

The critique of the medieval iceland/ireland argument is not very thorough. They didn't suddenly form states, they were invaded by the british/norwegian crown. Saying that an anarchist society can't work because in the past one anarchist society has been invaded by stronger statists, is, in my opinion, a non sequitur. It's just one example where it didn't work. That's like saying slavery can't be abolished because once, a runaway slave was caught. Before the invasions, the icelandic commonwealth lasted for centuries and was much more peaceful than the european countries at the time.

Regarding Somalia: anarcho-capitalists don't claim that anything that hasn't what looks like a western democratic state is a utopia. They claim that a society in which all relations are voluntary is a utopia. Since there's warlords ruling, which are in effect micro-states in the sense that they oppress people, that's clearly not anarchist. There isn't only warlords in Somalia, though. The Somalis do have a lot of tribal/voluntary associations that look a bit like the medieval iceland case. For example, non-monopolistic laws and justice systems. Instead of the anarcho-capitalist private defense organisations, they have private defense/insurance tribes, where your tribe is liable for your actions and can consequently shun you if you mess up too much.

Nearly five years later
moved from RA's reply further up this thread "Ever known something is wrong, but lacked the tools and vocabulary to elucidate why?"
 * It's probably because it contradicts the 13 year government indoctrination program you were exposed to as a child. What you describe is called cognitive dissonance.LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fascist Tripe
Any society where you have to be a veteran to vote is, in my book, fascist. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know that this isn't the Starship Troopers article, right?

Have any of you read the Anarchist FAQ?
I think its less fringe-y criticisms will suffice for a criticism section the size of Utah.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it several years ago. I remember that they put "anarcho-" in quotes when describing anarcho-capitalism. 06:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably already know about my Anarcho-capitalist FAQ.
 * Yes, yes, your defense of your fringe view-point is admirable. However, your uncited claims about Iceland and the USA and dogmatic pushing of opinion as fact aren't helpful. Captain Swing (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It has never constituted a social movement or organized power
What is this sentence trying to say?--Barryjon (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Basically, that since a large number of people don't subscribe to it, that it must be untrue. Welcome to rationalwiki. Burkean (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Third wave of secessionists?
Interesting Reddit comment:

Is this a view outlined anywhere else, in a good citable form? - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Poison the well type argument, trying to imply AC=some sort of racist ideology through Alex-Jones style conspiracy theories. "They" lost the civil war? They who? Anarcho-capitalists? Really? WTF does Rand Paul have to do with AC?LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not poisoning the well, if it's anything it's the association fallacy in the case of Rand Paul. Still, why on earth would anyone employ someone like the as their political aide and co-writer unless sympathising with his views? What this Reddit comment points out is that the hatred of the gub'mint by self-declared anarcho-capitalists in the U.S. seems to come hand in glove with some rather... interesting views on race and American history. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This article presents a statist strawman
Lol, now the statists want to just hide the argument since they have no logical refutation. Run away/denialism. Quite predictable. Censor the rationalist critique of their religious zealotry.LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says taxation/extortion is an act of aggression toward the property. This is a huge strawman version of what ACs really believe. Taxation/extortion is aggression toward the property OWNER, not the PROPERTY. This distinction is pretty significant. Mugging you is not attack against your wallet, it is an attack on YOU.LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the legal obligation to fill your own taxes is a form of forced labor, making it an even more obvious attack on YOU. Also, prepare for a lot of supposed rationalists to call you naive and dumb, without ever addressing any of your points. --Norman (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's so predictable, I basically take it as an axiom at this point. It's either that or: say something contradictory like "it's by consent, you don't just get to opt out" or to run away/ denial/ gaslighting: "What are you talking about? No one makes you pay taxes", etc...LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The idiot was agreeing with you, dummy. Ikanreed (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I know he was...thanks for providing more evidence for the axiom.LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * Don't forget that the legal obligation to fill your own taxes is a form of forced labor, making it an even more obvious attack on YOU. Also, prepare for a lot of supposed rationalists to call you naive and dumb, without ever addressing any of your points. --Norman (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The strawman basically is a combination of denial and aggression: denial in that it refuses to even confront the actual idea, aggression in that it is attempt to perpetrate an intellectual fraud. The idea of committing "aggression" against an inanimate object is kind of absurd so to present that as an actual position of AC is much easier to "shoot down". It is much easier than to deal with the cognitive dissonance experienced due to the cult-indoctrination program of public education, where children are indoctrinated into the government religion in a an intensive 13 year program.LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Everyone but me must be crazy, it can't be that an-cap is nonsense and the real world is complicated!!!!" Chill dude. No one is falling for decades of manipulation, you've just totally bought into a really, really poorly thought out philosophical system.  Ikanreed (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you mean "idiot" as an insult but really, I think for an anarchist it is a compliment if it comes from a statist. Idiot in the classical sense means one who does not believe in what I would call the government religion. http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/7538/The-word-Idiot-has-a-completely-different-origin-than-what-you-might-thinkLogicMaster777 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, joy, LogicMaster tries to hijack another talkpage. How long should he be humoured before we archive it alongside his similar attempt to hijack the Statism talkpage? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Move it all into Debate:Is the government a religion? ALL of it, even the other debates. 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea. He's just going to expand the debate into other talk pages because he's not getting enough attention.  His pet idea doesn't really relate to the subject in any way that can be communicated effectively, let alone accepted in reality.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno, he might have a point here. I wouldn't really consider taxation as aggression towards property. Anarcho-capitalists (in my understanding) see property as an extension of the individual, which means that any violation of someone's property is a violation of that person's individual rights. The current phrasing in the article doesn't really, or not really unambigously, present it like that. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Would it work? -> Iceland
The article claims that medieval Iceland "soon" developed a government. The thing is, the Althing - which marked the beginning of the Icelandic Commonwealth - was established in 970 AD, and the Old Covenant - which ended the Commonwealth - was signed in 1262 AD. In other words, Iceland had almost 300 years of glorious anarcho-capitalistic rule of no one (or minarchistic rule, whatever). The USA, meanwhile, had its current constitution for around 227 years. Therefore, Medieval Iceland definitely qualifies as a proof that a government that is limited and decentralized (or non-existant, judging on who you ask) can be stable, just as the USA would be seen by future historians as proof that a democratic state with a bill of rights and a rule of law can be stable.

