> This subreddit is surprisingly good at avoiding that, but in my experience, most discussions between market anarchists from different "camps" tend to amount to little more than which words are good, which words are bad, and showing which "team" one belongs to by arguing what the words "really mean", and using strawman arguments based on one's own definition of a word while being fully aware that the other person defines the word in a different way. I agree that all of these things happen, and that it really kind of sucks. > Since we are all aware that people define these terms differently, we should also be aware that any statement containing one of those words is an empty statement containing no information. I don't see how that follows at all. It seems to me rather that the information contained in the statement is dependent on what the person making the statement meant by the critical words (by "capitalism," or "socialism," or whatever). Now that might leave the meaning of the statement a bit mysterious -- if there were no way to solve the mystery of what the writer meant by the critical word in the statement she wrote. But it seems to me that there are ways of figuring that out, and acknowledging it -- you could try to glean it from context, you could try to glean it from the use that is made in argument, you could make a distinction between different senses and try out each alternative to see what makes for the strongest argument or the most plausible statement; or if all else fails you could just ask. Can I suggest that just putting yourself out there in your own terms, and then trying to develop and encourage skills for exploring ambiguities, negotiating mysteries and conflicts over the meanings of words, etc. after the fact -- really, more or less ad hoc, as the situation requires -- is probably more likely to help good conversations happen than ex ante policing of vocabulary for "wrong" words? I mean things like using conceptual distinctions, subscripts, etc. to work out an ad-hoc common language, or or "what-you-call-X, I-call-Y" sorts of rephrasings and good-faith efforts to restate your interlocutor's position in your own terminology or to put your statements into theirs; trying out a number of alternative meanings of terms ("If by X you mean A, then ....; if by X you mean B, on the other hand ...") if one of them may offer a more charitable interpretation; and cultivating a certain attitude of tolerance and charity, and a basic willingness to just stop and ask if you're not clear on what somebody meant, or to make a good-faith effort to help other people out if they ask what you mean. Because it seems to me inevitable that this sort of thing is going to happen -- certainly even if you completely ditch "socialism" and "capitalism" there are plenty of run-ins still to be had over terms like "profit," "redistribution," "rent," "interest," "competition," "work," "commodity," "cooperation," "capital," "property," "possession," "spontaneous order," "business," "entrepreneurship," "market," and a million other common terms of debate that I could think of, and it seems to me likely that these kinds of problems are going to be problems that keep recurring all the way down no matter how much you try to specify or stipulate or rephrase. If we need to chuck out less useful terms, or mint new language, then we'll get to that in the process of trying to understand the words we started out with.

> This subreddit is surprisingly good at avoiding that, but in my experience, most discussions between market anarchists from different "camps" tend to amount to little more than which words are good, which words are bad, and showing which "team" one belongs to by arguing what the words "really mean", and using strawman arguments based on one's own definition of a word while being fully aware that the other person defines the word in a different way. I agree that all of these things happen, and that it really kind of sucks. > Since we are all aware that people define these terms differently, we should also be aware that any statement containing one of those words is an empty statement containing no information. I don't see how that follows at all. It seems to me rather that the information contained in the statement is dependent on what the person making the statement meant by the critical words (by "capitalism," or "socialism," or whatever). Now that might leave the meaning of the statement a bit mysterious -- if there were no way to solve the mystery of what the writer meant by the critical word in the statement she wrote. But it seems to me that there are ways of figuring that out, and acknowledging it -- you could try to glean it from context, you could try to glean it from the use that is made in argument, you could make a distinction between different senses and try out each alternative to see what makes for the strongest argument or the most plausible statement; or if all else fails you could just ask. Can I suggest that just putting yourself out there in your own terms, and then trying to develop and encourage skills for exploring ambiguities, negotiating mysteries and conflicts over the meanings of words, etc. after the fact -- really, more or less ad hoc, as the situation requires -- is probably more likely to help good conversations happen than ex ante policing of vocabulary for "wrong" words? I mean things like using conceptual distinctions, subscripts, etc. to work out an ad-hoc common language, or or "what-you-call-X, I-call-Y" sorts of rephrasings and good-faith efforts to restate your interlocutor's position in your own terminology or to put your statements into theirs; trying out a number of alternative meanings of terms ("If by X you mean A, then ....; if by X you mean B, on the other hand ...") if one of them may offer a more charitable interpretation; and cultivating a certain attitude of tolerance and charity, and a basic willingness to just stop and ask if you're not clear on what somebody meant, or to make a good-faith effort to help other people out if they ask what you mean. Because it seems to me inevitable that this sort of thing is going to happen -- certainly even if you completely ditch "socialism" and "capitalism" there are plenty of run-ins still to be had over terms like "profit," "redistribution," "rent," "interest," "competition," "work," "commodity," "cooperation," "capital," "property," "possession," "spontaneous order," "business," "entrepreneurship," "market," and a million other common terms of debate that I could think of, and it seems to me likely that these kinds of problems are going to be problems that keep recurring all the way down no matter how much you try to specify or stipulate or rephrase. If we need to chuck out less useful terms, or mint new language, then we'll get to that in the process of trying to understand the words we started out with.

