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)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a place for marxist nonsense? Liberty5000 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 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)

To say "private property was preceded by feudalism" is itself inherently leftist idology, and stems from marx's theory of history.

And saying this as some sort of fact in the context of anarcho-capitalism article is just dishonest.

Private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals, not a "system of power".

Treating it as so is using the definitions of the opponents of libertarianist to define a libertarian ideology 2A00:A041:3795:100:576E:B44F:E09F:F410 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You say "private property for a libertarian is just all property owned by individuals", but you don't define ownership or explain how ownership is determined - this is the system we are talking about. BeŻet (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ownership means control. Liberty5000 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References

´´Similar to a state apparatus´´

I would say these words are a clear violation of the NPOV policy. I'm pretty sure that anarcho-capitalists would not agree that they advocate something that is ´´similar to a state apparatus´´. Liberty5000 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to not be included in the source and likely an editor's opinion, even if one could agree with it. BeŻet (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)