Talk:Anarchism/Archive 36

message: Please, let's avoid using the edit summary as if it were the talk page. The edit summary is to tell what you changed and why, not to have a full conversation. It's better to have the conversation on the talk page instead. Thanks. --cesarb 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: "That's just not true" is not good enough. Do you know of an individualist anarchist that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism? Benjamin Tucker even called Auberon Herbert a "true anarchist," and Herbert fully supported interest, rent, and profit. RJII 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no anarcho-capitalists at that time -- of course there wouldn't be any criticism at that period. To make the positive claim that no individualist anarchist questions the pedigree of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism, you need to provide evidence. The burden of proof is on nobody but yourself. What you're essentially asserting is that God exists because nobody can prove that he doesn't. --AaronS 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there were. Auberon Herbert was an anarcho-capitalist, and Tucker called him a "true anarchist." Herbert just didn't call himself an anarcho-capitalist --the term wasn't invented yet. But, I know you're going to say that's irrelevant since he didn't call himself an anarcho-capitalist, and that's fine. But, contemporary labor-value individualist anarchists don't argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism either. Sure, the burden is on me to show that there are no individualist anarchists that say it's not a form of anarchism. But, I could say: "We have not found any individualist anarchists that deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism." RJII 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument makes no sense. People like Auberon Herbert and Gustave de Molinari didn't call themselves anarchist, and I don't think that was just some freak coincidence. They like most people saw their philosophies as incompatible with anarchism. It's as if you think anarchism doesn't exist outside of the United States. The vast majority of anarchists probably hadn't even read anything about it. With the exception of a few American individualists like Tucker, it was only anarcho-capitalist revisionists who decided to retroactively call these people anarchists to create their own roots. And I actually tend to see voluntaryism as not necessarily anarcho-capitalist. If everything is contractually based, I don't know why you're necessarily left with capitalism, whatever Herbert himself had to say. If anything I consider voluntaryism the purest form of liberal anarchism, and much more similar to individualist anarchism than anarcho-capitalism. Sarge Baldy 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you could say that. It sounds a lot like a Kansas Board of Education notice on evolution, and it wouldn't contribute anything to the article. And yes, unless you can find a non-partisan source that says that Herbert was an anarcho-capitalist, despite the fact that he never called himself one and was never called one by his contemporaries, it is irrelevant. The burden is still on you. --AaronS 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Molinari's 'Production of Security' reads much like anarcho-capitalist stuff on PDAs - though as Rothbard says he would have 'baulked at the term'. We've had plenty of argument here, which I think is basically right, that you can't just pick out some writing 100 aeons before and say 'this thing by A sounds like what my school X is saying now, therefore A was one of us, whether he would have liked it or not'. Plus of course in Molinari's other work he supports the state - there are archived discussions on that you can look at. Herbert supported limited states, explicitly denied he was anti-state let alone an anarchist. Much seems to be made of Tucker's comment that H was a 'true anarchist' - you would think Herbert's own views on the matter would count for at least as much as Tucker's. As for Spencer, even in 'the right to disobey the state' or whatever it's called he says the state is a 'necessary evil'. My approach would be, at most, to describe these as 'antecedents' of ancapism in the same way we have diggers, taoists, et al down as antecedents of anarchism. These post hoc attributions need to be treated with care.Bengalski 20:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He would have "balked at the term" not because he opposed anarcho-capitalism, but because the term "capitalism" had not even been uttered until 1854 (as far as historians know), and even then it did not refer to an economic system, but to the mere ownership of a large amount of wealth. It's only in the 20th century that it refers to what it does now --a laissez-faire system.  Of course he would have balked at the term. RJII 20:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's rubbish RJII - eg. when was Marx's 'Capital' published? What were those volume subtitles again? Or never mind Marx, read Proudhon on capitalism. - but I think this is another discussion that's been done to death before. As for Molinari, you can find his very self using the term in eg. 'questions economiques', 
