Talk:Anarchism

A minor technical issue

The reference to Lysander Spooner's book "Poverty: Its Illegal Causes And Legal Cure" (currently reference #64) is producing a broken link. I don't understand why. Perhaps someone who knows how to do so can fix it and remove this segment from the talk page. I have put this at the top in anticipation of quick resolution. Αναρχία 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussion

A full list of talkpage archives can be found here:Talk:Anarchism/Archives

• Posts from Sept. 13 to Sept. 26 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive 43. Hogeye 18:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-09-27 to 2006-10-06 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive 44. -- infinity0 00:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-10-07 to 2006-11-03 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive 45. -- Donnacha 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-11-03 to 2006-12-24 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive 46. Note however that there are old posts still in here: and with the exception of one last post, Archive 46 ends at December 10 or so. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Posts from 2006-11-10 to 2007-01-05 are now at Talk:Anarchism/Archive 47. As there were no active discussions, I shoved it all away. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Social Control, Hierarchy, and Authority

t I reverted Nihilo's edit. All three terms need further explanation. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Social Control - I'm not sure what this means in this context. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy - Agree. but definitions are needed. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Authority - Disagree. IIRC Bakunin brings up the example of the astronomer, with an official position (irrational authority), and who has become an expert on the stars (rational authority). Anarchism rejects the former to accept the latter. Jacob Haller 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the past definition of anarchism was constant source of edit wars. Since current definition is the least controversial, it shouldn't be changed by adding social control, hierarchy and authority qualifiers. Different anarchist traditions have different views on these issues, and adding them will probably lead to edit warring and article instability. -- Vision Thing -- 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Social control term, includes the kind of rulership that not necesarily needs a personal ruler or a ruler class, is a structure that is opressive but works by all the integrants of the opressive circle. See post structuralism. Hierarchy es a basical term yhat should be included and remenber that many traduccions of anarchism from the greek say "without bosses".