N.B.: the bit about "coordination problems" is not intended to refer to a problem with the existence of coordination between government regulators and businessmen. (Certainly there is plenty of that sort of regulatory capture or collusion going on, and we discuss it in the book, but it has nothing to do with what we meant by the phrase "coordination problems" in the introduction there.) "Coordination problems" are rather problems that have to do with the interruption, distortion, or diversion of peaceful socially coordinating market activities, by means of regulatory coercion. (For example, by cartelizing industries in ways that drive small-scale competition and grassroots social organization out of the market, or by locking out many forms of social entrepreneurship and competitive discovery outside of conventionally capitalistic businesses.) So the specific problem being complained about with that phrase is the disruption of peaceful coordination among market actors, not the existence of coordination among governors and businessmen.

N.B.: the bit about "coordination problems" is not intended to refer to a problem with the existence of coordination between government regulators and businessmen. (Certainly there is plenty of that sort of regulatory capture or collusion going on, and we discuss it in the book, but it has nothing to do with what we meant by the phrase "coordination problems" in the introduction there.) "Coordination problems" are rather problems that have to do with the interruption, distortion, or diversion of peaceful socially coordinating market activities, by means of regulatory coercion. (For example, by cartelizing industries in ways that drive small-scale competition and grassroots social organization out of the market, or by locking out many forms of social entrepreneurship and competitive discovery outside of conventionally capitalistic businesses.) So the specific problem being complained about with that phrase is the disruption of peaceful coordination among market actors, not the existence of coordination among governors and businessmen.

> * if "regulation" is supposed to mean legal regimentation of market relationships > * if "regulation" is supposed to mean making a process or a network of relationships orderly or regular > > You're saying the exact same thing in both these case. In a practical sense if I'm a merchant in a market, then a "legal regimentation" and a "orderly process" both mean that someone is telling me what I can and cannot do. I am not saying the same thing at all, unless you think that the only way orderly or regular processes can come about is by people being told by external authorities what they can do and what they cannot do. But of course as a libertarian I deny that that's the only way social processes can become orderly or regular. Markets are full of, and indeed are themselves, spontaneous orders that don't depend on anyone's unilateral say-so or on any exercise of centralized or coercive authority. You know this, don't you? I wrote: > we discuss the use of coordinated grassroots activism for addressing concerns about economic exploitation, sexism, racial segregation and environmental sustainability You reply: > This to me sounds like a vigilante gang imposing their form of social standards onto others, presumably through violence. Well I don't know what to tell you except that this is insane. I said nothing about "vigilante gangs" or "imposing" or "violence," and specifically stated that I was talking about "grassroots cultural developments and nonviolent social activism," not the use of force -- specifically the use of boycotts, strikes, social protest and consciousness-raising, culturejamming, diffuse nonviolent adoption of social and cultural norms, supporting the development of alternative institutions, divestment, et cetera. I can't control how things "sound like" to you, but if this is what you heard then I can only suggest that it has more to do with how you're listening than with anything I've said. Have you read hte section of the book that I'm discussing, or the individual articles in it (most of them are available separately online, as is the book as a whole)? If so, where in the world did you find anything about "imposing ... social standards onto others ... through violence"? If not, then maybe you should do something to make yourself less than ignorant about the text I'm describing before you shoot off about what it "sounds like" through some process of free association. > If one vendor in a market declines to sell to blacks or women, then what are the regulatory police supposed to do? There are no regulatory police in a market anarchy. What ordinary people may do, without any exercise of policing powers, is to withdraw their money, their labor power, or their social support from people who act like bigots. They may also choose to actively protest this kind of conduct and encourage each other to choose the same course of action. If you can't figure out how that works without force or police powers, start [here](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/it-just-aint-so/opposing-the-civil-rights-act-means-opposing-civil-rights/) and continue [here](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/it-just-aint-so/opposing-the-civil-rights-act-means-opposing-civil-rights/). > What I meant by uncoordinated regulation is the idea that coordinated regulation occurs when government and business colludes, whereas uncoordinated regulation occurs when government and business are not allowed to discuss plans between each other. The government is still there to regulate, it's just detached from the opinions of businessmen. Oh, O.K. Then I would say that what you mean by "uncoordinated regulation" is certainly not OK by my lights, and is not defended by anyone in the book. Speaking for myself, I think in fact that it is an utterly illusory goal -- a ridiculous sort of ideological myth, for reasons I discuss [elsewhere in "From Right-on to WTF? in Three Easy Steps"](http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/10/09/three-easy-steps/). But even if I thought that I were somehow possible, I would oppose it just as such, because I am an anarchist, not a statist, and I oppose all forms of coercive social policing and regulation by centralized authority.