or 'cours d'economie politique' , and very much talking about economic systems.Bengalski 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx Das Capital was not until 1857, and he didn't use the term "capitalism" but "capitalist." And, the "capitalist production form" was not conceived as a laissez-faire economic system. Proudhon used the term "capitalist" in 1867. Look at old dictionaries if you need evidence that capitalism was not defined in the 19th century as it is now. That's the problem with some of the anarchists here ..you're sticking to outmoded definitions and it's causing communications problems. RJII 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market"  If you want to communicate effectively with people in the modern world, you need to use our definitions. Otherwise, you just cause problems for yourself. 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you wrote this, RJII? "Laissez-faire is capitalism" is market fundamentalist POV. People in the modern world all acknowledge capitalism to be private MOP with free market. Nothing about laissez-faire. Infinity0 talk 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "free market" is laissez-faire --the lack of state intervention. RJII 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Rather than by the state"  ..in other words, laissez-faire ..a free market. RJII 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is non-sequitur. A market can have trade restrictions on it. Infinity0 talk 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. It doesn't have to be absolutely free to be capitalism, but it is to be very free. Anarcho-capitalists want an absolutely free market. RJII 21:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, capitalism isn't laissez faire. That phrase is only mentioned once in the wikiquotes, and from a rightist "Investment terms" dictionary. It's not the common meaning. Infinity0 talk 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laissez-faire doesn't mean absolutely free market either. It means minimal intervention. "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights"  RJII 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though it wasn't an absolutely free market in the U.S. Benjamin Tucker appreciated what economic freedom there was: "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism." RJII 21:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's in Martin, 1970, page 275. He's talking about the State forms of those systems. He opposes State Socialism. RJII 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaron deleting note that the criticism doesnt come from individualist anarchists

message: There are some seriously loaded words that keep causing problems here, and I think we need to find ways to remove the problem. The word capitalism is one. Socialists argue that capitalism is concentration of capital, while capitalists argue that it is a free market. Wage labor is causing some problems, because to socialists it necessarily implies profit, while to capitalists it merely means receiving money for labor worked. I'd like to think that this problem could be solved by saying socialists oppose employment? There is also the problem of the definition of socialism. To anarchist socialists, socialism means that the only source of wealth is labor and that only labor should be rewarded with wealth. To capitalists, socialism means a control economy. I think that for this article to make sense, and to eliminate the semantics causing so much debate here, it is necessary to define these terms in the manner that they are referred to by their respective philosophies. That is, use a different definition in each section, and point out that that is what we are doing. Anybody? CJames745 23:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. We can't communicate because everybody is using different definitions for the crucial terms. Communicating and settling things is really inefficient here. Each school of anarchism defines terms differently. RJII 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One way of tackling the problem would be orient at least part of the article historically, so that we can introduce changes in terminology as different factions emerge. I'm considering proposing just that sort of rearrangement for the mutualism entry. There, we are probably talking about at least four or five different varieties of "mutualism." The connections between them are real, and the development of variations in the doctrine is entirely explicable, but not yet explained. It is possible that if we did historical justice to some of the shorter, more specific entries, we could devote more of the main Anarchism entry to the exploration of contemporary schools (which some folks seem to think is desirable.) Libertatia 00:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Another possible way would be to put a little box for each school of anarchism with the defintions for their terms. For example, see the definition box in the anarcho-capitalism article. RJII 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This ariticle is probably best dedicated to the history of anarchism (including contemporary history), and the information about the schools split off, and those boxes RJII suggests put in their own articles. Infinity0 talk 00:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if doing some of the history in smaller pieces might make it easier to get qualified folks to dig in a little more seriously, or to let those of us currently at it specialize a bit. On RJII's boxes: it might take quite a few little boxes, but acknowledging the differences in vocabulary—between factions and in different eras—helps the reader be sensitive to the kind of things that trip us up here, even when we're aware of them. A little of both approaches may be necessary. Libertatia 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could make the boxes really small. The value of seeing the definitions each school of thought uses would be enormous. RJII 00:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wage labour isn't just "selling labour" - it's the mode of production where labour-power is sold. Even individualist anarchists oppose that. Infinity0 talk 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not just profit that the communists oppose. They oppose wage labor altogether --profit or not. Labor is not supposed to be bought and sold. Check out Benjamin Tucker in a dispute with communists over it:  RJII 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, communists oppose all payment, but mutualists and collectivists do not. Infinity, I agree with your definition of wage labour but it is also a confusing definition because it can make it sound like all socialist anarchists oppose payment even if they sponsor labor notes. It's more important to get the concept than the language across. Only communists are against payment, collectivists and mutualists believe in payment equivalent to labor worked. A statement about the employer/employee relationship is much more vital. CJames745 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I started wage labour. The distinction between the formal and informal uses could be expanded upon, I suppose. I mean, what else can we call it? "The capitalist mode of production" is even more loaded terminology. Infinity0 talk 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loaded Words

