The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
Currently, the article identifies
Samuel Edward Konkin III as an anarchocapitalist, while as far as I know he was the creator of
agorism, which is considered by Konkin himself a part of
left-wing market anarchism (agorists see capitalism as an exploitative system based on privilege backed by the State, and Konkin himself wanted a world without wage labour and boss-worker relationships). Does any source state that he was indeed an anarchocapitalist?
talk) 17:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I've now removed him from the article.
talk) 10:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The O'Keeffe quote
Is someone able to clarify what does the O'Keeffe quote mean: the right to restitution created by the violation of the victims' property could be homesteaded by bounty hunters. How does one
homestead a right to restitution? Where does this right originate from in a contract-only world? Since only a primary source is used, is there a secondary source that explains this? If not, we should probably remove this as it's quite unclear.
talk) 12:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
"Political quadrant" image
Flixq: I have removed the
image you inserted into the article. This was your first and only edit on Wikipedia, so I'm not even sure if you're planning to continue working here, but in case you need a justification for the removal: everything about the image was questionable, and either shows a complete lack of understanding of many fundamentals, or some extremely fringe interpretations/beliefs. This violates
talk) 17:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow, acting like you own the article now? Ignoring your off-putting, unwelcoming remark towards a new Wikipedian, polcomp counts as a secondary source, all he needs to do is link it and it's totally useable. The least you could've told him instead of accusing him of breaking a rule.
talk) 09:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree on several counts:
The Political Compass (which I assume you refer to as polcomp) uses the X axis to define economical differences (Left-Right, so roughly Collectivist-Individualist), while the Y axis to define social differences (Authoritarian-Libertarian). Flixq's image wrongly labels the axis as Authoritarian-Liberal and Socialist-Private Property (?????).
The image places Nazism in the top left quadrant, quite an extraordinary thing to do and possibly a result of the teenage argument that Nazis are called "National Socialists", therefore they belong on the left. The Political Compass clearly
places Hitler in the top right quadrant, because, quite obviously, fascism and Nazism are right-wing ideologies. Since Hitler
privatized state industries, following the diagram's own logic Nazism should be placed on the far right.
The "explainer" on the left implies some incredibly odd things. For instance, it implies that abolishing private property means that "the government owns everything". It also uses some strange, arbitrary definitions of what each "value" represents (e.g. "make people moral", "make you wear a helmet"). Additionally, it seems to imply that anarchists want the government to control everything, quite an extraordinary claim.
To sum up, the image does not represent anything that a secondary source says, but instead is an original image representing someone's fringe, controversial opinions, which can be easily debunked. It therefore constitutes
original research and improper
synthesis, and cannot be used as it breaks the rules. What I would suggest is having a blank political compass and just showing where anarcho-capitalism would be placed, because this way you won't imply other things. If you want the diagram to show other ideologies as a reference point, make sure you place them in uncontroversial areas, and use the proper, established labelling for the axis. Using the image I linked above as a reference point could work, as it shows where The Political Compass places certain people representing different ideologies. However, an additional source would be needed to then place anarchocapitalism in the correct area.
talk) 12:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There are many different versions of the Nolan Chart. There is always an economic axis and a civil liberties axis. The actual labelling is not set in stone and the left-right axis is nowadays rejected as it was precisely to fight against the left-right spectrum simplification that Nolan invented the chart. Also I'm sure you are aware of the different uses of "Liberal" and "Libertarian" outside a US-centric perspective. You need only go to the
Nolan Chart wiki page to see a version with "Personal Freedom" and "Economic Freedom" axis.
The scoring given for the chart is admittedly somewhat colloquial but there's nothing out of the ordinary in it. Certainly not in the scoring of the economic freedom axis which is just a percentage of State control of the economy, that is absolutely standard for measuring economic freedom. As for the civil liberties axis the ordering might vary but freedom of speech, protection of property, the non-aggression principle, drugs, having control of your own body... those are always part of the debate and very appropiate in this wiki page on anarcho-capitalism.
As for the "how much economic control the nazis had" debate... I've seen very heated arguments between historians, but it is definitely not a fringe view to argue that they subordinated private property to state control and strategic central planning even before 1939. You could argue they are a 2 or a 4 in the economic freedom axis, but it would be completely non factual to score them anywhere above a 5. They definitely centrally controlled police, pensions, education, all heavy industry, transportation, most of agriculture had quotas and prices imposed, they had rationing and price controls... So no, it might be debatable but calling it "fringe" is an indication of bias on your part.
talk) 13:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The Nolan chart is not any more useful than one with a "good" and "bad" axis in any of its forms, as it is always going to be using arbitrary definitions of concepts like "personal freedom" and "economic freedom" which do not mean the same thing for everyone and therefore including it, along with an equally arbitrary placement of ideologies and people, is not
WP:NPOV. The reason Nolan invented the chart is to paint his ideology in the best possible light by giving the impression that it is the "most free" and any of such attempts at making a political compass don't belong outside internet forum roleplay circles and propaganda outlets.
talk) 02:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
"Percentage of State control of the economy" isn't a "standard for measuring economic freedom" – I have no idea who told you this. Clearly the
Index of Economic Freedom places Singapore at the top, even though it has a larger public sector than Venezuela, United States, United Kingdom etc.. Denmark scores highly in the economic freedom charts despite having a large public sector, universal healthcare and free education.
The Nazis didn't have direct state control over industries. They privatised most of them and gave them fantastic deals as to encourage them to support the war effort, while suppressing the labour and union movements for them. They glorified private property. That's a very right-wing government. Placing them on the right side of the Political Compass is completely standard, as I indicted in the source above. Placing them on the left hand side is a fringe opinion. Regardless, this is not the topic of this article, and it's pointless to discuss it here. Consult literature on this topic if you have any doubts.
Things like protection of property and the non-aggression principle are right-libertarian talking points, and do not fall within the Y axis but the X axis.
To sump up, feel free to use a Nolan Chart and place Anarchocapitalism there (without including any of your controversial opinions), but clearly label it as a Nolan Chart, because it isn't a frequently used chart and it's only popular amongst right-libertarians.
talk) 13:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed some recent additions here because they're poorly sourced. The offered "M, Elijah, Individualist Manifesto" reference anchor is not previously defined, and generates an error message rather than a viable reference. The referenced "manifesto" is, as far as I can tell, as self-published book and not a viable reference. If this material can be substantiated by third party independent references, then it has a place here ... but until then, it should be excluded. --
talk) 20:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)