![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
What is exactly the ancap position on debt bondage and unfree labour. As far as I can tell they are considered perfectly fine since it's "voluntary". // Liftarn
Should there be a counter-counter criticisms section? Or a response system akin to [ [1]]? Or are there even people willing for a response page? Fephisto 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I say 'Go for it!' Any part of the discussion is more important and relevant to human progress than the average page. Hayekian 00:57, 29 December 2012 (CEN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.170.135 ( talk)
1) I removed part about tribal societies as they are not relevant for anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not a tribal society, and in the article in question neither anarchy nor lack of government is mentioned. Thus, it constitutes original research to use those societies as examples of how things would function in anarchy.
2) I removed Paul Birch's criticism since he doesn't have anything published in this field, and he is not notable enough to have his views presented in Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, it the state want to prohibit business and banks to use electronic money, they can simply do so. Then you have little use for it. You can already stash cash in your closet if you want to. Ultramarine 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But if the society is poor, and if both shared the wealth, both could work and have liberties in the free time, but if one have all the wealth and the other person have no free time and liberties, and since society is poor, for a long time or the whole life of these individuals, the same will remain true? Then one person will have no liberty during his life, due to the inheritance. Ultramarine 08:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"Of course they're free and have liberties. They're working aren't they?" Uh... Slaves work, are they free? They get paid in food and lodging. That's real currency where there is no official currency. How is this person who is being paid and who is working free and have liberties? How do they protect these liberties when they have no ability to hire protection due to their unique wage situation? How do they escape if they are being coerced? Again, they're left to the vigilance of free men who are willing to give up their own labor to preserve this moral system's integrity. AndrewK760 ( talk) 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Vision thing, please list your specific reason for tagging this article as not compliant. The only thing I can tell from the discussion is that you don't think capitalist societies can be tribal, but I see not reference in the text to capitalist societies as tribal, only a criticism that they might devolve into creating a "fragmented tribal environment". Are you stating that capitalist societies are immune from changing into fragmented tribal societies?
The only other criticism I see is the Paul Birch bit, which you seem to have let go. Please let me know what it is, in concrete terms, that you want changed. Etcetc 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following text for being improperly sourced in 2 cases and original research in one. Since many of the points brought up seem valid I am placing the text here in the hopes that someone can properly source it eventually:
The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" ( gun politics), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all. [1]
However, this is contradicted by the large scale violence in stateless tribal societies where all males had and knew how to use weapons. Research shows that not only was warfare more common in small-scale societies than it has been among nation states, it involved a greater percentage of the population, and the numbers killed were proportionately higher as well. [3]
Critics also argue that one can observe private protection organizations in practice in gang wars, where different gangs compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests, causing high violence. [4]
I've removed the word objectivists from the first criticism and replace it with classical liberal. The reason for this is that the word added nothing, the argument held nothing unique to objectivism and seamed to be an argument from the classical liberial tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.6.251 ( talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: Also made a minor edit for clarity (changed 'equal right to liberty' to 'equal right to outcomes') But more importantly noticed significant repetition in the opening sections of 'Morality' and 'Pragmatic' sections regarding competing defense firms. Sections of paragraphs are repeated word for word. Might be worth someone with better writing chops than I fixing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.34.61 ( talk) 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The recent edit ( [5]) to the lede doesn't seem as explanatory. IMO, the old lede was preferable. BigK HeX ( talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is newest version acceptable? byelf2007 ( talk) 5 July 2011
Looks fine to me. BigK HeX ( talk) 00:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A lot of these sections do not have references. If it's just throwing out any criticism, we could easily add the ideas of debt slavery. For example, a widow is robbed and has no means of production, and nothing to trade (by means of goods or currency). She has to rely on the virtue of a for-profit justice system to correct this, or they will provide justice on credit and she will then have to find a way to work to pay it back. And if she cannot work to pay it back, is there an anarchist bankruptcy court? The justice company then uses coercion against her to force labor to fulfill her contract.
And how does this system deal with child abuse? Does anyone have the right to take an abused child away from a parent? Does this person have to find out what court system that parent subscribes to and seek justice through that system, and pay for it from their own earnings?
Speaking of children, does a child have a right to the labor of their parent? A parent not feeding their child is not a positive encroachment of rights, but a withholding of that child's right to be fed. There is an obligation there, and this can happen without the outside public being aware of it. AndrewK760 ( talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
this is supposedly an article about the criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, because there is almost none in the main article, so it should focus on the criticism side lets see:
Some critics argue that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[1] Some anarchists agree with this argument, but argue that it is futile to eliminate the potential concentration of power by concentrating power in the hands of the state.[2] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient.
Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in. Therefore, the state's monopoly on the use of force is a violation of natural rights. He wrote, "The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals."[3] In his book Power and Market, he argued that geographically large minarchist states are indifferent from a unified minarchist world monopoly government.[4] Rothbard wrote governments were not inevitable, noting that it often took hundreds of years for aristocrats to set up a state out of anarchy.[5] He also argued that if a minimal state allows individuals to freely secede from the current jurisdiction to join a competing jurisdiction, then it does not by definition constitute a state.[6]
Many anarcho-capitalists argue that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Furthermore, Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[7] In response, Randall G. Holcombe argues that defense agencies could form cartels and oppress people without fear of competition.[8] Rothbard conceded this point and responded that one cannot justify a concentration of power out of a fear of a concentration of power, and that a market system is the best checks and balances system.[9]
2 sentences of the whole first criticism section portrait the criticism the section is about (see bold), the rest of the text only deals with the defense of anarcho capitalism against this criticism by repeating the anarcho capitalist positions over and over (see italics) this section fails horribly at the aim of the article and gives undue weight to the anarcho capitalist positions which are already described in the main article... 178.24.228.150 ( talk) 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no critique of anarcho-capitalism from a pragmatic perspective beyond some rubbish defensive that was put there. I'm surprised the simple fact that the most powerfully DRO would not necessarily be the most just one wasn't explicitly mentioned. That is a simple theoretical fact that has been overlooked, there is a high risk that the two or three most powerful DROs could form a duopoly or Triopoly serving the interests of the most powerful corporations. How can the businesses rating the DRO be impartial when their in need of money themselves thus vulnerable to manipulation. With a triopoly in place, even the rating agencies could be setup functioning corruptly serving the interests of a Triopoly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Geez the stuff already there is rubbish, it makes sense to remove it at the very list if you demand evidence from the more objective critique. What is already there is rubbish, can't you see that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Its best to separate the counter arguments from the pro arguments then by inserting creating different headings. It just makes thing a bit cleaner plus the pro criticism element is lacking from the article, its riddled with bias. Soopman11 ( talk) 22:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be rolled into the main article on this topic. I have seen a few libertarians sharing the main article in social media the same way they share political cartoons, which seemed odd to me until I realized that the main article avoids critical views, instead shunting it to a separate article. I hope that doesn't sound too glib, and I suppose that my observation also applies to articles about other political systems as well, some of which have separate "criticism" articles, but it seems that political systems which are largely theoretical (meaning ones which exist mostly in hypothetical academic discussions and debates) do not need to be compartmentalized like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.217.190 ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Since Anarcho-capitalists want to privatize everything and abolish the state, shouldn't there be criticism of that position concerning the improbable manner by which private entities will inspect food and regulate industries that sell contaminated food? In an anarcho-capitalist society, private inspection of contaminated food to prevent illness or even death would be considered an infringed violation of the right of the business to sell such food and would clearly violate the non-aggression principle. If a food industry doesn't oblige to allow a private health inspection service to inform the public of its poor quality and standards, the business has every right to refuse agreement with that because of the non-aggression principle. How can Anarcho capitalists prevent innumerable deaths caused by things like food poisoning when there's no government regulation and safety inspection? Shouldn't we add some information about Anarcho-capitalists' desire to abolish government operated health inspection services and public entities like the FDA? Nashhinton ( talk) 07:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this article has too much from Noam Chomsy, and not enough from other critics.
50.49.121.243 ( talk) 05:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the page was posted to https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2q8l48/what_do_you_think_of_wikipedias_criticisms_of/ it has been bombarded with changes designed to discredit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.235.118 ( talk) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You call two edits, with one not removing anything "Bombarded with changes" ? Don't use hyperbole here, we're grown-ups (or at least I hope) so I think wikipedia editors can largely manage the excruciating power of two edits. --Nod'Vos 22:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod'Vos ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone want to create a section on the lack of real world examples as a criticism. Humans have existed for about 100-200k years and I can find no anarcho-capitalsit societies that have every existed. Some libertarian blogs point to obscure night watchmen state societies like the Icelandic Comonwealth which technically isn't anarchist but thats it. NeoStalinist ( talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism#Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism already covers this topic in sufficient detail (more a less a concise when not verbatim version of what was written here). There isn't a showing of reliable, secondary sources to warrant a summary style split from that section. Moreover, the sourcing is heavily reliant on primary source quoting (X scholar said Y) rather than secondary sourcing. If it remained separate, it would need TNT to rid itself of the non-encylopedic tone, and at that point, we're looking at expanding summary style from the existing section anyway. czar 18:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
What is exactly the ancap position on debt bondage and unfree labour. As far as I can tell they are considered perfectly fine since it's "voluntary". // Liftarn
Should there be a counter-counter criticisms section? Or a response system akin to [ [1]]? Or are there even people willing for a response page? Fephisto 01:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I say 'Go for it!' Any part of the discussion is more important and relevant to human progress than the average page. Hayekian 00:57, 29 December 2012 (CEN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.170.135 ( talk)
1) I removed part about tribal societies as they are not relevant for anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not a tribal society, and in the article in question neither anarchy nor lack of government is mentioned. Thus, it constitutes original research to use those societies as examples of how things would function in anarchy.