--Nihilo 01 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Social control" is not opposed by all anarchists. Ostracism is a form of social control, as is private police as advocated by individualists such as Benjamin Tucker. "Hierarchy" is very vague, and I haven't seen a source saying all anarchists against it, whatever it is. If by "bosses" you mean being employed, Benjamin Tucker supports the choice to be employed or self-employed, whichever individuals prefer. Or as Voltairine de Cleyre confirms, the individualists "are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." If "social control" and "hierarchy" applies to anarchism, I think it would only apply to social anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that de Cleyre didn't believe that herself for very long. Blockader 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And, once again, Tucker actually desired a system in which all were equally dependent on wages, in which there would be no employer-employed hierarchy. In Liberty, "hierarchy" is almost always used in connection with religious or political institutions, where rank is (as Encarta and a couple of other dictionaries put it) "formal." It is also, at times, opposed to free competition. FWIW, the phrase "social control" appears in Liberty exactly once, in a letter from Hugo Bilgram, which Tucker criticizes sharply for not meeting his standards of noninvasive and voluntary association. Libertatia 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If employer and employee both receive pay in accordance to how much labor exerted, and in the same proportion, it is still an employer/employee hierarchy. The employer is still the boss who can hire and fire at will and directs the employee as to what he should be doing.Anarcho-capitalism 18:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If each parties to a contract are equally dependent on wages—which Tucker desired in a state of equal liberty—there is no hierarchy, any more than there is a hierarchy in any other free transaction. If there are "bosses" under anarchism, then that designates only a function within the division of labor, not a rank. If there was any point in Tucker's career where he had time for schemes of hierarchical rank, I haven't seen any evidence of it. His later egoism certainly leaves no room for it. Some an-caps seem to cling to bossism, as if the arbitrary "firing" of a contracted laborer would not be a breach of contract all consistent free markets anarchists would consider at least "very bad form." Libertatia 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It just goes to show how vague "hiearchy" is. I call employer/employee situations a hierarchy regardless of what the pay situation is because the employee is subordinate to the employer, obviously. The employer directs the employee and the employee answers to him. If he doesn't do his job well enough, he is fired. By the way I've never heard of a contract that prevents an employee from being fired. That would be insane. I don't know what "breach of contract" you're talking about. Unless there is a contract to the contrary, all free-market anrachists would permit an employer to fire someone for any reason they wish, even simply because they don't like the way the worker looks.Anarcho-capitalism 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not much "vagueness" here. Apparently, you think that anarchism and subordination of one individual to another are compatible. In that, you differ from pretty much all consistent anarchists. It is probably true that all market anarchists would permit arbitrary "firing," because market anarchists are notoriously (and appropriately) slow to forbid. Under state-supported capitalism, employees fired for other than "cause" are eligible for compensation from the state, because, even under a hierarchical system, arbitrary dismissal is considered bad form. Under equal freedom, if you behave like a boss, the consequence is likely to be that nobody contracts with you. Why contract with someone who can't behave themselves? The division of labor is a means by which profit can be generated through voluntary association, but in the world Tucker envisions the employer in this case is going to be the employed in another; no formal hierarchy will exist, as those classifications will designate roles rather than identities. While very little may be "forbidden," there will still be consequences. Even egoists have been known to invoke the Golden Rule. Libertatia 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary subordination. Contracting to be the employee of someone else is voluntary subordination and totally consistent with individualist anarchism (the only true anarchism, as long as it's not "mutaulist" which allows the theft of the product of labor in tranformed land, homes, buildings, etc). A workplace with employees is a hierarchy of voluntary cooperation and subordination. In what Tucker is talking about, the employee is the one who owns a means of production and the employee is one that doesn't. The employer and employee both receive incomes in proportion to how much labor exerted. But there is still a voluntary hierarchy and voluntary subordination. The employer tells the employee what to do. The employee agrees and therefore receives pay. If the employee doesn't agree then he leaves or his fired, whichever comes first. It's exactly the same under Tucker's system or anarcho-capitalism except for the ridiculous quibbling over whether someone is recieving the proper amount of pay as dictated by the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalism 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Read Liberty. The individualist anarchists you claim held this view quite consistently used the term "subordination" to indicate governmental function, usurpation, repression of the individual, and various other things they consistently opposed. The fact that you insist on terms which they consistently rejected is just another instance of a significant difference in values. In any event, the important issue, where Tucker is concerned is that "employer" and "employee" are not, under equal liberty, anything other than roles which which parties will occupy now and then, but which will not define them. Hierarchy, in the broad sense, is not part of the picture. He was quite explicit that he desired a situation where all work was waged, and where significant monopolies has lost their state support. What you are describing is entirely outside and against the spirit of the Liberty group. Libertatia 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to argue semantics? I call employment subordination, i.e. voluntary subordination, regardless of what pay anyone is receiving, and you don't. So what? I am not arguing anything outside "the spirit of the Liberty group" except for their ridiculous belief in the labor theory of value and the belief of Tucker that it's ok to steal land and homes when the owner's are not using them.Anarcho-capitalism 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question was what anarchists thought of "hierarchy," and, outside of the an-cap movement, anarchists have generally thought rather unkind things about it. It probably isn't just a matter of semantics whether or not I am "subordinate" or just one of two equal contractees in a voluntary association, particularly as you expect bosses to be, well, bossy, on the basis of owning means of production, and nobody to see anything at all amiss with that. That you don't (or perhaps can't) see how significantly you differ from other individualists is telling. Your support for unlimited absentee ownership is duly noted (again). Libertatia 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When a person goes to work today, he IS an equal contractee in a voluntary association. But the employer and employee are still distinct in that the former owns the means of production. Benjamin Tucker has not problem with that and no anarcho-capitalist has any problem with that either. Whether anyone wants to call it hierarchy or not is irrelevant. I call it hierarchy and you don't. And, yes I am very different that Benjamin Tucker on ownership of labor tranformed land and homes and proudly so. He believed it is ok to steal the product of someone else's labor if someone happens not to be using that product. The philosophy is perever and corrupt and that's why individualist anarchism has moved beyond that nonsense.Anarcho-capitalism 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So you're back to defending the status quo. What Tucker said was that he wanted everyone equally dependent on wages. That is not the case in the "voluntary" wage-relations of the present. Tucker said that (however "perversely") that the "land monopoly" (that unlimited absentee ownership of which you are so protective) had to lose it's state-given protection before equal liberty, and truly voluntary relations, could exist. What Tucker and other occupancy-and-use individualists actually believe(d) about land tenure is a bit different that George Reisman's absurd "went to the grocery store and mutualists stole my house" nonsense, so let's not go there. Your constant harping on how mutualists want to "steal" is the most perverse thing I see here, except for you affection for the notion of subordination. To subordinate: 1) To put in a lower or inferior rank or class. 