> * if "regulation" is supposed to mean legal regimentation of market relationships > * if "regulation" is supposed to mean making a process or a network of relationships orderly or regular > > You're saying the exact same thing in both these case. In a practical sense if I'm a merchant in a market, then a "legal regimentation" and a "orderly process" both mean that someone is telling me what I can and cannot do. I am not saying the same thing at all, unless you think that the only way orderly or regular processes can come about is by people being told by external authorities what they can do and what they cannot do. But of course as a libertarian I deny that that's the only way social processes can become orderly or regular. Markets are full of, and indeed are themselves, spontaneous orders that don't depend on anyone's unilateral say-so or on any exercise of centralized or coercive authority. You know this, don't you? I wrote: > we discuss the use of coordinated grassroots activism for addressing concerns about economic exploitation, sexism, racial segregation and environmental sustainability You reply: > This to me sounds like a vigilante gang imposing their form of social standards onto others, presumably through violence. Well I don't know what to tell you except that this is insane. I said nothing about "vigilante gangs" or "imposing" or "violence," and specifically stated that I was talking about "grassroots cultural developments and nonviolent social activism," not the use of force -- specifically the use of boycotts, strikes, social protest and consciousness-raising, culturejamming, diffuse nonviolent adoption of social and cultural norms, supporting the development of alternative institutions, divestment, et cetera. I can't control how things "sound like" to you, but if this is what you heard then I can only suggest that it has more to do with how you're listening than with anything I've said. Have you read hte section of the book that I'm discussing, or the individual articles in it (most of them are available separately online, as is the book as a whole)? If so, where in the world did you find anything about "imposing ... social standards onto others ... through violence"? If not, then maybe you should do something to make yourself less than ignorant about the text I'm describing before you shoot off about what it "sounds like" through some process of free association. > If one vendor in a market declines to sell to blacks or women, then what are the regulatory police supposed to do? There are no regulatory police in a market anarchy. What ordinary people may do, without any exercise of policing powers, is to withdraw their money, their labor power, or their social support from people who act like bigots. They may also choose to actively protest this kind of conduct and encourage each other to choose the same course of action. If you can't figure out how that works without force or police powers, start [here](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/it-just-aint-so/opposing-the-civil-rights-act-means-opposing-civil-rights/) and continue [here](http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/it-just-aint-so/opposing-the-civil-rights-act-means-opposing-civil-rights/). > What I meant by uncoordinated regulation is the idea that coordinated regulation occurs when government and business colludes, whereas uncoordinated regulation occurs when government and business are not allowed to discuss plans between each other. The government is still there to regulate, it's just detached from the opinions of businessmen. Oh, O.K. Then I would say that what you mean by "uncoordinated regulation" is certainly not OK by my lights, and is not defended by anyone in the book. Speaking for myself, I think in fact that it is an utterly illusory goal -- a ridiculous sort of ideological myth, for reasons I discuss [elsewhere in "From Right-on to WTF? in Three Easy Steps"](http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/10/09/three-easy-steps/). But even if I thought that I were somehow possible, I would oppose it just as such, because I am an anarchist, not a statist, and I oppose all forms of coercive social policing and regulation by centralized authority.