message: A while back, I think it was MrVoluntarist who questioned the veracity of Bertrand Russell's claim that the Anabaptists were communists by claiming that he was a partisan source. I don't know much about Arthur Bestor, but he says the same in "The Evolution of the Socialist Vocabulary", a 1948 article in The Johns Hopkins University's respected Journal of the History of Ideas: "...the reason why the invention of this active term [communist] was delayed until the nineteenth century was that prior to that time the advocates of community of property had appeared so sporadically that no collective name for them was needed... There were no communists; there were only Anabaptists, or Diggers, or Shakers, or Labadists, or Herrnhuters, or Rappites, or Zoarites." So, that's one more scholarly source. --AaronS 03:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like it says the Anabaptists weren't communist.  But your point is a strawman anyway. (I'm serious this time.) MrVoluntarist 04:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the context of the quotation is that Bestor is saying that those people were communists, but that they wouldn't have been called that, because there weren't enough of them to develop such a label. So, no, he is saying that they were communist. --AaronS 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter.  Bestor is a communist.  Of course he's going to believe communism has long, deep roots anywhere and everywhere.  That's what people who believe in communism want to believe. MrVoluntarist 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did you find information that he was (he's dead, you know) a communist? I did a Google search and couldn't find much, though I did find this with regard to his criticism of Progressive education: "Despite his political liberalism, however, Bestor's criticism resonated with conservative opponents of Progressivism and public education. Over time, Bestor adjusted his views to accommodate his increasingly conservative audience."  Doesn't seem like your typical communist darling to me. --AaronS 05:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I thought we were allowed to make up authors' allegiances as a facade to remove sources.  We're not? MrVoluntarist 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you ever have anything substantive to add, or do you just like to insult and defame your fellow editors? I'm just wondering. Although, I have to say that I take it as a compliment that you lose so much sleep over me. What do you want, flowers and chocolates? Get over it. --AaronS 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I'm really confused.  Why did you make up that three authors criticizing anarcho-capitalism were anarcho-capitalists?  I mean, if making up allegiances of authors you want to exclude isn't okay, why did you do it?  Or is this another thing were you say "for pro-anarcho-capitalist stuff, I hold the standard that making up obviously false allegiances is okay.  For references about communism, it's not." ?  Help me out here.  What is acceptable and what isn't?  And if someone makes up something obviously false or obviously without basis, what's the appropriate reponse.  I'm just trying to learn how to deal with Wikipedians like you.  Help me out. MrVoluntarist 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that this discussion ended weeks ago. I already admitted my mistake. Would you like me to admit it again? Alright, I made a mistake, then. Now, what exactly will it take to get you to move on and get over it? Or are your irreversably damaged by it? You know, MrVoluntarist, people make mistakes. And sometimes they're just because people make honest mistakes, not because the people who made them are bad or evil or want to hurt you. Next time someone makes a mistake, try to assume good faith instead of attacking them for weeks. It's not healthy to be so angry and obsessive for so long. --AaronS 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anabaptists

message: Also, (assuming Tucker is against wage labour) (saying this is an assmuption for the purposes of NPOV) Tucker would have criticised anarcho-capitalism, since in anarcho-capitalism wage labour is allowed. So it doesn't matter whether he criticised a-capitalism specifically or not, and he couldn't have since it wasn't around in his day. Infinity0 talk 17:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism was around. It was called Voluntaryism. Tucker had no real problem with it. He said that if it was implemented it would result in the inability to profit. Just like contemporary individualist anarchist Kevin Carson argues. RJII 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Anarcho-capitalism was around. It was called Voluntaryism." And its supporters *explicitly* rejected calling themselves anarchists. So it is fair not to call it a form of anarchism, given this. As for "Tucker had no real problem with it" that is false. The Individualist Anarchists noted that "voluntaryism" involved keeping the existing distribution of property and then saying "no more coercion." They noted that this was hypocrisy and said that the poor would be right to expropriate land and capital (Yarro, as quoted in "Benjamin Tucker and the Champions of Liberty").  