2) To make subservient; subdue. Tucker knew that wasn't compatible with anarchism. Social anarchist can see it. Why can't you? Libertatia 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm defending the status quo of employee/employer relationships. It's a good thing for those who prefer to work for others instead of being entrepreneurs. Employment is voluntary, whether it's in the present state capitalist system or an anarchist system. Tucker was a very confused individual, concerning wages because of the labor theory of value. It's just fine if someone receives an income without working if someone is willing to pay him without working. There is no proper or improper price of labor. There is simply what someone is willing to pay. Modern individualist anarchists and economists can see the the labor theory of value, and especially the corresponding just-price theory, is bogus. Why can't you? And you're wrong that in the absence of the state that land not being used would not be protected. Anarcho-capitalists defense firms would protect that land from mutualists and other theives. If a person transforms land or anything other materials of the Earth through labor, it his is property. Individuals have a natural right to own the product of their labor. Mutualists condone stealing that product. They even include houses and other buildings as available for stealing. Allowing someone to steal the product of another's labor is not a free market. Mutualists are not true free-market anarchists, but violators of the free market. Essential to a free market is the right to private property in the product of labor, and the right to transfer ownership of what one owns to the reciever of one's choice at the price of one's choice. Just because someone ceases using the product of his labor it is no less the product of his labor and still his private property. A mutualist says that it's ok for the building I bought with my hard-earned money as an investment (that building is the product of labor that was tranferred to me) to be stolen under my nose. Sorry, but mutualists simply aren't free market anarchists but imposters.Anarcho-capitalism 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Support what you want, and feel free to quote George Reisman's paranoid nonsense until your face turns blue. But don't pretend that Tucker agreed with you about subordination. Libertatia 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Riesman. I did not need to be informed by Riesman that mutualism supports theft (the siezure of the product of labor and trade if a person is not using it). I don't care whether Tucker agrees with me or not about "subordination." It's just semantics. If someone is an employee, I consider them as voluntarily subordinated to their employer because the employer tells the employee what to do and the employee obeys...not the other way around. If someone else doesn't see that as subordination what does it matter?Anarcho-capitalism 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly out of touch with any of the practical discussions, now or then, about land tenure. The issue of "agreement with Tucker" is that you claimed agreement, in support of the position that individualists were not against "hierarchy." In any event, it is certainly not just a matter of "semantics" when you begin talking about labor relations in anarchism being centered around "obedience" to an authority based on possession of capital and/or land. "Liberty" for you appears to be a rather abstract state, useful primarily as an excuse for maintaining supposedly "voluntary" class distinctions. And, as you apparently only desire greater protection of the sort of property rights developed under centuries of state intervention, it's hard to imagine why you fancy yourself an anarchist at all. Libertatia 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary hierarchy is totally consistent with true anarchism. In a position of voluntary subordination, a person consents to being told what to do. If you get a job you consent to having a superior direct you. It's voluntary because you don't have to do what he says. You can walk right out the door. There's nothing unanarchistic about that. If you join a football team, you join a voluntary hierarchy. The coach tells you what to do, but you're free to walk off the field. Again, nothing unarchistic about it. As far as land, if you agree with mutualism then you agree with theft and are not a true anarchist in my opinion. Unless a philosophy allows a person to own the product of his labor and what he recieves in trade then it's not true anarchism. Mutualism says if I come across some untouched land and transform it through labor that if I stop putting it use ..say I want to put it away for retirement ..that I am a criminal for protecting it from being expropriated by you if you want to settle down on it. That's the theft of the product of my labor. Similiarly, if I sell that land to someone else who spends his hard earned money on it mutualism says that that person is a criminal for protecting it from you taking that land for your own use. It condones stealing what someone honestly purchased with his hard-earned money. And it doesn't stop there. If I build two houses and then move in one, mutualism says I'm a criminal for preventing you from taking the other one. That's theft of the product of my labor. Sorry buddy, but no way. Mutualism is a philosophy that supports theivery and condemns people who protect their honestly acquired property from expropriators. And least some of the nineteenth century individualists saw that evils of mutualism on this, such as Lyander Spooner. Mutualism is not true anarchism and it's not free-market. In a free market, individuals OWN the product of their labor and what they receive in trade or gift. Mutualism is just an excuse to steal, masquarading as being pro-free market an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 17:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Heck, there are lots of Lockean-proviso liberals with more radical notions of land tenure than you have, so there's no need to pick on the mutualists. But all of your righteous indignation arises from your strong belief that current notions of land ownership and tenure are unquestionably legitimate, based in "natural right." In practice, they are based on convention and serve to perpetuate a distribution of land and capital goods structured by centuries of state intervention. Perpetual right of ownership to the first claimant, or the first to "mix labor" with the land, has very little to do with modern circumstances. In any event, if I ever decide to squat anyone's land, it's probably not going to be some poor would-be retiree. The real significant concentrations of land and capital are in other hands, as I'm sure you well know. Spooner's notion of land tenure led him to excuse Indian removal and other extraordinarily inhumane actions. Agreeing with him in this instance is nothing I would be too proud about. You just demonstrate, again, that your real focus is on property, rather than liberty. I suspect that, in practice, in a panarchic situation without state support for a particular system of land tenure, a combination of factors would raise the costs of holding really large tracts of land hostage to more than economic rent to the point where it wouldn't be sustainable. I don't see any need for agrarian division, or the like. As I see it, you are so happily married to statist, or at least state-supported and state-friendly, notions of property and land tenure, that you simply can't imagine an an-archist alternative. Ah, well... Libertatia 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything anarchist about depriving an individual of the product of his labor or the receipts of honest trade. Mutualism is not anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out there are anarcho-capitalists who express a desire for a society of self-employed as well, such as David Friedman who says "Instead of corporation there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces." Nineteenth century individualists and modern anarcho-capitalists are the same on this. They support the liberty of individuals for work for others if they desire. Some say they prefer a society of self-employed and some don't express a preference either way. It's up to the decision of the individual, which is what individualism is all about.Anarcho-capitalism 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How important in the definition of anarchism is the oppinions of a very little group of persons that no one in the (a) movement considers anarchist ¡! ¿?. I dont understand how yo have the "authority" to pretend be so relevant. There are no a just relation beetween the reality of anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and the times thats its mentioned here. First any kind of social control is intrussive of liberty, in second place "without hierarchy" is a bassical deffinition of anarchism, that includes NO BOSSES. Anarchism begings of the premisse that liberty is achieved only with autonomy and without any boss (are the same), that make anarchist question the economic system that creates hierarchy or domination by the economic structure.

