Talk:Anarchism/Archive 42

message: A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article
*Anarcho-capitalism being given its place in "Schools of Anarchist Thought". It will be given a mention on par with that of the American individualist anarchists - I think this is immensely generous but the an-cap community is well-represented here on WP and I think it's justified. However, the contentious nature of an-cap's place as "anarchist" school must be mentioned, as well as how it markedly stands distinct from the rest of the tradition, being only linked with the American individualists, who are removed from the individualists (Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, etc, all fervent anti-capitalists). It is because these things are facts and any other representation is a misrepresentation and a distortion of POV.
*That mention being the only one of anarcho-capitalism in the article. That is where the individual particular schools are mentioned and the interested reader guided towards more fuller explanations of the theory. AnCap claims to be one of those schools, it obviously has some influence on WP so it must be humoured, but its influence on the majority trend in anarchism approaches zero - its marginal views will not be repeated. If all these differences must be crammed into their "Schools of Anarchist Thought" entry, making that section a bit larger than might be fair, so be it.
*Both "communism" and "capitalism" be addresses in "Issues in anarchism" - the anarcho-capitalists are not the only people in the broader anarchist tradition to distrust communism. However, because of the overwhelming view amongst anarchists, rejection of capitalism must clearly be shown as the more popular view in anarchism.
What is attempted through this scheme is to give anarcho-capitalism a fair representation in the Anarchism article, allowing those who might be interersted in it to view the extensive and well-written anarcho-capitalism article, but not to let an-cap hijack the article as it has continuously since the very beginning. I am not as naїve as to believe that Anarchism will suddenly become a stable article, but we need a more-or-less consensual agreement - a peace-treaty of sorts - to allow this article and this section of Wikipedia to function.
Sincerely yours, --GoodIntentionstalk 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Id like to add a couple of points from Ward about anarcho-capitalism. The first's his point about their solution to social and political problems in US. There are none or they are regarded by most anarchist as a "pathetic evasion of the issues raised by the anarchist criticism of American society". Also id like the point about some writers and their books from this tradition: "Robert Paul Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism; Robbert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom; and Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making." Stating that its a "different form of libertarianism" isnt really saying anything about anarcho-capitalism in-it-self. I think theres a need to write statement from the sources rather then only references. In Ward's case also because his view about this topic seems to be very steady and to the point. --Fjulle 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ancap section is fine at the moment and those suggestion, all of which sound good, would be better suited on the ancap article where more detail is likely warranted. Blockader 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra ward quotes on anarcho-capitalism

message: They both reject organized religion so again, I took the 'on the other hand' out. Read the section. "most anarchists" and Christian anarchists all reject organized religion and hierachal structures. This is simple. Just read it! Most anarchist are athiest. Thus going well with the anti-opression ideology aspect of the theory. Whiskey Rebellion 05:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion section (again)