User:BlackFlag 8:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tucker excommunicated Kropotkin from anarchism, which means he is hardly a reliable guide to who is and who is not an anarchist! Herbert himself explicitly rejected the label anarchism. Between Herbert and Tucker, I think I'll stick with Herbert on what he thought his ideas should be called. Moreover, Kropotkin did not list "Voluntaryism" as a form of anarchism, nor did Nettleu. If it was "anarcho"-capitalism then, obviously, social anarchists rejected the idea that it was anarchist. So let me make a suggestion, change references to "anarcho"-capitalism to "voluntaryism" and note that its founding fathers rejected the label anarchist/anarchism. Seems fair to them and to anarchists. [[User:BlackFlag] 08:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it does say he's a true anarchist --not the link on the net, but in Liberty volume 15, no 6, page 16. He doesn't come down on Herbert for wage labor, because he support wage labor, of course. RJII 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No they don't. The show support of wage labor. Herbert supported wage labor:  RJII 19:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you're saying. RJII 19:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We already know that Tucker didn't oppose wage labor. He opposed profit being deducted from wages. RJII 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Anarcho is the author. I'm using your standard. You said as long as an article was sourced and well written, it's credible. If we have the "anarchist FAQ" then this also counts as a primary source.  RJII 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The author knows exactly what he's talking about --non labor income would dissapear. In other words, profit would disappear, not wages. There is no necessity that profits have to be deducted from wage labor. RJII 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What's my POV? My main interest has always been individualist anarchism. Wage labor is simply being paid wages for labor, whether profit is deducted or not. Tucker supports it. He oppose PROFIT from being deducted from wage labor. Communists oppose wage labor, period. RJII 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because you're wrong. The "formal" meaning is paying wages for labor. Wage-Labor. Duh. RJII 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Anarchist FAQ is written by communists. Don't you get it?  They oppose individualist anarchists AND anarcho-capitalists. It's very low quality document for reliable information. We know that. They just make things up. RJII 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, but Infinity needs to take out Tucker as a source, because Tucker supports payment by an employer to an employee for labor (wage labor). RJII 22:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wage labor is not unique to capitalism. Profit is unique to capitalism. Wage labor exists in individualist anarchism AND capitalism. Voltairine de Cleyre said that the "essential institutions of Commercialism are in themselves good, and are rendered vicious merely by the interference by the State," and that "the system of employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism" would exist in individualist anarchy. RJII 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, like I said "employment isn't unique to capitalism; wage labour is". Infinity0 talk 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tucker had no problem with a boss. "any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." RJII 23:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a hypothetical situation in which he describes the current establishment. Infinity0 talk 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's a hypothetical situation. It's called "anarchy." He has no problem with employer/employee in a laissez-fair market. RJII 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, he was describing the current situation where some employers were oppressing their employees. Above quote shows Tucker was against "privilege to choose masters" - which is wage labour. Infinity0 talk 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?! But, he was saying *IF* if were a laissez-faire situation, then ""any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth."  But, he also opposed violence being used against employers in the real world situation. He thought people should be allowed to make any kind of contract they wish with anyone they wish. RJII 23:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, he wasn't! We've discussed this source before; the context was something like "let there be just laws; then <rest of quote>". Infinity0 talk 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes he was. Here's the fuller quote: "Let Carnegie, Dana & Co. first see to it that every law in violation of equal liberty is removed from the statute-books. if, after that, any laborers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive "scabs," or shall attack their employers' watchmen, whether these be Pinkerton detectives, sheriff's deputies, or the State militia, I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." There you have it. RJII 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what I just said... "let there be just laws". He's not describing anarchy, but the current situation and a hypothetical one which isn't anarchy. Infinity0 talk 23:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker and wage labour 2 

message: RJII, please understand I am NOT trying to "inject communist POV into Tucker". I'm just interpreting what I'm reading. I used "wage labour" because that is the shortest way to say what he was talking about.
You're trying to explain and justify from your POV all the detailed intricacies of Tucker in one paragraph, because you think it misleads the reader. I don't understand how. I've removed the references to wage labour, now all it says is that he opposed the separation. How is the reader possibly misled now?