The only reason why I haven't changed the article yet is because I don't want to waste my time rewriting the entire section only for someone to come up and tell me that no, 300 years don't qualify your system as a stable system and by the way your mother is a whore. So here's my question: Does anyone have any objections to what I just said or can I rewrite it? --Norman (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideas that the Icelandic Commonwealth was some sort of anarcho-capitalist system would be incorrect, though. The Althing was one of the earliest examples of a limited parliamentary system; the Icelandic Commonwealth would be best described as a federated religious democracy primarily serving inherited oligarchical positions.
 * Anarcho-capitalism is characterized by the complete lack of any government structure, and especially would not include an Althing. Anarcho-capitalist areas (it would be improper to call them states) would have no government, not limited and decentralized government. And government definitely existed in Iceland in that period. Note that a complete absence of government is in accordance with anarcho-capitalism as promoted by Rothbard, Friedman, et al. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of critique is already included in the article, and for now, I plead no contest. In any case, the system of Medieval Iceland was stable enough to last longer than the US has lasted so far. --Norman (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. But what I'm saying is that the Icelandic Commonwealth was not[ anarcho-capitalist, while it appears that you are saying the Icelandic Commonwealth was anarcho-capitalist. Do I have that correct?
 * Also, when the article is referring to medieval Iceland "soon" developing a government, it is referring to the Althing/Icelandic Commonwealth formed in 920AD. If you think that's unclear, I'd recommend editing that appropriately. --Castaigne (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough to say whether the Icelandic Commonwealth was anarcho-capitalist. The Althing is commonly referred to as a parliament, but before I have ruled out that a secret-twist exists in the entire story that turns it into a mere voluntary gathering, I'm not going to declare the Commonwealth either anarcho-capitalistic or minarchistic. Neither will I go with the consensus, because such a consensus does not seem to exist. I could do the relevant research right now, but that would take a while and I don't think it's relevant.


 * Anyway, here's an excerpt from the article:


 * Anarcho-capitalists cite medieval Iceland and 17th century Pennsylvania but if anarchism really worked why did they soon develop governments? Both were really minarchist societies to begin with - Iceland's althing and Pennsylvania's caretaker state government during the colonial era, and more to the point, both were monolithic, agrarian, and isolated cultures at the time[...]


 * "To begin with" is the important part. It implies that this "glorious era" mentioned by anarcho-capitalists began with the establishing of the Althing. I changed that section now, to remove the reference to the Icelandic Commonwealth not lasting long. --Norman (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence is crap
I quote:

Anarcho-capitalism is a fringe political philosophy that mainly exists online and at reactionary think tanks.