If ancap theory is mentioned, well, is an especific situation only in U.S., but dont pretent be consider in the important topics that are universal. If you proposse a voluntary system or a voluntary form of control, well, call you how you want, but is not the problem of the real, serious and universal definition of anarchism.

--Nihilo 01 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Social control" may or may not be voluntary and consentual. A young woman flashed her tits at me and controled be socially - nothing unanarchist about that! "Hierarchy" has the same objection - it may or may not be voluntary. So this term should also not be used in the definition of anarchism. Electing a president or secretary of a club is creating a voluntary hierarchy, as is taking a class (teacher/student), or selecting a temporary leader for a task. Nothing unanarchist about these. "Authority" seems a reasonable term to use, so long as it is clear that moral or coercive authority is meant, rather than simply choosing to yield to expertise. PhilLiberty 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Social Control

The linked page defines social control very broadly. Gift-giving, boycotts, not talking to rapists, etc. would be 'social control.' Jacob Haller 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy

I agree that anarchist opposition to hierarchy belongs in the next rewrite of the intro section. Jacob Haller 04:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides having to find a legitimate source to say that, how are you going to square that with this: "Other than being opposed to the state, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." (Anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 31) ? Anarcho-capitalism 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We would have to say "some say anarchism requires opposition to hierarchy while others say that there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold." If that's what you want to do, go for it, but there needs to be a source. That might be good actually, just to show how chaotic anarchism is. It's so messy that even there is even a lack of agreement on a basic definition. We would have to say "There is no single defining definition of anarchism." That would be great.Anarcho-capitalism 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Using "social control" or "hierarchy" in the definition is sectarian, and would likely result in an edit war. Avoiding these loaded ambiguous terms seems best. The current intro seems quite reasonable. PhilLiberty 05:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sectarian either way. Anarcho-capitalists use a broad definition because it fits them in nicely; it even fits them in as equals. Most anarchists use more careful definitions. That's because for most anarchists domination is the focus of their criticism, not necessarily the state. In fact, as corporations have grown more and more power they've largely stole the focus from the state, which has seemed more trivial, simply a tool for maintaining the capitalist system.