You get some pretty different stories on this from different capis, but my general inclination is to say that there is no single coherent meaning of "capitalism" used by anarchocapitalists. On the one hand when asked to give an explicit definition anarcho-capitalists will usually define capitalism simply in terms of private property and free market exchange (or perhaps free markets with an advanced division of labor, or a functioning stock exchange, or similar). On the other hand when confronted with things like free market syndicalism ([1](http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/03/23/el_pueblo/), [2](http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/03/23/el_pueblo/)) or [cooperative ownership of the means of production](http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/05/23/king_ludds/), or [ground-level protests against Fortune 500 corporations or free-market defenses of non-commercialized, anti-corporate uses of property](http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/04/25/three_notes/) they tend to raise hackles and start growling more or less explicitly about the anticapitalistic mentality. Which would seem to indicate that there is more involved than just free markets and private property, since none of the above are in any basic logical conflict with either -- something which looks a lot like the traditional mutualist uses of "capitalism" to mean sothe wages system, or the domination of the means of production by bosses, bankers and landlords, or similar. Now I think all this sort of two-step is happening because the use of "capitalism" that they're deploying in argument is neither the definition of capitalism as free markets, nor the definition of capitalism as a boss-dominated economy. It's not a simple, clean definition at all, but rather [a concealed causal claim](http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalism) -- the typical anarcho-capitalist is generally using the term to mean something like "a highly-developed corporate economy, like the one we'd get if we had totally free markets." But if that's what they mean, then that's a [zaxlebax](http://mises.org/daily/2099#6), and almost certain to confuse certain kinds of discussions more than it facilitates them.

You get some pretty different stories on this from different capis, but my general inclination is to say that there is no single coherent meaning of "capitalism" used by anarchocapitalists. On the one hand when asked to give an explicit definition anarcho-capitalists will usually define capitalism simply in terms of private property and free market exchange (or perhaps free markets with an advanced division of labor, or a functioning stock exchange, or similar). On the other hand when confronted with things like free market syndicalism ([1](http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/03/23/el_pueblo/), [2](http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/03/23/el_pueblo/)) or [cooperative ownership of the means of production](http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/05/23/king_ludds/), or [ground-level protests against Fortune 500 corporations or free-market defenses of non-commercialized, anti-corporate uses of property](http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/04/25/three_notes/) they tend to raise hackles and start growling more or less explicitly about the anticapitalistic mentality. Which would seem to indicate that there is more involved than just free markets and private property, since none of the above are in any basic logical conflict with either -- something which looks a lot like the traditional mutualist uses of "capitalism" to mean sothe wages system, or the domination of the means of production by bosses, bankers and landlords, or similar. Now I think all this sort of two-step is happening because the use of "capitalism" that they're deploying in argument is neither the definition of capitalism as free markets, nor the definition of capitalism as a boss-dominated economy. It's not a simple, clean definition at all, but rather [a concealed causal claim](http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalism) -- the typical anarcho-capitalist is generally using the term to mean something like "a highly-developed corporate economy, like the one we'd get if we had totally free markets." But if that's what they mean, then that's a [zaxlebax](http://mises.org/daily/2099#6), and almost certain to confuse certain kinds of discussions more than it facilitates them.

Thanks. That's actually one of the best one-sentence descriptions I've ever read of the purpose of the book, and the reasons we made the decisions we made in collecting the different pieces of it together.

Thanks. That's actually one of the best one-sentence descriptions I've ever read of the purpose of the book, and the reasons we made the decisions we made in collecting the different pieces of it together.