First of all, how can a philosophy exist online? I seriously don't understand what the fuck this part of the sentence is trying to tell me, really. It's not like ancaps exist in cyberspace. They are real, living people of flesh and blood, and some of them existed long before shitposting on the internet was born. Maybe they are screaming louder online than in real life, but the same can be said about fucking everyone, except maybe the stupid lefties who burn a police car every second weekend.

Second, the distinction between reactionary and progressive is shit and it always was shit, and in this case, it is applied falsely even if we accept it in the first place. Sure, ancaps are conservative in some regards, but in other regards, they have nothing in common with conservatives. Remember, Rothbard called conscription a form of slavery. That's not a conservative position by any stretch of the word. Likewise, he was completely against locking supposedly dangerous people up unless they had committed a crime. How is that conservative? He also argued that the victim should have the right to pardon his offender. Again, not the least bit conservative.

My advice: Find a better introduction for the article, one that isn't factually incorrect and absolutely fucking retarded. --Norman (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "(negative) freedom"? Is it self-evident to everyone but me? Clarification, please. MarmotHead (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A succinct explanation. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Somalia
(moved from User talk:MaillardFillmore 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)): - Which parts of the article do you think where hilarious and frightening? --Norman (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just what it says in the RW article: That "there are some anarcho-capitalists who cite Somalia as an example of a thriving stateless society" is both hilarious and frightening. MaillardFillmore (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that they don't say that. All they say is that Somalia is doing better without a government (which is true), that efforts to create a new government are doomed for failure (which is also true) and that Somalia has a legal system without a government (again, true). --Norman (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

-
 * It is a puff piece, using selected supportable facts to paint a rosy picture of Somalia as handling themselves according to their own lights, and doing well at it, thank you very much. They have a "thriving" telecom sector, and their cattle economy is doing well, accompanying a strong currency compared to a couple of neighboring countries. MaillardFillmore (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Somalia is doing better at pretty much everything than its neighboring countries, safe for literacy-rates. Tell me, which factors could they have mentioned that would've prevented the article from becoming a "puff piece", as you call it? --Norman (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you literally fucking insane? --Madman (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
 * Have you got something useful to say, too? --Norman (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Combining a few figures, remittances are 25% the size of their GDP. That sounds like a society/economy that can't meet its own needs. Are you saying it's just better than its neighbors or that it's actually objectively good? MarmotHead (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just checked some numbers again. Actually, Somalia is currently not better off than its neighbors, as far as I can see. I was mistaken, regarding that. Not sure about the development rates of Somalia compared to its neighbors; some seem to have been much higher. I've heard contradictory things about Somaliland and Puntland regarding whether they are doing better than Southern Somalia. All in all, it's complicated. The point still stands that Somalia is doing better now than it did under its government, but then again, most regions now are healthier and more prosperous than they were 20 years ago.