The paragraph is only meant to detail Tucker's differences between anarcho-capitalism, not give a full explanation why. That's already done elsewhere. Trying to justify everything so that the reader see things "your way" is both POV and inefficient - it bloats up the article, and repeats stuff unnecessarily. What's wrong with it right now? Infinity0 talk 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say he opposes the separation between employee and employer, then you need to explain what he means by that. He means that employers should have to labor for their incomes as well. He doesn't mean there are no more employee/employer situations. If you're trying "to detail Tucker's differences between anarcho-capitalism" that's not the way to do it. The difference lies in their respect theories of value. Tucker doesn't like profit. Anarcho-capitalists do. It has to little to do with employer/employee. Tucker explicitly says people should have a choice between working for themselves or working for others. RJII 20:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course he likes people to work for themselves. This is not a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists like entrepreneurship just as much. "That his differences from anarcho-capitalism is purely based on the theory of value he subscribes to is your own POV. There is nothing to suggest that whatsoever in his own writings." LOL! All I can do is laugh at that. That just proves that you've read NOTHING. RJII 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You just deleted the note that he supported private ownership. And, no he did not oppose employee relations. But you can't be bothered to read the source that shows that. And, you're screwing up the article because of that. RJII 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading what you wrote leads the reader into believe that Tucker doesn't support employer/employee relations. So, my problem is your deleting this: "To be sure, he did support the liberty of individuals in either "carrying on business for themselves or from assuming relations between themselves as employer and employee if they prefer." RJII 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't want me to start quoting the critical "Anarchist FAQ" that says he supports employer/employee do you? RJII 21:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's misleading. That gives the idea that he was against it but allowed it. He wasn't against it. You could also say that anarcho-capitalists are against prohibiting it altogether. RJII 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was against it, though. He specifically wants to minimise it. Infinity0 talk 20:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did he ever say that? RJII 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everyone shall be a labourer exchanging with fellow labourers." Infinity0 talk 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't say he's against employment. That means that employers will work, as well. RJII 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't say he's against employment either. Infinity0 talk 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, stop adding weasel words into the article. It is not just anarcho-communists who are against anarcho-capitalism. Infinity0 talk 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pathetic. I could write an individualist condemnation of anarcho-capitalist easily. You just don't know what you're doing because you don't understand individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with employment. RJII 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, you need to stop that false attributions to Tucker. He never says that he opposes the "split" between employees and employers. That's complete bunk that you made up. He says he wants the "distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out." That's not the same thing as saying he wants the distinction between employees and employers to be wiped out. Put the quote in so everyone can see for themselves what he's saying. We don't need your editoralized distortions. RJII 21:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That quote is in there already. Read it. The article does NOT say Tucker opposed employment, so I don't know what you're talking about. Infinity0 talk; 21:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He never says he wants to eliminate the distinction between employee and employer. Stop making things up. RJII 21:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "distinction between wage-payers and wage-receivers will be wiped out." Infinity0 talk 21:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. So, stop deleting that from the article and distorting to say that he wants the distinction between employer and employee to be wiped out. RJII 21:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the difference? Infinity0 talk 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that a wage payer is someone who pays someone wages, and a wage receiver is someone who receives wages. What constitutes an employer and employee relationship, in this context, is that someone owns a means of production and is allowing someone who doesn't own a means of production to operates his means of production and is paid wages for it. Tucker does not oppose that, as long as the employer is laboring as well and not just sitting back and getting an income from the employee's labor. RJII 21:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A wage-payer, in this context, is always an employer. Otherwise he is self-employed, and pays himself, and in that case there is no distinction. Infinity0 talk 21:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False. You can still pay an employee his full produce and still be an employer. Just leave the direct quote in, so the reader can see for himself. We don't need your distorted editoralizing. RJII 21:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloating 

message: VolatileChemical, why did you decide to re-order the sections? I'm not sure you got it all right; "Russian Revolution" doesn't seem to belong under "labour movement". Infinity0 talk 14:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section ordering 

message: Alright, here is the current version. I changed the last sentence to point out the particular type of private property individualist anarchists advocate.
:Similarly, individualist anarchists opposed the separation between the classes of employers and employees in capitalism. Benjamin Tucker proposed that under anarchy "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers"[13], although he argued neither to prohibit employement (despite his disapproval of it), nor to abolish wages.[26]. Instead, he felt that a deregulated market would drive wages up to their "natural rate"[27]. (Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.) Individualist anarchists also oppose property rights in land, favoring instead "occupancy and use." Unlike many social anarchists, however, individualist anarchists do believe in private ownership of the means of production based upon labor worked.
Any problems? I support this version. CJames745 02:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, they also opposed property rights in things like houses as well -- the only exception to "occupancy and use" i've come across in Tucker is for workplaces. This seems a strange exception, imho. I would also note what "natural rate" is, namely the whole product of their labour. With these additions, I think it is okay -- although "property rights" is a bit vague. BlackFlag 09:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: I have banned RJII from this article, for two weeks, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJII banned. 