message: Overview section, right after the introduction, before Origins, which describes how anarchists have broadly described themselves and their movements. All the major anarchists have set their thought out in this way, with a "What is Anarchy" pamphlet or the like, but this article doesn't, having instead given over to edit-creep where we have pages of minutae incrementally added and no collective vision. If we have a proper lead-in on what the various views of anarchism is we can:
# Bemore informative
# Avoid POV
# Be more concise
Having described the broader vision of the literary, social and libertarian conceptions of anarchism we can then briefly set out a description of how these views has developed, allwijg the casual reader to see the different trends for what they are, allowing us to make the Anarchist Ideologies section both shorter and more informative. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a bad idea at the moment. Such section can only become another source of dispute and edit warring. -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: we don't make broad statements such as "most anarchists" but instead have people partitioned according to their beliefs. Differences can be made clearer. But since the only comment has been a negative one I won't go through with this right now. --GoodIntentionstalk 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly off topic, but could we avoid using the term "believe" or "beliefs", which are inappropriate for ideologues. Views, arguments, anything but beliefs (which are irrational). Donnacha 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I appreciate your recent edits to the article, Donnacha. --GoodIntentionstalk 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's any anarchist ideologies that put weight on beliefs, and they might be all sorts of beliefs, then they are essential. Really its hard to imagine knowing anything without beleiving in it as well! That said, belief isnt everything, which is why whenever the belief of a ideology is put forward there should also be made room for the reason(s) or justification(s) thats appropriate. While the latest might seem more rational, a concept about knowledge without belief as a condition is not. --Fjulle 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read some (more?) Robert Anton Wilson ;)Donnacha 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be, but i dont see why that word cant be used, because its not irrational as far as theres a desceant justification involved. Besides thers must have been somebody who thought anarchist's beleived in something. --Fjulle 07:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually not so much an anarchist issue as a basic journalistic issue. Firstly, groups cannot have beliefs, only individuals. Secondly, you can never be sure what anyone believes, all you know is what they say. Thus, it is correct to use says, argues, advocates, but believes is unverifiable (on another tangent, states implies a slightly authoritarian slant and claims or alleges imply that it's not true). Ditto beliefs, philosophy is a better term as a philosophy is put forward, while beliefs are personal. Donnacha 11:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition to article

message: Through running through the sources in an attempt to find sources saying that the sun rises in the east, I have read some things I haven't since I was a dewy-eyed kid proud of being an anarchist. Communism and Anarchy by Peter Kropotkin - just look at that beauty! --GoodIntentionstalk 05:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you, anarchocapitalists

message: At a piffly 352kb (aren't edit wars fun?) I thought it was necessary: Talk:Anarchism/Archive41 --GoodIntentionstalk 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived talk page

message: "Goodintentions" you're putting in bogus sources again. You're putting this in as a source saying that ancap is not a form of anarchism: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70" That does not say say that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Let's look at the fuller quote: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate.  The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency (the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services effectively according to price) and morality (the state claims by its authority to do things that are not premitted to ordinary individuals)."   Barry is saying that if you remove the state, capitalism will tend to emerge, but that's not necessary because it's always possible that people will be communists or "communitarians."   He even refers to Rothbard as an "individualist anarchist." So that's not a source of someone saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attack me personally again. Do it. I want you to. The quote is clear as day: go away and stop bothering me. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is saying that it is not logically necessary that capitalism will emerge if the state withdraws. He obviously is not saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You've been putting bogus sources in this article, and we're not going to stand for it. DTC 06:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says that the connection between individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism isn't logical - what could possibly be clearer? When I originally pointed out that this quote doesn't say what you claimed it to you removed it! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't understand what he is saying from that one sentence. Read the following sentence. He is saying that it's not necessary that capitalism will result of the state is withdrawn. He's not saying that individualist anarchism is not a form of anarchism. You see, anarcho-capitalist individualist anarchists think that if you remove the state that capitalism will naturally emerge. He is disputing that and says that communitarianism could emerge. It's not logically necessary that capitalism will emerge. DTC 06:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant! --GoodIntentionstalk 06:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You've got it all wrong. He is saying that there is no logical necessity that the withdrawal of the state that individualists want will result in capitalism. He says though that would "tend" to happen, what MAY happen is that a communitarian system would result. You're dead wrong to claim that he is saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. Notice the "Rather" after that sentence. That means the next sentence applies to the previous sentence. Don't take the sentence out of context. What you're doing is inexcusable and highly disruptive. DTC 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are arguing is irrelevant - I've made my argument, which you have not addressed. What this author considers the logical outcome of statelessness does not matter for what he has been sourced for. --GoodIntentionstalk 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the quote: "Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate."  He is saying that it's not logically necessary that if the state withdraws that capitalism will emerge. "Rather" capitalism will "tend" to emerge. There is no logical necessity that it will. He even says straight out that anarcho-capitalism is an "individualistic theory of anarchy." DTC 07:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No he fucking doesn't. Read it: Although individualistic theories of anarchy are often identified with laissez-faire capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) the connection is not a logical one. He says, straight out, that the link between ancap and IA isn't logical. He says the link is often made, but that it's wrong. Stop lying. --GoodIntentionstalk 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop taking the sentence out of context. You have to read the following sentence, which says "Rather, it is the case that capitalist relationships tend to emerge from the withdrawal of the monopoly state; there is, however, no necessity for this and, indeed, if property rules turn out to be communitarian this would be perfectly legitimate." When he says there is no logical connection between individualist anarchism and laissez-faire capitalism is not saying saying that anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism AT ALL. He is talking about a logical connection between cause and effect. There is no logical necessity that capitalism will result if the state is withdrawn. Rather, that "tends" to be the effect. He's saying what individualists want (the withdrawal of the state) could result is something non-individualist...something "communitarian." That's what he's saying. That could be something to put in the article, and is a good point. DTC 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus sources