 * No, I didn't change my mind about the article not deserving the mockery it got. As I said, the topic is complicated, more complicated than I thought, and it is for exactly this reason that we should not dismiss a view outright just because it goes against our preconceptions. --Norman (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd heard that about varying prosperity/safety in regions of Somalia. I agree with your revised opinion. To be fair, Somalia is doing better than I'd expect. MarmotHead (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about Anarcho-capitalism
I've been reading up on anarcho-capitalism and it seems to be a far-fetched system to me but a few of my friends have given some pretty good arguments in defence of it which I haven't been able to refute entirely. For example, in a world with no states how would business monopolies and defence monopolies develop without the assistance of the state? It seems very unlikely that a monopoly would develop with competition on a global scale. Additionally, while I personally feel that taxation, democracy and government are beneficial, taxation still isn't consensual and the social contract argument isn't very convincing. Also isn't it possible for public goods like national defence, healthcare, law enforcement, roads etc. could be financed voluntarily? These are all things that people want and couldn't peer pressure and the threat of other agencies taking your business ensure that people adequately finance these things. Any suggestions? (Also, can we please be civil and not just starting bickering like kids? I'm new to the site and so far I've seen a lot petty mudslinging and I want this discussion to be serious yet calm.)Random guy (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Somalia. No state there, surely it's a paradise right?  Logic is great and all, but it always trumped by Evidence. CorruptUser (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then an anarcho-capitalist would say that this is a country which doesn't have a long tradition of capitalism so they haven't experienced the full benefits of the system. They would then argue that capitalism is based trust, cooperation and there is an incentive to behave well due to a profit motive. As long as there is a set of agreed rules based on the non-aggression principle then you shouldn't need the state. Also on the wiki it says that a study supposedly showed that Somalia had improved in certain areas and an ancap would argue that life in Somalia is comparable to other African countries which have states. Random guy (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be uncomfortably close to a No True Scotsman argument? ScepticWombat (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. But then how much better would they have done under their oppressive and exploitative state that they had before 1991? An-caps argue that if anarcho-capitalism was established in developed countries like the United States of the United Kingdom then it would be highly unlikely that those countries would descend to the level of chaos witnessed in Somalia. Random guy (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better. If Tyranny wasn't preferable to Anarchy, why is it when the government disappears people begin supporting tyrants?  Your friends have lived in a bubble their whole lives, and never once had to live in a world where the police just disappear.
 * Really, we need a name for the type of ignorance involved where the closer we get to someone's "goal" the worse things become, yet that person won't admit their idea is shit.CorruptUser (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, I agree with the bubble point. But then you could argue that people don’t want to support the tyrants but that they’ve been coerced into doing so for their own safety. Also, the transition to the stateless society was a result of a failed coup; they ousted Siad Barre from power but he wasn’t directly replaced by one group. So you could argue that the transition to this anarcho-capitalist society wasn’t planned or philosophically understood by the people in Somalia. It wasn’t the intended outcome. If anarcho-capitalism was implemented through voluntary means through persuasion and elections etc. then would there be a better outcome? Random guy (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So (1) Somalia isn't an an-cap society (2) but because of an-cap, Somalia is doing better? 100% logical. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with anarchists is they think that people will follow the "rules" of an-cap in a stateless society. Why would the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) hold in a stateless society? Why wouldn't new governments rise (like the many tribal / religious / narcotic-based governments in Somalia)? People tend to do things that help themselves and their families out in the short run; the NAP only makes a tiny bit of sense in the long run, but who's going to obey the "don't kill people and take their food" principle right now when they're starving right now? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The social contract doesn't exist. Simplest explanation. Governments are based on coercion, simple as that. But coercion is not necessarily bad. Is preventing a murderer from killing bad? Because that's coercion. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FuzzyCatPotato – The argument is that the transition to an an-cap society wasn’t smooth, intended and or properly implemented. But despite that, some studies (which I haven’t read entirely so I’ll take with a pinch of salt) suggest that they are doing better in some areas because of doing away with their oppressive government and adopting an-cap ideology. The areas of improvements include some health indicators, telecommunications access and ease of doing business. So an an-cap would say that if it was implemented properly and peacefully in a country in a country of capitalism (e.g. UK) then they would be able to realise benefits even more so.


 * Also, I agree with you that the NAP wouldn’t probably hold. People have been taught the values of the NAP since civilisation began anyway. Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not covet didn’t stop many wars did it? I would imagine that new states would could be in this new world but that they would have to be established voluntary and people would be allowed to leave them. Also an-caps believe that private charity would be able to help the poor and unemployed and that competing private defence agencies in a global free market would deter violence and hinder one from committing corruption or unwanted aggression. So they’ll lose customers and face the wrath of other competing agencies surrounding them. Oh yeah and the free-market would result greater prosperity for everyone supposedly without question so there would be many poor people. A bit of wishful thinking if you asked me.


 * I would like to know what you guys think would happen if anarcho-capitalism was implemented through democratic means in a country like the UK. Complete chaos? Random guy (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I would have thought that the use of force to prevent a murderer from killing another person is justified under the NAP as you are justified to defend yourself from aggression and anyone else from aggression if their life, liberty or property is in danger. Would you consider the use of force to coerce other people's children into education systems which their parents don't want to be immoral? Random guy (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If the NAP allows prevention of murder, then why not just keep a police system? It's a lot less likely to permit injustice than any ancap alternative. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is that people are forced to pay for the government’s police system, which is a violation of the NAP itself, which for example in America black men are routinely discriminated against and killed without a justifiable cause in numerous situations (Tamir Rice, Walter Scott etc.). In an an-cap world, with a choice of different police agencies to choice from, the police have an incentive to behave and not discriminate and kill innocent civilians otherwise they would lose market share to other better-behaved agencies who aren’t committing such crimes. Thus, police brutality would decrease across the board due to incentives. In theory anyway. Random guy (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Intro
IMO hogeyes recent edit is a bit whitewashey, but does also add some good information, i belive that it is okay, but it could be rwified a bit. Bubba41102Taste the shortness 16:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Someone undid it for no reason, so I will revert to my version. If you have a question or issue, then please post it here. Hogeye (talk)

The intro goes:


 * Anarcho-capitalism is a fringe political ideology that valorizes the freedom of the individual from any constraint on his or her actions …

This is false and absurd. What does “valorize freedom” mean? My alternate description was better: “...prioritizes freedom of the individual over other political values.”