It's not neutral to say one definition or the other is the "right" one. And just because a definition is more broad doesn't necessarily mean it's more neutral. I think hierarchy, social control, power etc need to be touched on, even if we don't need to say that there's a strict definition that applies for everyone. Owen 05:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call definitions from anarcho-capitalists "broad." Here's Rothbard's definition: "I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." (from Society and State) I don't think that's broad, because it rules out "anarcho"-communism as being anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 05:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which just goes to show that Rothbard has absolutely no connection to anarchism-proper other than the name "anarcho." I back Owen 100% on this one. Saying that the only defining characteristic of anarchism is anti-statism is just as POV as saying that anti-capitalism is necessary for anarchism because it is a view supported almost exclusively by anarcho-capitalists, who are a small minority within the anarchist movement. And what happened to the mention in the intro that despite the disagreements over what anarchism includes, that most anarchists have historically been anti-capitalist? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A "small minority"? I find it hard to believe that obscure forms of anarchism such as anarcho-communism is more popular than libertarianism in the U.S. And, what the hell is "anarchism-proper"? There's no such thing.Anarcho-capitalism 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First you steal the term "libertarian" and now you want to steal "anarchist." Both terms originally refered to anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist philosophies. That is what I mean by "anarchism-proper"--the original meaning of the term. Pro-market "libertarians" can call themselves "anarchists" but that doesn't make it so, just like I can call myself a "cow" but it wouldn't make me one. That's what I mean. BTW, "libertarians" [sic] are not all anarcho-capitalist. Most don't call for the complete abolition of the state, so you are conflating "libertarians" [sic] with anarcho-capitalists. And even if all the American "libertarians" [sic] are anarcho-capitalists, they aren't part of any anarchist political movement, and if you look above I specifically said a minority within the "anarchist movement." Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Original meanings of terms" are irrelevant. Meanings change.Anarcho-capitalism 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If the fanaticism of certain libertarians means that this article will have to use a biased definition of anarchism, then we should at least state in the introduction that the anarchist tradition is firmly rooted in anti-capitalism. To ignore the "original meanings of terms" and the history of anarchism in general is equivalent to historical revisionism. -- WGee 11:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We didn't steal the word "libertarian." Libertarianism first referred to individualist anarchism in America. "Anarcho"-communist Dejacques used the term "libertaire." That has been translated as "libertarian" but it's still not the same word. "Libertarian" is an English word. Any of the individualist anarchists in the English-speaking countries are libertarians, from Benjamin Tucker to Murray Rothbard.Anarcho-capitalism 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, "libertarian" initially referred to the adherents to the doctrine of free will, but it was certainly well-established as referring to anarchism, both social and individualist, by the end of the 19th century. I'll stay out of fights about intellectual property in terminology, but there's the history. Libertatia 16:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But it referred to individualism first. Social anarchism was born after individualist anarchism. And, there's really not much libertarian about social anarchism since it's collectivist and sees the individual as subservient to the community.Anarcho-capitalism 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Current definition is not biased, it is a common definition in mainstream sources. Also, if I remember correctly, agreement was made on keeping all the accusations between different schools of not being the "true" anarchists in the "Issues" section. -- Vision Thing -- 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last I was involved the exception was for anarcho-capitalism for obvious reasons. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An exception can't be made for anarcho-capitalism because other claimed forms of anarchism are disputed as well. This is why capitalism and communism are discussed in the issues section. I guess you weren't here but we who were agreed to keep all disputes as to what is or isn't true anarchism in that section. But of course you don't have to agree to it. Consensus is fleeting on Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 19:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is still no justification for not stating in the introduction that anarchism has its roots in anti-capitalism. -- WGee 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would really like you to direct me to any such agreement because I doubt it would have taken place. If it did, I am now reopening the matter for discussion because that is ridiculous. An exception can be made for anarcho-capitalism because it, more than any other major type of self-described anarchism, is disputed by virtually all other anarchists and stands in opposition to the historical anarchist movement. To not mention that is ridiculous. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll look for it for you if I have the time. That's why there is no criticism that anarcho-communism is not a true form of anarchism in that section. It was taken out when the sections in Issues were created. But, sure, anarcho-capitalism is disputed by virtually all other anti-free-market anarchists. If you're against free-market capitalism you're going to be against anarcho-capitalism. That's trivial. Of course. So what? Anarcho-communism is disputed by virtually all other individualist anarchists, including capitalist anarchists. So what?Anarcho-capitalism 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was Libertatia's suggestion, and for now it functions pretty good. Anyway, dispute about anarcho-capitalism is mentioned both in the beginning of its section, and in the "Issues" section. -- Vision Thing -- 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Anarchy into Anarchism?

sorry to disrupt the debate, but why are there two pages on anarchism? anarchy also talks about the same thing... it has less info, but probably a few points worth merging into this article. am I missing something?--naught101 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The current edits on anarchy seem to be addressing the duplication, however slowly. Libertatia 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

moved from Talk:Anarchy Lentower 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC):
the page Anarchism has a much broader, and more theoretical discussion of anarchism, but seems to be about the same topic as this one. is there any reason why there are two separate pages? suggest merging anarchy into anarchism.--naught101 09:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Merging is a good idea. Any subtle differences, that can be cited with good sources, can be explained in the Anarchism article. Talk:Anarchy can be archived off this page just before the merge, even if a REDIRECT is used. Lentower 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep seperate anarchism refers to an ideology and school of thought, anarchy is a state (no pun intended!) of being. a state of anarchy may or may not be informed by the ideology of anarchism. witness the section in anarchy on somalia as an eg. somalia is in a state of anarchy, but by accident rather than by any effort of people attempting to implement anarchism. -- frymaster 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Blockader 16:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Seperate as per wiki policy. According to the logic of this proposal, there should be an article on monarchism (as notable as anarchism), but not on monarchy (as notable as anarchy). The way Wikipedia works is we have a large article then specific articles that detail some aspect of the big one (Wikipedia:Summary style takes advantage of this hierarchy). I think most of us agree this is a pretty shabby article, but that's not basis for making it a redirect! Lastly, I just want to note that: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and therefore this vote cannot have an effect without discussion and general consensus. Peace, --Urthogie 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree: keep separate, but add clear links and theory of difference: thanks for the clarification. but there are no links that I could easily find from [anarchism]] to anarchy. a link probably needs to be made in the intro somehow, and also in the Template:Anarchism has no link to the anarchy page, which seems illogical. the difference between the two also needs to be made clear (the monarchy/monarchism separation is something that most people would understand, and would probably serve well). cheers. --naught101 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already made these suggestions, and its mainly anarchists who oppose such links. Please help out if you can, thanks --Urthogie 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep separate - anarchism is a philosophical and activist movement with a history. anarchy is a state (the state of statelessness) with a few examples, not all of which have to do with the anarchist movement (pre-state history, for example). For linguistic purposes too, they need to be separate. Anarchy is subject to misconceptions and popular usage that is different than the way political theorists / activists use it (anarchy = chaos). Anarchism, by contrast, is a radical social movement subject to perceptions of varying accuracy about anarchists, such as complex definitions of "violence" (people vs. property) and so on. The two are obviously intricately related but are separate. --lquilter 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am an anarchist. And I am careful about how anarchy/anarchism/anarchic/anarchist est is defined in wiki projects. But even I see no reason to keep the two articles separate Randy6767