2) I removed Paul Birch's criticism since he doesn't have anything published in this field, and he is not notable enough to have his views presented in Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, it the state want to prohibit business and banks to use electronic money, they can simply do so. Then you have little use for it. You can already stash cash in your closet if you want to. Ultramarine 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But if the society is poor, and if both shared the wealth, both could work and have liberties in the free time, but if one have all the wealth and the other person have no free time and liberties, and since society is poor, for a long time or the whole life of these individuals, the same will remain true? Then one person will have no liberty during his life, due to the inheritance. Ultramarine 08:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"Of course they're free and have liberties. They're working aren't they?" Uh... Slaves work, are they free? They get paid in food and lodging. That's real currency where there is no official currency. How is this person who is being paid and who is working free and have liberties? How do they protect these liberties when they have no ability to hire protection due to their unique wage situation? How do they escape if they are being coerced? Again, they're left to the vigilance of free men who are willing to give up their own labor to preserve this moral system's integrity. AndrewK760 ( talk) 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Vision thing, please list your specific reason for tagging this article as not compliant. The only thing I can tell from the discussion is that you don't think capitalist societies can be tribal, but I see not reference in the text to capitalist societies as tribal, only a criticism that they might devolve into creating a "fragmented tribal environment". Are you stating that capitalist societies are immune from changing into fragmented tribal societies?
The only other criticism I see is the Paul Birch bit, which you seem to have let go. Please let me know what it is, in concrete terms, that you want changed. Etcetc 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following text for being improperly sourced in 2 cases and original research in one. Since many of the points brought up seem valid I am placing the text here in the hopes that someone can properly source it eventually:
The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" ( gun politics), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all. [1]
However, this is contradicted by the large scale violence in stateless tribal societies where all males had and knew how to use weapons. Research shows that not only was warfare more common in small-scale societies than it has been among nation states, it involved a greater percentage of the population, and the numbers killed were proportionately higher as well. [3]
Critics also argue that one can observe private protection organizations in practice in gang wars, where different gangs compete with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests, causing high violence. [4]
I've removed the word objectivists from the first criticism and replace it with classical liberal. The reason for this is that the word added nothing, the argument held nothing unique to objectivism and seamed to be an argument from the classical liberial tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.6.251 ( talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: Also made a minor edit for clarity (changed 'equal right to liberty' to 'equal right to outcomes') But more importantly noticed significant repetition in the opening sections of 'Morality' and 'Pragmatic' sections regarding competing defense firms. Sections of paragraphs are repeated word for word. Might be worth someone with better writing chops than I fixing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.34.61 ( talk) 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The recent edit ( [5]) to the lede doesn't seem as explanatory. IMO, the old lede was preferable. BigK HeX ( talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Is newest version acceptable? byelf2007 ( talk) 5 July 2011
Looks fine to me. BigK HeX ( talk) 00:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A lot of these sections do not have references. If it's just throwing out any criticism, we could easily add the ideas of debt slavery. For example, a widow is robbed and has no means of production, and nothing to trade (by means of goods or currency). She has to rely on the virtue of a for-profit justice system to correct this, or they will provide justice on credit and she will then have to find a way to work to pay it back. And if she cannot work to pay it back, is there an anarchist bankruptcy court? The justice company then uses coercion against her to force labor to fulfill her contract.
And how does this system deal with child abuse? Does anyone have the right to take an abused child away from a parent? Does this person have to find out what court system that parent subscribes to and seek justice through that system, and pay for it from their own earnings?
Speaking of children, does a child have a right to the labor of their parent? A parent not feeding their child is not a positive encroachment of rights, but a withholding of that child's right to be fed. There is an obligation there, and this can happen without the outside public being aware of it. AndrewK760 ( talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
this is supposedly an article about the criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, because there is almost none in the main article, so it should focus on the criticism side lets see:
Some critics argue that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[1] Some anarchists agree with this argument, but argue that it is futile to eliminate the potential concentration of power by concentrating power in the hands of the state.[2] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient.
Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in. Therefore, the state's monopoly on the use of force is a violation of natural rights. He wrote, "The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals."[3] In his book Power and Market, he argued that geographically large minarchist states are indifferent from a unified minarchist world monopoly government.[4] Rothbard wrote governments were not inevitable, noting that it often took hundreds of years for aristocrats to set up a state out of anarchy.[5] He also argued that if a minimal state allows individuals to freely secede from the current jurisdiction to join a competing jurisdiction, then it does not by definition constitute a state.[6]
Many anarcho-capitalists argue that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Furthermore, Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[7] In response, Randall G. Holcombe argues that defense agencies could form cartels and oppress people without fear of competition.[8] Rothbard conceded this point and responded that one cannot justify a concentration of power out of a fear of a concentration of power, and that a market system is the best checks and balances system.[9]
2 sentences of the whole first criticism section portrait the criticism the section is about (see bold), the rest of the text only deals with the defense of anarcho capitalism against this criticism by repeating the anarcho capitalist positions over and over (see italics) this section fails horribly at the aim of the article and gives undue weight to the anarcho capitalist positions which are already described in the main article... 178.24.228.150 ( talk) 03:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no critique of anarcho-capitalism from a pragmatic perspective beyond some rubbish defensive that was put there. I'm surprised the simple fact that the most powerfully DRO would not necessarily be the most just one wasn't explicitly mentioned. That is a simple theoretical fact that has been overlooked, there is a high risk that the two or three most powerful DROs could form a duopoly or Triopoly serving the interests of the most powerful corporations. How can the businesses rating the DRO be impartial when their in need of money themselves thus vulnerable to manipulation. With a triopoly in place, even the rating agencies could be setup functioning corruptly serving the interests of a Triopoly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Geez the stuff already there is rubbish, it makes sense to remove it at the very list if you demand evidence from the more objective critique. What is already there is rubbish, can't you see that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Its best to separate the counter arguments from the pro arguments then by inserting creating different headings. It just makes thing a bit cleaner plus the pro criticism element is lacking from the article, its riddled with bias. Soopman11 ( talk) 22:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article should be rolled into the main article on this topic. I have seen a few libertarians sharing the main article in social media the same way they share political cartoons, which seemed odd to me until I realized that the main article avoids critical views, instead shunting it to a separate article. I hope that doesn't sound too glib, and I suppose that my observation also applies to articles about other political systems as well, some of which have separate "criticism" articles, but it seems that political systems which are largely theoretical (meaning ones which exist mostly in hypothetical academic discussions and debates) do not need to be compartmentalized like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.217.190 ( talk) 07:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Since Anarcho-capitalists want to privatize everything and abolish the state, shouldn't there be criticism of that position concerning the improbable manner by which private entities will inspect food and regulate industries that sell contaminated food? In an anarcho-capitalist society, private inspection of contaminated food to prevent illness or even death would be considered an infringed violation of the right of the business to sell such food and would clearly violate the non-aggression principle. If a food industry doesn't oblige to allow a private health inspection service to inform the public of its poor quality and standards, the business has every right to refuse agreement with that because of the non-aggression principle. How can Anarcho capitalists prevent innumerable deaths caused by things like food poisoning when there's no government regulation and safety inspection? Shouldn't we add some information about Anarcho-capitalists' desire to abolish government operated health inspection services and public entities like the FDA? Nashhinton ( talk) 07:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this article has too much from Noam Chomsy, and not enough from other critics.
50.49.121.243 ( talk) 05:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Since the page was posted to https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2q8l48/what_do_you_think_of_wikipedias_criticisms_of/ it has been bombarded with changes designed to discredit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.235.118 ( talk) 15:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You call two edits, with one not removing anything "Bombarded with changes" ? Don't use hyperbole here, we're grown-ups (or at least I hope) so I think wikipedia editors can largely manage the excruciating power of two edits. --Nod'Vos 22:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod'Vos ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone want to create a section on the lack of real world examples as a criticism. Humans have existed for about 100-200k years and I can find no anarcho-capitalsit societies that have every existed. Some libertarian blogs point to obscure night watchmen state societies like the Icelandic Comonwealth which technically isn't anarchist but thats it. NeoStalinist ( talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://capitalism.org/faq/anarchism.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693&Itemid=1When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism#Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism already covers this topic in sufficient detail (more a less a concise when not verbatim version of what was written here). There isn't a showing of reliable, secondary sources to warrant a summary style split from that section. Moreover, the sourcing is heavily reliant on primary source quoting (X scholar said Y) rather than secondary sourcing. If it remained separate, it would need TNT to rid itself of the non-encylopedic tone, and at that point, we're looking at expanding summary style from the existing section anyway. czar 18:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)