 * “...from any constraint” Is someone ignorant or kidding? Anarcho-capitalists have a very clear constraint - non-aggression.

The current version reads more like a statist biased hit piece than a legitimate article.
 * "Statist." LOL. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unable to answer my two points, I see. So you just brainlessly reverted. Sheesh! Hogeye (talk)


 * And how will you enforce said constraint without violating it? Ah, you can't! Either there is no restraint, or there is arbitrary restraint (with arbitrators constituting de facto governments). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Now it says "supports individual freedom either over any constraint" which doesn't even parse. Hogeye (talk)

paedophilia, slavery and other advocation
If I started grabbing all the paedophilia and slavery advocating that the subreddit /r/anarcho_capitalism does, would that be addable?Keter (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Provide us with a brief list of example sources here on the talkpage, and we can all examine what is nutpicking and what is representative and useful? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Have you noticed the extreme incompetence and passivity of ancaps?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/4wuvnx/have_you_noticed_the_extreme_incompetence_and/

In which the "marxist rationalwiki" is praised for its high SEO. 13:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oxymoron?
Hear me out here, but isn't anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron of a ideology. Capitalism is an economic system that necessitates hierarchy or at least creates it no matter how you slice it. Anarchism is a philosophy founded from a rejection of hierarchy (but not necessarily order). So how can the two systems be complementary? You cannot both be capitalist and against hierarchy.Existential Toad (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is about correct. Anarcho-capitalists don't want to do away with hierarchy, though, just with all governments, i.e. the bastards that have the gall to excercise power without earning it capitalistically. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They also have this entire spiel about corporations (and by extension, crony capitalism) being created by the government and that it would disappear should the government be dissolved. Existential Toad (talk)
 * Yeah, 'cause it would never simply result in the replacement of the current style of state and/or crony capitalism with a plutocracy... ScepticWombat (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, they're naive/crazy enough to think a for-profit justice system would be fair to all and totally not corrupt, so yeah... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one of the biggest deal breakers for me, private courts. Having different for profit legal systems (many of which I am sure would have competing definitions on certain aspects of the law) and private police is rampant for abuse. I'd foresee massive collusion between private security contractors and prison firms (seeing as they both benefit from having the strictest laws possible). Existential Toad (talk)
 * No, anarcho-capitalism is not an oxymoron. The basic defintion of capitalism is ", an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Capitalism, by definition, does not require a government. Anarchism is ", a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups." Both idelogoies are individualist ideologies. So I do not see how capitalism and anarchism cannot go hand in hand. Also, people having more money than you is not a hierarchy or oppression. How can there be a hierarchy if there's not government? AIDS Skrillex (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's more a definition of laissez-faire than capitalism per se; capitalism is specifically an economic and political system in which income can be derived from ownership of capital, which historically and inevitibley requires a state to enforce specific property rights; hierarchy can exist without a state e.g. the patriarchal family, clerical religions, etc.109.156.110.177 (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's the actual defintion. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism Also, how does the state enforce and protects property rights, when the state itself is the biggest violator of private property rights? AIDS Skrillex (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The state enforces and protects specific property rights by brutalizing those who claim different rights. Also, the dictionary definition of anarchy is chaos.109.156.110.177 (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to show such bias on this subject?
The edits made recently, and reverted, seem to be rather strange. Looking at what was changed, it appears that inflammatory language was removed, but the substance still remained. Then it was ultimately undone and protected, claiming that the edits were done by a "fanboy". It seems to me that biased points of view should be in the criticisms section, and not in the main body. Otherwise, why would anyone take this as being a serious examination of the subject? It reads now like a page from conservopedia.