• Keep separate. I too am an anarchist (wooah, flooood!), and there is quite a difference between anarchy and anarchism - that of anarchy as a violent chaos and anarchy as an anarchist society. As the first usage is unfortunately quite common, it needs to be adressed - preferrably in it's own article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Anarchy is a society's potentiality to succumb to anarchism. Anarchy, if provoked by anarchists, can result in either chaos or harmonious spontaneous order, depending on wether or not the anarchist know what they're doing. The two go hand-in-hand so let's give the readers the whole view of anarchism in one article.Randy6767 00:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

are you suggesting that 'anarchy' is always the result of an anarchist's intentions?Tamira C. 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No.Randy6767 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Separate. The two entries currently address different topics, with the additional promise that, should in-process edits go forward, the distinction will be made even clearer. Libertatia 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seperate. Anarchism is more of a broad philosophy that branches off into many subgroups; Anarchy is, simply, a state of not having a government. The distinction is too great to be merged. --Brandt Luke Zorn 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. You just said every single distinction their is. The distinction is not that great. This could easily be one article. Anarchy is the state of a society being without a ruler or government. Anarchism is the philosophy the anarchists live by during the state of anarchy. Not that great of a distinction if you ask me. Randy6767 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seperate, but please rewrite!. I don't think you can redirect it only to 'anarchism', due to the common usage of the word 'anarchy' for 'anomie' and for 'unintentional statelessness'. But maybe we can give just the several definitions with links to better articles. At least the paragraph on 'anarchist thought' and 'anarchist communities' could be just a link to the anarchism-article. The paragraphs on tribal anarchy and especially the one on Somalia, are really shit quality, and not really covering for the term. However, I think it is legitimate to pay attention to not ideologically motivated 'states of anarchy'.Tamira C. 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't rewrite. I'm loosing interest in this discussion, do what ever you guys want but I don't think we need to rewrite anything. Randy6767 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep seperate. Turn anarchy into a disambig that points to the list of anarchist communities, anarchism, anomie and possibly other articles like stateless, stateless nation, chaos etc. If not a disambig, rewrite anarchy in the name of all that is good. ~Switch ^t 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Market Anarchism again

I removed the statement that anarcho-capitalism is also known as market anarchism. Mutualism, in any form, especially the Tuckerite form, is market anarchism. We could split "Anarchism and the Individual" into two sections, one with Stirner, and one, "Market Anarchism," with mutualism, ind. anarchism in the United States, and anarcho-capitalism. Jacob Haller 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Got a legitimate source for Tucker being a market anarchist? I didn't think so. "Free-market anarchism" almost always refers to Rothbard's or Friedman's philosophies.Anarcho-capitalism 00:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Molinari's Institute's explanation of market anarchism includes the following:

The first explicit defender of Market Anarchism was the 19th-century economist and social theorist Gustave de Molinari. The idea was taken up by the individualist anarchists, particularly those associated with Benjamin Tucker’s journal Liberty. More recently, Market Anarchism has been revived by a number of thinkers in the libertarian movement. The terms “anarcho-capitalism” and “voluntary socialism” have both been associated with the Market Anarchist tradition.

Roderick Long is certainly one of the authorities on this issues, with credibility among mutualists and an-caps alike. Libertatia 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"This volume honors the foremost contemporary exponent of free-market anarchism. One contributor aptly describes Murray Rothbard as 'the most ideologically committed zero-State academic economists on earth'." (Lawrence H. White in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XXVIII, June 1990, page 664) Anarcho-capitalism 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Tucker was a market anarchist because he supported market provided defense. It's just that free-market anarchism usually refers to Rothbard's philosophy. When most people see "free-market anarchism" they understand it to mean the philosophy of Rothbard or Friedman. Tucker's philosophy is usually simply referred to as "individualist anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Long (and others, such as Brad Spangler) are pretty clear in their use of "market anarchism" to include a wide range. Carson explicitly identifies himself as a "free market" anarchist. In agorist and mutualist circles, the broad definition appears to be standard. I think Long's endorsement is sufficient to make the point, but, for all the reasons that it has been possible for an-caps to conflate anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism, it is hard to claim that they are suddenly cleanly separable in this instance. We should eliminate any special pleading in the entry. Libertatia 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the older sources (e.g. Kropotkin's article; Rothbard's explanation for coining "anarcho-capitalism," etc.) discuss "individualist anarchism" where we might expect "market anarchism." The newer term has two advantages; it doesn't implicitly include non-market egoists, and it doesn't implicitly exclude non-egoist pro-market anarchists, like Greene, and iirc, Andrews. Are there any scholarly sources which, implicitly or explicitly, define market anarchism while excluding mutualism? Jacob Haller 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, at least for Proudon's mutualism. All the definitions of market anarchism I've seen in scholarly sources say market anarchism is a philosophy that supports replacing the defense functions of the state with market provided defense. Proudhon never advocated that as far as I know. Benjamin Tucker was a market anarchist. It's debatable as to whether he was a mutualist, since he wasn't strict Proudhonian. It's just that free-market anarchism in scholarly sources always refers to Rothbard's or Friedman's philosophy, not Tucker and his friends.Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether, as the Wikipedia entry puts it, those "institutions necessary for the function of a free market" are to be supplied by the market itself. That seems to be the case with the Liberty group, with Carson, with range of positions currently represented in the Movement of the Libertarian Left. The differences between the mutualism of Proudhon and Greene, and that of Tucker, were primarily not economic. Libertatia 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tucker wrote (1899, The Attitude of Anarchism Toward Industrial Combinations): "Free access to the world of matter, abolishing land monopoly; free access to the world of mind, abolishing idea monopoly; free access to an untaxed and unprivileged market, abolishing tariff monopoly and money monopoly, – secure these, and all the rest shall be added unto you. For liberty is the remedy of every social evil, and to Anarchy the world must look at last for any enduring guarantee of social order." Jacob Haller 02:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary servitude