message: I started a while ago (months) to split the article up into sub articles with only a small intro to each topic.  However, then there was an edit war and the page got reverted and protected and I left Wikipedia for a while.  The article is not nearly as good as what it was.  However, I think it would be good if this project was started again.  This would also spread out any edit wars, and only sub-articles would get the majority of the shit. (comment added by User:Harrismw)
:That's not a bad idea, although really if you look at each section they aren't that big. Also, anarcho-communism and individualism do both exist in this article, but under history not types. CJames745 06:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not blocked, and neither are you now (I asked Sarge Baldy to remove the semi-protection so you could edit). Happy editing :) -- infinity0 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long 

message: As for shortening the article, maybe we could start with trying to trim the intro back down?Bengalski 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not blocked, and neither are you now (I asked Sarge Baldy to remove the semi-protection so you could edit). Happy editing :) -- infinity0 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro too long

message: Yeah I'll do some trimming of the article - if people aren't happy with what I've cut out they can always revert it. But I think we really don't need to go into as much detail on all of the theoretical niceties. Especially the sections on individualism, Proudhon etc. where there was most edit-warring have become extended as people insisted on getting their points in. But this level of detail is really more suited to the pages dedicated to those subjects - here we need only a basic summary or pointer to the debates. I also agree with Sarge Baldy above that there is too much emphasis on theory - we could actually do with a bit more on history as a few important things aren't even featured. Off the top of my head I'd like to see brief paras on the Haymarket martyrs, ukraine, Tolstoyan communes, even Paris 68. And then we have almost nothing on other parts of the world - Latin American anarchism for one, and I'm sure other places I know nothing about.Bengalski 15:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trimming the article

message: Apart from RJII, is anyone in opposition to the removal of the POV and Inaccurate tags from this and Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism? -- infinity0 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, until edit-warring starts up again, I would leave a POV tag on the anacho-capitalism section only. (It may be against the wiki ideal, but this section is an argument for a permanent POV tag.)Bengalski 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been there for a long time. It just means that some parts of the article is uncited; not necessarily all of it. -- infinity0 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to fix that, then. :) --whynotanarchy
I had made a change to the anarcho-capitalism thread so that it said Tucker opposed the division of class instead of saying he opposed employment. I thought it was clearer because the definition of employment is vague. The intention here is to explain that he didn't want there to be a division of class into employers and employees, but rather a society of laborers exchanging with one another. Somebody changed it back. I'm curious why. Was it just to be concise? Because I did think it was an important distinction. CJames745 06:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: although he argued neither to prohibit employement (despite his disapproval of it), nor to abolish wages.[24]. Instead, he felt that a deregulated market would drive wages up to their "natural rate"[25]. (Tucker did not explicitly argue against anarcho-capitalism, as it did not exist in his day.) 
-- infinity0 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still says "although he argued neither to prohibit employment (despite his disapproval of it)..." This is wrong. I demand a source that says he disapproved of employment. RJII 16:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not "safe to assume." It's plain wrong. Tucker supports employment. I've provided multiple quotes. Stop telling me I haven't provided quotes. YOu're wrong that "he opposes employer/ee class distinction." RJII 16:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: False. RJII 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But, since that's the one you remember. Let's look at your "Anarchist FAQ" on that: "If we take the first problem, namely the creation of employer-employee relationships within an anarchy, we see the danger of private statism arising (as in "anarcho"-capitalism) and so the end of anarchy. Such a development can be seen when Tucker argues that if, in an anarchy, "any labourers shall interfere with the rights of their employers, or shall use force upon inoffensive 'scabs,' or shall attack their employers' watchmen. . . I pledge myself that, as an Anarchist and in consequence of my Anarchistic faith, I will be among the first to volunteer as a member of a force to repress these disturbers of order, and, if necessary, sweep them from the earth." [Instead of a Book, p. 455]" -Infoshop anarchist FAQ (written by communists).  They acknowledge that he supported employment, and that's one of the reasons why they "reject individualist anarchism." RJII 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course he thought employers were a good thing. How else is someone with no means of production supposed to make an income? Employers serve a useful purpose. By his support of wages, that tells you that he supports employment. But more, importantly, you haven't provided a source saying he disapproves of employment. RJII 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL! So to be an employer means you have to sit on your ass doing nothing? That's not what employer means. An employer is someone who own a means of production that allows someone else to use his means of production and pays them to operate it. That's not what Tucker is opposed to. What he wants is that the employee's wages come from the labor of the employer. RJII 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See comments on Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. -- infinity0 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I would support taking out the whole paragraph and move this debate to 'anarchism and ancapism'. All we should do on this page is state that most anarchists (not 'communists' or 'individualists', but simply most anarchists) oppose capitalism, and direct the reader to debates elsewhere. If RJII won't accept such a bare phrasing we should take this debate to some kind