 * We are proudly and sanely biased against the view that praexology isn't a pseudoscience, that anarcho-capitalism is an actual variant of anarchism, and indeed that a free baby market ought to be legal. The result is a remarkably well written article, indeed a serious examination of an ideology that can't be serious. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "We are proudly and sanely biased against the view that[...] anarcho-capitalism is an actual variant of anarchism". On what grounds, may I ask? Solely because "traditional anarchists" (which seems like a pretty oxy-moronic term to me, to be honest) reject them? Even though most of the article is indeed serious and well-written, I find the comparison to Christian scientists in the introduction unjustified and overly snarky. Anarcho-capitalism is indeed fringe, utopian and likely unfeasible, but etymologically, the use of the "anarchy" part in the portmanteau appellation is justified, as the ideology describes/aims for a stateless society or autarchy. I especially view the agorist and voluntarylist branches to be very close to market-anarchism, if not identical to it. This is actually supported by passages of the Anarchism article. Since I'm a newbie and have only been a lurker so far, I prefer to present the dissenting opinion in the Talk section rather than trying to push an edit. Bourriquet (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Anarcho-capitalism is indeed fringe, utopian and likely unfeasible, but etymologically, the use of the "anarchy" part in the portmanteau appellation is justified, as the ideology describes/aims for a stateless society or autarchy." Except anarchism aims for not just a stateless society, but for a society without hierarchical power, including that involved with capitalism (employer over employee).109.156.110.177 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to talk about yourself in third person - I'm 95% sure you're the same guy that used two different IPs to edit this page (after which you got banned), and given the exact content of your edits I'm also pretty damn sure you're just a sock of . So why all this sock-using and don't just use your own account?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the person who started this criticism is not the person who edited the page yesterday and this morning, that was me. I did it from two ip addresses because I did it from two different places. I wasn't trying to avoid getting banned because, frankly, I expected more from this group and didn't think getting banned would be an issue. I (clearly incorrectly) assumed that rationalwiki would actually act rationally and not juat shut down opposing opinions. Incidentally, I'm also not Hogeye.  I don't have an account or username here, I just came across the page, saw something I perceived as wrong, and edited it.  However, given the reception I have received, this obviously isn't the place for education or rational dialogue.  So please feel free to return to your circle-jerk, I'll take my opinion somewhere else. 205.197.242.190 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Think about what you're doing. This page is labeled as important, indicated by the brainstar in the top-right corner. Rather than bringing up your disagreements on the talk page asking why your edits were reverted and trying to work with us, you simply kept hitting "undo" repeatedly (which is behavior most commonly seen with trolls and fanatics). As for the tone, please see SPOV and Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki. I can understand how a new user, like yourself, could make such a mistake. On the other hand, if you're just going to take the actions of two users and apply them to the entire userbase, then I don't think we even want you here. Have fun in your commune. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I love it. Comes for the rational dialog and stays long enough to revert a bunch of times (without any dialog) and proceeds to lecture everyone about how they are wrong because...well, they feel strongly they are right without any sort of dialog.  It's amazing to me the people who claim to be the most rational and interested in dialog are frighteningly opposite.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * every time I post something, Joris bans me. I'm tired of constantly getting new ip addresses, so when the bans are lifted I'll be happy to have a conversation. This whole thing happened largely because I assumed that this place works like the regular Wikipedia. That was the assumption I was working under when I made the changes, and when I undid the revisions. While I was obviously wrong, it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise given the name of the website.
 * Dude. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Obvious Bias is Obvious
I'm sort of new around here so I might be missing a meme common to pages on this wiki as opposed to wikipedia style work... But the bias and rampant inaccuracies in this article are so bad as to make it almost a parody of the truth. Is veracity not the goal of RationalWiki? There is as much truth here as there is in the Christian Science propaganda. I see also from the history that edits to correct these problems would be reverted immediately.

To cite one blatant example -- the Definition section spends the majority of its space talking about how people that oppose An-Caps define An-Caps as invalid rather than any actual defining language detailing the actual points of the movement as you would expect in any serious definition verbiage.&mdash; Unsigned, by: DisenthrallMe / talk / contribs


 * We don't try to be "unbiased" like Wikipedia. That said, if there is a factual inaccuracy in the article you're welcome to correct it (with credible sources of course). Christopher (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing the definition of 'anarchy' to disprove ancap philosophy.
Lots of that going on... Who cares if ancaps are or aren't real anarchists (they are), the only thing that matters is the argument. Now, I don't expect any of you commies to comprehend logical consistency, but ancap philosophy is based around the notion of 'just doing nothing'. This cannot be hypocritical, nor (internally at least) inconsistent. Taxation is not 'rent' because not even (most governments) the state itself claims ownership of the country as their private property; according to the homestead principle, to initially (and rightfully) claim ownership of unowned land, you must mix the land with your labor (which I can say, no government has probably ever done). The government has no right to stop me from not paying them some of my money when I am starting up a business and selling shit to the 'hot singles in my area'.Blandragny (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)