message: The view that Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron with no place in anarchism is so widely accepted that it's difficult to find direct sources that state it. Opposition to capitalism is a fundamental part of anarchism for virtually all scholars, activists and writers around the world. Of course it's easy, in any disagreement, to find a key selection of pieces arguing the minority view, but the fact that many theorists have no reference to Ancaps does not mean that they would ever agree with the idea that it's part of anarchism. Any scholar, activist or writer who puts forward the principle that anarchism is, by definition, opposed to capitalism would logically reject anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 08:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article stated as much, before DTC and That'sHot came along. --GoodIntentionstalk 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're simply wrong. It's a minority fringe of scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Mainstream academia regard ancap as anarchism. Also note that you will find almost no definitions of anarchism that has anything to do with rejecting capitalism. "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or to group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination," according to the sourced definition in this article. Yes most types of anarchism oppose capitalism but that's not necessary to be an anarchist. DTC 16:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real anarchism is opposed to coercion, hierarchy and wage slavery - it has been in all cases until a bunch of nutty Austrians tried to hi-jack the term and argued for a form of anarchism based on hierarchy and wage slavery with intrinsic coercion. Opposition to the state is actually secondary in most cases, the state is opposed because it its existence prevents a social revolution, not because it's the primary target. Anarchism is defined by anarchists, from Godwin and Proudhon, through their descendents of all shades. "Anarcho"-capitalists rape the bones of the individualists and claim it's a tribute. Donnacha 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're making up your own definition of anarchism. You can't say that because most anarchists oppose such and such that therefore that's what makes them anarchists. That just happens to be what most anarchists oppose. The only thing that makes someone an anarchists is that they oppose the existence of the state. And you're wrong about how anarcho-capitalists treat the 19th century individualist anarchists. They explicitly say they reject their economics. What they agree with is that the state should withdraw and that liberty and property should be protected by competing businesses.  Opposition to the state is also secondary for anarcho-capitalists. They reject it because they reject coercion. DTC 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, they accept the more coercive power of industry. Bourgeois industrialists created the state to defend their new industrial power. Only persistent pressure from anarchists, among others, softened the state. The battle for reasonable work hours was won when anarchists, among others, succeeded in forcing the state to stop industrialists working them to death. Thus, the coercive power of industrialists is and has historically been, the big bad. Anyone who ridiculously believes that, if you remove the limited protections afforded by the state without dismantling big business and capitalism, is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. And that's not just my view, it's the view of the world's most renowned anarchist academic, Chomsky. Donnacha 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, your point is that use the state to coerce the coercers is what marks "true" anarchism? Use the machinery of the state to enforce hard limits on a business is anarchism?? —Memotype::T 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of anarchism is not simply some remote, meaningless future. It's about maximising freedom. If a state offers a National Health System, free to all-comers at the point of use, and a bunch of private companies push for privatisation so they can charge people - which maximises freedom? Ignoring the private companies and destroy the state? Or campaign against the companies and maintain the access to health services for all? As Chomsky points out in "Chomsky on anarchism", the state, at least, provides some element of democracy and should be pushed to provide ever more. Corporations provide no element of democracy at all and the idea that the state should be destroyed without dismantling corporate capitalism is insane. Donnacha 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Another point. Most anarchists oppose what individualists support, which is private police, militaries, and prisons. Does that mean individualist anarchists are not anarchists? No, because opposition to police, armies, and prisons is not how anarchism is defined. Albert Meltzer, who is cited in this article, says the Benjamin Tucker and his contemporaries are not real anarchists. But that is an extreme fringe POV. Those who say ancap is not a form of anarchism usually put the 19th century individualists in the category of non-anarchists too. Mainstream scholarship regards them both as anarchists. DTC 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Most anarchists of all shades do accept the individualist tradition, though the non-individualists do criticise it as being unworkable (just as the individualists do to the communists). The very fact that leads to both shades being defined as anarchism is their opposition to the capitalism, because their views on what constitutes the state vary. This piece needs, as I pointed out elsewhere, a piece on the synthesis of both trends. Donnacha 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that most anarchists oppose anarcho-capitalism and would say that