I'd just like to note my support of JMadrigal's removal of the claim that all anarchists oppose "voluntary servitude." Not only was it unsourced but it's wrong. There is nothing un-anarchist about being a butler or a waiter. Serving others, being subordinate to others, is consistent with anarchism as long as it's voluntary.Anarcho-capitalism 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate, and inclusive, let's make it clear (here, at least) what "voluntary servitude" is consistent with: the anarchism of our an-cap comrades. Most other schools have been in clear opposition to subordination (as was noted recently). Libertatia 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd and untrue. There is nothing un-anarchist about being voluntarily subservient to someone else. One can't be an anarchist and support a right of someone to be a butler at the same time? Or is your point that if he's paid for it then he's being exploited but if he does it for free then he's not? What is your point? What is un-anarchist about serving others if that's what one wants to do? How about a man CHOOSING to be subservient to his wife, or a wife choosing to be subservient to her husband (with the right being retained to cease being subservient at any time). How about if it's just for one night? If you think voluntary submission is in opposition to anarchism, then you just don't undestand anarchism. What anarchism is against is INVOLUNTARY servitude.Anarcho-capitalism 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your examples keep changing. It's only a couple of days since you were vicariously power-tripping over the boss' "right" to fire arbitrarily. Anyway, I'm not requiring anyone to be an anarchist, and I won't comment on what goes on between consenting adults, but the record of anarchist opposition to hierarchy, outside of the an-cap tradition, is pretty clear. Libertatia 02:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you calling "hierarchy"? If it's a voluntary situation, there is nothing un-anarchist about it. And of course a boss has a moral right to fire arbitrarily, unless there is a contract specifying otherwise. If you claim that a boss doesn't have a right to fire then you are asserting authority over that employer. In anarchism one has a right to not associate with someone if you they want to. If a person HAS to let someone work for them, how is that anarchistic? How is it anarchist to force someone to employ you? You have a warped sense of anarchy. In anarchy, a person has a right to break assocation with anyone for any reason they desire. Anything else is authoritarian. If you deny a right of an employer to fire someone then you are supporting involuntary servitude. You are asserting that the employer must serve the employee whether he wants to or not.Anarcho-capitalism 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that "servitude" is a dumb thing to call voluntary association. The phrase "voluntary servitude" was, of course, a favorite of pro-slavery writers, who argued that conditions under chattel slavery were better than those facing nominally "free" workers, and that, given the choice, slaves would recognize that they were better off and serve "voluntarily." This is pretty much the approach "of course you can always 'choose' to starve" school of capitalist apologists. But the phrase was also central to the work of Etienne de la Boetie, whose Discourse on Voluntary Servitude Rothbard thought so highly of. Rothbard was able to see that "voluntary servitude" was the source of perhaps more problems than outright slavery. Libertatia 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That brings to mind the film Manderlay, where a white woman comes to "rescue" a slave plantation by setting them "free", only to later realize that they were better off with chattel slavery than they would be under wage slavery. Which I suppose makes sense, when you consider it; where chattel slaves are expensive, and need food, housing, sanitation, and so on, wage slaves do not have to be bought, and can be paid wages insufficient to sustain them. Because slave owners actually have an investment in each worker, it becomes inefficient to let them starve, whereas for an employer this is a non-issue, because wage slaves are disposable and easily replaceable. There's no obligation whatever to keep them fed or housed. Which of course is why this second, more efficient method of slavery has become the standard, and the South never tried bringing the older, more responsible variety. Owen 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User A-C has shown himself to be very inconsistent with very shady motivations time and time again. He claims he supports "individuals having the product of their labor" but approves capitalist bosses denying individuals (workers) to the products of their labor if they don't own the tools of labor made to make the products. And then sites Spooner as justification. He went on about the "rights" of bosses, tried to engage in historical revisionism, agreed with a statement of Spooner's that justified the removal of American Indians, and so forth. I have to say, anarcho-socialists have a lot of patience with "anarcho"-capitalists. They even call them "comrades". Most social anarchists are extremely hesitant to do the same because we are very skeptical of just who "anarcho"-capitalists are looking out for: Labor or Management. But then again, anarcho-socialist comrades are often some of the most patient people on the Libertarian Left. Full Shunyata 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had this discussion before about the product of labor. I'm surprised that you don't yet understand that it is an incoherent position to say someone has a right to own the product of their labor and at the same time say that he has the right to own the product of his labor if he's applying it to the product of someone else's labor. If I labor to cultivate cotton and you convert it into twine, you cannot have a right to the product of your labor by taking the twine because you would be denying me the product of my labor. (Hence Spooner's statement: "if [the individual] be not the owner of the articles, on which he bestows his labor, he is not the owner of the additional value he has given to them; but gives or sells his labor to the owner of the articles on which he labors.") A person can only have a right to the product of his labor if he's applying it to what is unowned or what he already owns. About Spooner and Indians, I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't read anything concerning Spooner and Indians and have no comment on it. In regard to whether I favor "labor or management," that's a false dichotomy. Management is labor too.Anarcho-capitalism 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nineteenth century individualist anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews: "But every combined movement demands an individual lead. Hence, in the execution of design, the one must guide and the other follow, and the more absolute the submission of the one mind to the other, the more harmonious the movement. Hence, it is proper and right that one man should hire another, and if he hires him, it is proper and right that he should remunerate him for his labor, and such remuneration is wages. Hence, if follows that the "Wages System" is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor, while, on the other hand, it is the business of him who is employed implicitly to obey, that is, to surrender any will of his own in relation to a design not his own, and to conceive and execute the will of the other....It is right that the great manufacturer should plan, and either alone, or through the aid of assistants under his direction, organize his mammoth establishment. It is right that he should employ and direct his hundreds, or his five hundred men. It is not true that those men who do not even now co-operate with each other and with him, as it is right and proper that they should. It is right that he should pay them wages for their work. It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly, and that no measure of Justice or Equity has ever heretofore been known among men." According to Charles A. Madison in Anarchism in America, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, Jan 1945, p. 53, "Andrews, in his discussion of the wage system, spoke for all [of the 19th century individualis anarchists] when he declared [this]." CASE CLOSED. Voluntary submission and voluntary hierarchy is consistent with anarchism. Social "anarchists" may be opposed to it, but they're simply not true anarchists.Anarcho-capitalism 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that Andrews was an odd sort of anarchist, proposing a "pantarchy" with himself as most logical Pantarch? I think the evidence in Liberty and elsewhere undercuts Mr. Madison's bold statement. And Madison is prone to bold statements in the article, of the sort that require only one contradiction to knock down. In the sentence prior to the one you cite, he claims that all the individualists supported or condoned the capitalism of their day. CASE CLOSED on Mr. Madison, as the number of contrary statements in the pages of Liberty alone is certainly a lot more than one. Even Wikipedia's standards can occasionally rule out nonsense. Libertatia 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You just don't understand individualist anarchism. Benjamin Tucker also said he supported the liberty of individuals in "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." Yes, the nineteenth century individualist anarchists did support capitalism, depending on how you define it. If it's defined simply as private ownership of the means of production (and the right to employ and be employed), then yes they were capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I "don't understand individualist anarchism"—actually, it's a certainty that I don't understand aspects of it as well as I would like—but I spend a significant part of every day in the attempt, both in digging up lost history and in interacting with contemporary individualists. I know enough to know that the very simple picture you paint is woefully inadequate to the realities. For the record: my research for 2006 involved scanning and archiving slightly over 5000 pages of public domain material relating to individualist anarchism. I'm on track to exceed that in 2007. And, of course, I read a lot more than I bothered to scan. I appreciate your interest in the subject, whatever our ideological differences, and really enjoy your energy in these debates. But, trust me, you don't "understand" the tradition any better than I do. Now, for the rest, you very simply make points that I have not argued against. Madison made a claim about individualists' opposition to the economic conditions around them—and he was demonstrably incorrect. I made what was initially a fairly off-hand comment about the treatment of "subordination" and "servitude" in Liberty, and you've found evidence that Andrews was a bit of an authoritarian (which anyone really familiar with him would have found unsurprising.) That's interesting, but doesn't take us very far. Libertatia 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrews was not an authoritarian. During Christmas vacation I helped my brother build some shelving. He knew how to do it, not me. I voluntarily submitted to his authority and did what he told me. And, I did it. If you think that there is something un-anarchist about that, you don't understand anarchism, and especially not individualist anarchism which at its foundation is simply for the right of the individual to choose to do what he wishes. If my brother chose to pay me a few bucks, would that then be un-anarchist because I would officially be "employed"? Is it compatible with anarchism if I voluntarily do what someone tells me to do for free? Does it become non-anarchist if we decide on a wage to do what that person tells me to do? You haven't thought these things through. You won't understand individualism until you do. Tucker said "Anarchism is for liberty, and neither for nor against anything else," and that's what you don't understand.Anarcho-capitalism 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Voltairine de Cleyre also said the position of the individualists was that they "are firm in the idea that the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centered upon private property, are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference of the State." There is absolutely nothing wrong, in the eyes of individualist anarchists with voluntary employment.Anarcho-capitalism 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, again, you have yet to see me argue against wage labor or contracts for employment per se. In fact, I have repeatedly clarified Tucker's position on universalizing wage labor. What you apparently cannot, or will not, do is to separate employment (as a contract under equitable circumstances) from the power relation of "subordination." Because you simply deny that labor can receive anything less than its full product, and because you ignore a history of government intervention in land allocation (and capital accumulation) that creates stable class distinctions, your standards for what is "voluntary" as pretty weak, as compared to individualists who oppose "the four monopolies" or their equivalent. If it was possible to say that mutualists and an-caps agreed on what constituted "voluntary servitude," then perhaps we could agree that it was compatible with anarchy—in which case, there would almost certainly be no sense in which the "boss" was "superior" to his employees, except within the context of very specific tasks. There is, however, no agreement on voluntarity, so it remains open to question whether your definitions of "subordination" or "servitude" continue to contain the sorts of personal abasement currently associated with them. You've given us reason to believe that you think bosses are "better" than employees. Nuff said? Libertatia 20:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing un-anarchist about voluntarily deciding to do what someone else tells you or suggest to you, whether you choose to do it for free or whether someone pays you for it (what a "boss" does). That doesn't mean the boss is "better" than you. And, it has nothing to do with "abasement." As long as you have the freedom to disobey and walk out the door, it's still anarchy. Only slavery is un-anarchistic. Even Bakunin (who supported wages paid for labor) who had a strong individualist streak, and because of it, said "Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination."Anarcho-capitalism 21:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rewrite the intro around that quote? If you accept Bakunin's standard ("mutual, temporary, and above all, voluntary") we may have a wider basis for agreement among all traditions. Jacob Haller 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "anarcho"-communists would agree with it. They're too concerned with comprehensive egalitarianism, rather than liberty.Anarcho-capitalism 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that you say I don't speak for individualists or anarcho-capitalists, but you think you speak for anarcho-communists. First of all, anarcho-communists are not a monolithic group that agrees on everything. There are significant disputes within the school of thought such as arguments over individual and social iiberty and forms of law-keeping, personal freedom in all areas of life including those outside of the workplace, or decentralized, non-hierarchical organization. Second of all, as an anarcho-communist myself, I feel that egalitarianism without liberty is repression of the minority by the majority just as liberty without egalitarianism is tyranny of the minority. As long as "liberty" doesn't mean the "liberty" to subvert others to your will or make others subserviant or servile. And as for this part of your post, "I'm surprised that you don't yet understand that it is an incoherent position to say someone has a right to own the product of their labor and at the same time say that he has the right to own the product of his labor if he's applying it to the product of someone else's labor." That is about equivalent to saying that if a person draws a work of art but does not own the paper or pencil they drew it on (let's say they borrowed it), then the person who owns the paper and pencil has every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own since it was created with their tools. That is why most anarchists (including the anti-capitalist anarcho-socialist [Mutualist, Indie] schools) find "anarcho"-capitalism oppressive. It is a system with dominatory hierarchical relations and dominatory property relations in where those with property have privileges over those with little or no property. In such a society, more property equals more freedom. Thus, if you own less property you are less free. If you don't own the factory that you work at (which is why you would work for someone else in the first place), you have no say in what you create. And as long as you work for a person, you must adhere to their rules and laws. Other anarchists besides "anarcho"-capitalists find such a thing antithetical to the entire concept of "anarchism". But I guess such a thing is of little or no concern to an "anarcho"-capitalist as long as the conditions which create such situations are considered "legitimate" and "non-violent" or "non-aggressive". So, as long as there is considered to be no violence which creates economic subserviance or lack of ownership, it's all well and good. Hence, your concern with "voluntary servitude". Full Shunyata 07:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You say, "That is about equivalent to saying that if a person draws a work of art but does not own the paper or pencil they drew it on (let's say they borrowed it), then the person who owns the paper and pencil has every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own since it was created with their tools." Of course the person would have every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own. If you draw, on or otherwise deface, someone else's property, you don't then own that property. If you alter someone else's property, you don't then create your own ownership in it. If you alter someone else's property, you're either vandalizing it, giving your labor to the owner, or if he has hired you, then you have sold your labor to that person.Anarcho-capitalism 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're wrong to claim that only anarcho-capitalists support the right of an individual to be employed and the right of someone else to employ him. Nineteenth century individualist anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews said, "Hence, it is proper and right that one man should hire another, and if he hires him, it is proper and right that he should remunerate him for his labor, and such remuneration is wages. Hence, if follows that the "Wages System" is essentially proper and right. It is a right to that one man employ another, it is right that he pay him wages, and it is right that he direct him absolutely, arbitrarily, if you will, in the performance of his labor, while, on the other hand, it is the business of him who is employed implicitly to obey, that is, to surrender any will of his own in relation to a design not his own, and to conceive and execute the will of the other....It is right that the great manufacturer should plan, and either alone, or through the aid of assistants under his direction, organize his mammoth establishment. It is right that he should employ and direct his hundreds, or his five hundred men. It is not true that those men who do not even now co-operate with each other and with him, as it is right and proper that they should. It is right that he should pay them wages for their work. It is not in any, nor in all of these features combined, that the wrong of our present system is to be sought and found. It is in the simply failure to do Equity. It is not that men are employed and paid, but that they are not paid justly, and that no measure of Justice or Equity has ever heretofore been known among men." According to Charles A. Madison in Anarchism in America, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 6, No 1, Jan 1945, p. 53. It's "anarcho"-communists who are the enemy of liberty, because they don't support the right to employ and be employed. And, the ninteenth century individualists were just confused by the labor theory of value. They thought to be paid "justly" was to be paid according to how much labor was exerted. But to be paid justly is simply to be paid according to what someone else is willing to pay.Anarcho-capitalism 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A-C, you said, "Of course the person would have every right to take the work of art and sell it as their own. If you draw, on or otherwise deface, someone else's property, you don't then own that property." Thank you. That's all I needed to hear. You are a defender of the privilege of the propertied. You are not about defending of liberty. Then you said, "It's "anarcho"-communists who are the enemy of liberty, because they don't support the right to employ and be employed." You're right in that we don't support the concept of employment. We believe that everyone should be self-employed and self-managed (as do Indies and Mutualists). The difference is, we don't believe in employers or employees. We believe everyone should be able to provide for themselves or others at their own leisure. In fact, many modern anarcho-communists are against the concept of work. Many of us support the concept of free play like Bob Black and American Indians. Also, we reject the concept of property in favor of possession, we see everything as either an individual possession, or a social possession. If something is used to produce for oneself, it's an individual possession, be it a toaster, a television, a small farm, etc. If something is used to produce for society, it's a social possession and should be freely accessible to those who use it (ie. consumers). Personally, I don't "reject" the concept of markets because I'm an Anarchist Without Adjectives in solidarity with Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists. I simply personally feel there are better ways to arrange economic actitives other than markets. Full Shunyata 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing. You said, "And you're wrong to claim that only anarcho-capitalists support the right of an individual to be employed and the right of someone else to employ him." Again, you're trying to link "anarcho"-capitalists to individualist anarcho-socialists in order to give your ideas an air of legitimacy in anarchist thought. And you're bastardizing anarcho-socialist philosophy in the process. Indies and Mutualists indeed support employment, but believe that everyone should essentially be a small business owner-worker or small property owner-worker who forms co-operatives with other property owners for mutual aid. One is employed by the other. They didn't believe that employers should be "bosses" or that employees should be "workers". As Proudhon said that capitalist companies, "plunder the bodies and souls of wage workers" and that they are "an outrage upon human dignity and personality." [General Idea of the Revolution, p. 218] He argued, "the workers . . . would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [p. 216] Tucker further argued, "amount of money capable of being furnished . . . is so great that every man, woman, and child. . . could get it, and go into business for himself, or herself -- either singly, or in partnerships -- and be under no necessity to act as a servant, or sell his or her labour to others. All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few, or no persons, who could hire capital, and do business for themselves, would consent to labour for wages for another." [A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p. 41] Moreso, he said, "[m]ake capital free by organising credit on a mutual plan, and then these vacant lands will come into use . . . operatives will be able to buy axes and rakes and hoes, and then they will be independent of their employers, and then the labour problem will be solved." and "emancipation of the workingman from his present slavery to capital." [Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 321 and p. 323] In fact, he also argued, "the labourer in these days [as] a soldier. . . His employer is . . . a member of an opposing army. The whole industrial and commercial world is in a state of internecine war, in which the proletaires are massed on one side and the proprietors on the other." [Instead of a Book, p. 460] Full Shunyata 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How about you all cease discussing ideology and start discussing article? ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)