That depends on how one defines the two terms as well as how firm of a
grasp on their own ideology the proponent of it it has in some cases.

The principal ideological difference, though, is property theory.

Mutualists advocate a usufruct approach to property law, Rothbardian
an-caps advocate Rothbardian property theory (a radically anti-state
version of Lockean property theory -- call it Lockeanism 2.0) and
non-Rothbardian an-caps tend to have no theory of justice in property
beyond existing property titles. Then there's the geoists, but I'm not
going there right now...

Mutualists and those Rothbardians that get along well with them tend
to look at the two property theories as two seperate legal doctrines
that could amicably compete in a stateless free market for arbitration
services (i.e. "law" and "courts"). It may be a bit more involved than
"metric vs. English", but you hopefully get the drift.

There are other differences. Many are just cultural or terminological,
though, IMO.

In academic terms, one could count the economic dispute over
subjective value theory (an-caps) versus the labor theory of value
(mutualists). If we take Carson's work on the labor theory of value as
the best modern take on it and the "plumb-line" for modern mutualist
political economy doctrine, this becomes an irrelevant difference in
practical terms. Carson's understanding of the labor theory of value
that he promotes in his book is heavily subjectivized. LTV stops being
a rationale for statist forcible redistribution of wealth and instead
describes/predicts how free markets will tend to even out wealth
naturally (a tendency or opinion subjectivists can also hold -- we
just don't incorporate that into an economic theory of value).

On 9/28/07, steohawk <steohawk@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> Perhaps I don't understand mutualism, but why is it considered
> different from anarcho-capitalism? Don't mutualists believe that by
> removing the state and economic intervention, greater economic
> equality would naturally result in the free market? If that's so, then
> how are they different than Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists?
>
>