of vote or even arbitration, but adding chunks into the article to carry on the argument there isn't the right approach.Bengalski 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This also needs to be taken out: "Similarly, individualist anarchists opposed the separation between the classes of employers and employees in capitalism." First, of all, by "similarly" you're equating him with the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ. Secondly, it's wrong. Nowhere does he says that he opposes a class distinction between employers and employees. What he opposes is a class distinction between some who work for a living, and others that don't. ANd, there is no necessity that an employer has to be someone who doesn't work. RJII 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not equating him with communists, stop saying that. He DID want to wipe out the distinction between employers and employees - he wanted everyone to be an employee. -- infinity0 17:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I was equating him with communists. I said saying that you're making him look like he shares the communist idea on employment and wages, by saying "similarly." He did NOT want to "wipe out the distinction between employers and employees..." He wanted to wipe out the distinction between "wage-receivers" and "wage-payers," meaning that everyone should have to work for a living. RJII 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ"? The FAQ, as it says, is produced by social anarchists. It lists communist, syndicalist, collectivist and mutualist as schools of social anarchism. That RJII continues to equate social anarchist with communist anarchist says it all. For his information, anarchist opposition to wage labour is found in Proudhon. You need not be a communist to oppose it. I do wish RJII would get his facts right. User:BlackFlag 11:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. RJII 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. Why remove "oppose wage labour"? At least the opposition to class distinction should be mentioned. -- infinity0 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention, it looks desperate. RJII 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include the mention of wage labour, employees etc. then we do need another para explaining the diff between wage labour and wages, all the debate about Tucker etc. bla bla bla ... if we talk about class then may need to go into all the debate about equality bla bla bla .... and I just don't think it's really necessary - profit and capitalism are definitely the main points, anyone interested further can read all about it on the sub-page. You've got valid points, just they don't need to be in the main article. Bengalski 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd delete it if I could, but Infinity, who has been edit-warring, tried to file an arbitration case against me to keep me from editing Wikipedia, so I was banned from editing this article for two weeks just based on that fact that he REQUESTED arbitration. Never mind that it never went to arbitration so the charges were never proven. RJII 19:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop complaining. You weren't deleting it, you were re-writing it so that it lost its point and make things more complex than needed. Consider yourself lucky; the probation has a one-year ban attached to it, and you got two weeks. -- infinity0 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just pointing out to others your methodology of filing an arbitration case to try to get me banned for a year instead of trying to reach a consensus. I have legitimate concerns, and I know I know what I'm talking about when it comes to individualist anarchism. The stuff you write about individualist anarchism is extremely flawed, as it tries to relate it to the communist POV. Getting me banned from Wikipedia doesn't make the problem go away. RJII 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  shows the differences I made to the section during the whole edit war. You didn't accept any of it. -- infinity0 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't accept unsourceable information and flawed interpretation. RJII 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: RJII, your bolding of the above text is laughable. You made Firebug quit wikipedia. -- infinity0 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that's laughable is your request for arbitration. And, no I did not make Firebug quit Wikipedia. Don't make false claims. RJII 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't make false claims about my "methodology of filing arb cases". :| -- infinity0 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really funny that you accuse me of making Firebug quit Wikipedia, when I have no such power to do. You're the one trying to force me off of Wikipedia by filing a dubious arbitration case. RJII 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever, man. I can't force the Arbitration Committee to do anything. I'm not paying them. -- infinity0 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You filed the aribration case knowing I was on probation (as the result of a similar attempt to censor me), knowing that I could be banned for year. If I was banned for a year, you wouldn't have to deal with my objections. Fortunately, the arbitrators can see through that stuff. RJII 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not forcing the arbitration committee to do anything! You were at liberty to do whatever you want! No coercion involved! :| -- infinity0 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not forcing the arbitrators to do anything. You're trying to pursuade them to force me off of Wikipedia. You failed. 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really :| I just wanted a break from you accusing me of misleading readers. -- infinity0 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of tags 

message: Anarcho-capitalism is a predominantly United States-based theoretical tradition that desires a stateless society with the economic system of free market capitalism. Unlike other branches of anarchism, it does not oppose profit or capitalism. Consequently, most anarchists do not recognise anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism.
Murray Rothbard's synthesis of classical liberalism and Austrian economics was germinal for the development of contemporary anarcho-capitalist theory. He defines anarcho-capitalism in terms of the non-aggression principle, based on the concept of Natural Law. Competiting theorists use egoism, utilitarianism (used by David Friedman), or contractarianism (used by Jan Narveson). Some minarchists, such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and Robert A. Heinlein, have influenced anarcho-capitalism.
