Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

Former featured articleAnarcho-capitalism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 28, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 13, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 17, 2006Featured article reviewKept
December 16, 2014Featured article reviewDemoted
January 8, 2016Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former featured article

Rename to Paleo Propertarianism.

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

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

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

No it doesn't because the only anti-hierarchical features exist outside the state but all is relations and privileges derive from it there for is not anti hierarchical, it's antagonistic to states foreign to itself only under fear that they do not match NAP's, which can be looked at as an tacit aggression though a principle of exclusivity, just like how Christian denominations are iconoclastic but still have an Icon.
Propertarianism is passive aggressive statism that is pseudo-anti-hierarchical in affairs foreign but to the state calls for hegemony in practice through objectification of all regardless of relation. This can be considered a form of alienation or domination through subversion, 'might is right' is mandated though the use of the NAP via the involuntary nature of it's decree which claims it is voluntary.
That is a contradiction due to a decree instating a monopoly on violence as a non aggression "principle" is in fact aggression contract in practice to all those who disagree with its own version of inclusivity as with any contract of all those who cannot take part cannot bargain than they are slaves, or enemies or employees. It's contract is exclusive and abstract as non aggression only comes through as decree by property and not be virtue.
Anyone who agrees is property of whom ever owns the non-aggression contract, which claims that it is a principle when it is a contract not a principle. Peace than comes by decree not principle.
Whom owns the contract? Those who have no issue using objectification to reduce all people to thier own property. Sounds more conducive to slavery on a plantation than freedom, more in common with mercant feudalism than anarchy.
There for Paleo-Propertarian fits, but so does Neo-Merchantalism when you consider history. The policy here is similar to merchant contracts on ships look into the East Indian company, or the Voc, to call this anarcho or libertarian would be committing logocide. As it's logic lines up with Merchantalism, which is exactly what happens when you have that type of policy.
Look into Kantors and Factories and Colonialism which sprang from the origin of this thought. The NAP was used in those establishments because if didn't agree you were already killed. 2600:1700:663B:3410:C02C:F54E:EF6:8BAF (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if I were more awake this would look less like gibberish. —Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR. We go with what the sources say. There's already a section over the classification of anarcho-capitalism on the page. Anarcho-capitalism is the most commonly used phrase to refer to this concept in the sources, even if the name is controversial and misleading. 2601:486:100:9780:F861:7E9F:388E:8C69 (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. anarcho-capitalism describes the ideology in the name.

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@CWenger @Grayfell @Liberty5000 Is there any consensus on the sweeping removal of sourced content by @AtomicCrescentRoll who has also arbitrarily removed sourced content from other articles (reverted by other editors on the respective pages) like Libertarianism- Difference between revisions and Views of Elon Musk - Difference between revisions as per his whims and fancies. Theofunny (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has replaced anarchists with "left-anarchists" even in quotations of sources and when paraphrasing sourced content. Anarcho-capitalism: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "voluntary slavery" was also removed as well as other OR was added. Theofunny (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
In any case, if it is uncontroversial that most ancaps reject slavery, why the heck is it in the article's very first paragraph?! —Tamfang (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wings

I have twice reverted the insertion by Chronophobos of the adjective far-right in the first sentence. The second time, I invited him (–os is masculine in Greek; forgive me if my assumption is mistaken) to defend it, so his third came with a summary: It's far-right, as it relies solely on free market mechanisms in absolute way

I would say that the ultimate far right would be dictatorship (even if it appropriates the language of equality). —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of Right-wing politics mentions hierarchy as a key feature. —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Eklektarchy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Eklektarchy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 24 § Eklektarchy until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarcho-capitalism