it's not a form of anarchism. But these are anarchists in general. Those anarchists can't define anarchism for an encyclopedia article, unless they're published anarchists. Definitions of anarchism and whether a philosophy is anarchist or not has to come from scholars. Most scholars, both non-anarchists and anarchist, say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That is the mainstream view. The statement that "most anarchists don't think anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism" is probably true. But that is different from this statement: "Most scholars don't think anarcho-capitalism is a legitimate form of anarchism." The first statement is trivial. Of course most anarchists, if they're anti-capitalists, would reject anarcho-capitalism. But, they're not the ones who matter. What matters is what published scholars say (which may include anarchists). Just as there is a minority of scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, there are a minority of scholars that say Benjamin Tucker wasn't a real anarchism. Albert Meltzer says in his book Anarchism For and Against: "The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the 'Pacifist Anarchist' approach or the 'Individualist Anarchist' approach that differs from revolutionary anarchism. It is sometimes too readiy conceded that this is after all, anarchism. Pacifist movments, and the Ghandian in particular, are usually totalitarian and impose authority (even if only by moral means); the school of Benjamin Tucker - by virtue of their individualism - accepted the need for police to break up strikes so as to guarantee the employer's 'freedom'. All this school of so-called individaulists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of a police force, hence for government, and the definition of anarchism is no government." He also opposes anarcho-capitalism for the same reason and says it's not real anarchism. DTC 17:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual mainstream of academics tends to be full of Marxists, who have every interest in defaming anarchism. It's also full of capitalists, who have every interest in defaming anarchism. Also, I'm fairly confident that the majority of non-American and non-Austrian political academics have never said anything at all about "A"C because they recognise it as an oxy-moron. Anarchism is an historical tradition, "A"C doesn't fit. Any attempt to force it in is a wrecking attempt. However, I've not once tried to delete it from this article. I have, however, tried to undue the attempts of "A"Cs to imply that only a minority opposes it. Anarchism is defined by anarchists and the vast majority reject "A"C. Donnacha 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're just saying this. The sources indicate otherwise. Look at the sources in this article. These are widely-distributed mainstream books and encyclopedias about anarchism. And there are not written by anarcho-capitalists. Many of them are written by anti-capitalists, but they still say ancap is one of the several forms of anarchism. Anyone who researches the sources can't come to any other conclusion than that it's a minority POV among scholars that ancap is not a form of anarchism. By the way Meltzer is not a Marxist but an anarcho-communist. DTC 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So now you attempt to circumvent wp policy about sources by saying that all of the sources have some hidden agenda. Boogie-man logic does not apply here. —Memotype::T 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, have I tried to delete the section on "A"C? No. Do I want proper reflection of the fact that most anarchists do not accept it? Not even that. Do I want proper reflection of the reality that most anarchist activists and notable scholars do not regard it as part of anarchism and that that opposition is not a minority view? Yes. There is opposition here to using the infoshop Anarchist FAQ as a source because it's "biased", yet there's automatic acceptance of the judgement of scholars, many of whom have views opposed to anarchism. Donnacha 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have evidence that most scholars do not regard it as a form of anarchism? No you don't. The evidence indicates otherwise. Very few scholars consider it non-anarchist.  The FAQ is not unreliable because it's biased but because it's an internet FAQ. Anyone can write a FAQ and post it on the internet. There are all sorts of FAQs floating around the internet. But they're not published documents and few are written written by scholars. DTC 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said most scholars, I said most activists. The FAQ will be published by AK Press in a few months, will it magically become more reliable then? The infoshop FAQ is not any old FAQ, it's a core part of modern anarchist theory. It is a scholarly work, as I pointed out below, I know at least one of the contributors. Donnacha 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not accused you of trying to delete the section, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. My point is merely that your argument attempts to refute the scholarly acceptance of anarcho-capitalism on the grounds that the scholars have some kind of agenda for "defaming" anarchism. Wikipedia has a policy on sources, and scholarly sources will be accepted above non-scholarly sources. —Memotype::T 20:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but when have I objected to the sources in the article? I disagree with them and do reckon many have something against anarchism, but I haven't attempted to change anything in the article based on that. It's my own view. The way I've put it in the article is that within the anarchist movement, it is not a minority view to reject "A"S. Which is accurate and the view of non-anarchist scholars has nothing to do with it. Donnacha 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to AC as anarchist a "minority view"