Some anarcho-capitalists, along with some right-wing libertarian historians such as David Hart and Ralph Raico, considered similar philosophies existing prior to Rothbard to be anarcho-capitalist, such as those of Gustave de Molinari and Auberon Herbert Molinari, Gustave de. Preface to "The Production of Security", translated by J. Huston McCulloch, Occasional Papers Series #2 (Richard M. Ebeling, Editor), New York: The Center for Libertarian Studies, May 1977.Raico, Ralph Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS (2004). Opponents of anarcho-capitalists dispute these claims.McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al Replies to Some Errors and Distortions in Bryan Caplan's "Anarchist Theory FAQ" version 5.2 An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.2 Accessed February 20, 2006.
The place of anarcho-capitalism within anarchism, and indeed whether it is a form of anarchism at all, is highly controversial. For more on this debate see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Bengalski 17:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. RJII 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. Why remove "oppose wage labour"? At least the opposition to class distinction should be mentioned. -- infinity0 17:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention, it looks desperate. RJII 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include the mention of wage labour, employees etc. then we do need another para explaining the diff between wage labour and wages, all the debate about Tucker etc. bla bla bla ... if we talk about class then may need to go into all the debate about equality bla bla bla .... and I just don't think it's really necessary - profit and capitalism are definitely the main points, anyone interested further can read all about it on the sub-page. You've got valid points, just they don't need to be in the main article. Bengalski 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd delete it if I could, but Infinity, who has been edit-warring, tried to file an arbitration case against me to keep me from editing Wikipedia, so I was banned from editing this article for two weeks just based on that fact that he REQUESTED arbitration. Never mind that it never went to arbitration so the charges were never proven. RJII 19:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop complaining. You weren't deleting it, you were re-writing it so that it lost its point and make things more complex than needed. Consider yourself lucky; the probation has a one-year ban attached to it, and you got two weeks. -- infinity0 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just pointing out to others your methodology of filing an arbitration case to try to get me banned for a year instead of trying to reach a consensus. I have legitimate concerns, and I know I know what I'm talking about when it comes to individualist anarchism. The stuff you write about individualist anarchism is extremely flawed, as it tries to relate it to the communist POV. Getting me banned from Wikipedia doesn't make the problem go away. RJII 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  shows the differences I made to the section during the whole edit war. You didn't accept any of it. -- infinity0 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't accept unsourceable information and flawed interpretation. RJII 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: RJII, your bolding of the above text is laughable. You made Firebug quit wikipedia. -- infinity0 21:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that's laughable is your request for arbitration. And, no I did not make Firebug quit Wikipedia. Don't make false claims. RJII 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't make false claims about my "methodology of filing arb cases". :| -- infinity0 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really funny that you accuse me of making Firebug quit Wikipedia, when I have no such power to do. You're the one trying to force me off of Wikipedia by filing a dubious arbitration case. RJII 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever, man. I can't force the Arbitration Committee to do anything. I'm not paying them. -- infinity0 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You filed the aribration case knowing I was on probation (as the result of a similar attempt to censor me), knowing that I could be banned for year. If I was banned for a year, you wouldn't have to deal with my objections. Fortunately, the arbitrators can see through that stuff. RJII 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not forcing the arbitration committee to do anything! You were at liberty to do whatever you want! No coercion involved! :| -- infinity0 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not forcing the arbitrators to do anything. You're trying to pursuade them to force me off of Wikipedia. You failed. 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really :| I just wanted a break from you accusing me of misleading readers. -- infinity0 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism

message: That article also needs work, perhaps more so than this article. Could someone go have a look at it? Most of the article focuses on the differences between ind-anarchism and a-capitalism; not enough focus is given to differences between soc-anarchism and a-capitalism. Also, it's kind of muddled up atm. -- infinity0 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we've banned all the anarcho-capitalists, we can delete that section and the individualist anarchist section, and all their books!
Please sign your posts. Besides, RJII said he endorses the current version. And why would social anarchists have any desire to delete the individualist section at all? CJames745 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still around... I'm not actually an anarcho-capitalist (more of a minarchist libertarian), but I do favor individualism and capitalism, so the socialist/communist bloc hasn't managed to purge everybody who opposes their POV quite yet. *Dan T.* 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism]] 

message: I reverted this change to "Propaganda of the deed" because it made the section too big. Someone might be able to condense it down and re-insert it. -- infinity0 13:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit moved here