message: Are there any experts on Goldman and de Cleyre's attempts to synthesize egoism/individualism with the more left-wing varieties of anarchism? It would be good to add this in if someone could put it together (I'd have to do some research and I don't really have the time to do it). Donnacha 10:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goldman reject individualist anarchism. De Cleyre was an individualist anarchist for awhile and opposed Goldman's philosophy: "..Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should."  But, later De Cleyre rejected individualist anarchism saying "Socialism and Communism both demand a degree of joint effort and administration which would beget more regulation than is wholly consistent with ideal Anarchism; Individualism and Mutualism, resting upon property, involve a development of the private policeman not at all compatible with my notion of freedom." So, she turned to anarchism without adjectives. DTC 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, not completely accurate, as Goldman became more interested in individual liberty as she grew older. Her ideas brought the concept of personal liberty from the theoretical to the personal in very real sense, pioneering the now core concepts of true gender equality, sexual liberty and personal freedom - borrowing from Stirner, Nietzsche and Freud, among others. Donnacha 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American individualist anarchism

message: Please, everyone settle down and absolutely no personal attacks.  The discussion in the above thread has strayed beyond the civility line.  Please keep further discussion within the appropriate limits of civil discourse.  Thank you -- Samir धर्म 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please return to the thinly-veiled threats and abuse of Wikipedia policy that satirize civil discussion. I love it. --LordTimothyDexter 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Samir. Any more straying from civility or NPA and I will be handing out blocks. Everyone involved in the discussion above really should be ashamed of themselves. It is not a requirement that one be an anarchist to edit this article. It is also not a requirement that one be a particular type of anarchist. It's all "argument for the sake of argument". Stick to making this a good Wikipedia article and keep the attacks out of the equation. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! And there was me thinking my attempts at uber-campness would take the sting out of it! Donnacha 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably not the best course of action, Donnacha. --GoodIntentionstalk 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no best course of action with Mr Whiskey, as I've already learned from his blatant POV pushing on the Amnesty International page. Donnacha 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And all the gun talk hardly helped any of us. --GoodIntentionstalk 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't blame me there, he's the one who brought it over from the AI page, where he had been pushing his anti-gun control POV on the Control Arms Campaign, refusing to accept the difference between opposition to the arms trade and gun control. As I quite correctly pointed out, opposition to the arms trade is a major anarchist activities, in Europe at least, see the DSEI protests each year. Donnacha 13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settle down 

message: A wikipedia article is not supposed to be a book.  According to WP:article size, after 32 kilobytes of "main text," additional information should be in separate articles.  The main text of this article is already over 36 kilobytes.  (The article "as a whole" is at 66 kilobytes, including footnotes, image captions, markup, etc.)  Thus adding more material on anything either means the article stretches further away from the guideline or else it means something else needs to be taken out. EbonyTotem 03:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a guideline, man. It's not a policy that every article must follow. Anarchism includes a lot of different philosophies, so I think we can forget about the guideline for this one. But, look at the huge amount of references. That takes up a lot of space, but it's necessary in an article with so much controvery. So that's something to take into account.DTC 06:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main body of the article, not including references etc., is 36 KB, 4 KB over the target length. EbonyTotem 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a guideline and only a guideline. Most articles on an expansive subject such as this are over the 32K. I'm not sure this article could be trimmed more. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Perhaps somebody would like to suggest an alternate target length before planning or enacting substantial expansions on obscure subfields. Otherwise one would expect future editors to come along saying "there's too much about _____" and rip out the parts they don't like. Again. EbonyTotem 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil. Just trying to be as help as I can be. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "there should be more about" 

message: OK, once again people have tried to cut that statement from the article. The majority of anarchists do not view 'anarcho'-capitalism as anarchism. Peter Marshall says it in Chapter 36 of Demanding the Impossible. It is cited in a book. Therefore, it is good enough for this web page. I added it before, and was removed. Here's the link - . Whenever this page gets unprotected, feel free to add it. Supersheep 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats obviously incorrect. Peter Marshall is a communist spy. Haven't you ever been to a protest? All those red and black flags represent fans of the Georgia Bulldogs, a predominantly anarcho-capitalist group. Get your facts straight man. Blockader 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How does Peter Marshall count as a reliable source on this?  He seems to have a dog in the race.  And where is his data to back this up? MrVoluntarist 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's in the article: "Most anarchists refuse to accept anarcho-capitalism as anarchism.[46]" It's right at the end of the anarcho-capitalism section, and Marshall is the reference. hot 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Anarchists are opposed to 'Anarcho'-Capitalism

message: Finally. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fucking knew it. I can't express my joy in written word. Now we have maybe a week of sane discussion and intelligent (compared to whiskey) editors before he's back to accuse us of communist plots and champion the cause of, in his words, "US-type libertarian anarchism." It is interesting to me that thewolfstar manages to write in varyingly different voices but always sound so moronic. Oh wait, you can't get in trouble for personal attacks against a banned user can you? Hallelujah, Blockader 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Rejoicing at another editor of opposing political beliefs getting blocked or banned is hardly NPOV either. *Dan T.* 15:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when do people need to NPOV on the discussion pages? Donnacha 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, we are rejoicing because a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user who is consistently disruptive and accusatory has been identified and blocked. It has little to do with her political beliefs, but rather the manner in which she expressed them here and in this article. There are many people here of varying beliefs and we were generally maintianing a constructive discourse until thewolfstar showed back up as shannon and then again as whiskeyrebellion. Blockader 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. I can get along with people with opposing viewpoints, but the fact of the matter is, this user was a willfully stupid, disruptive, indefinitely blocked user evading a ban with yet another sockpuppet. I don't think thewolfstar is as stupid as she tries to appear, which makes things even more frustrating. And again, it took way too long for this to happen, seeing as everyone here already realized the simple truth weeks ago. So finally. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is worth noting that, for all of the crocodile tears shed about some editors of this article tossing around the sock puppet label, they have rarely, if ever, been wrong. Add Whiskey Rebellion to the long list of socks who cried foul and threw around accusations of organized, ideologically-driven conspiracies all the way up until the point they were banned. --69.164.74.68 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And there was much rejoicing!