Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 13

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 05 and Aug 05.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 14. Thank you. Saswann 12:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Rothbard never says one can legitimately own vacant land does he? Everything I've read is always about mixing labor with land, and therefore, making it property. Anyone seen anything? RJII 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I found out that Rothbard thnks that original appropriation is not legitimate unless it's by use of the land. One can't merely claim it or fence it in.  But, if afterwards he decides to stop using it, it's still his since the transformation is the product of labor. RJII 07:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rothbard on land

message: This may be controversial (it is kind of hard to find pictures to illustrate abstract concepts) but I thought that the strike picture seemed to resonate on a number of levels.  First it's a literal illustration of the fears people have w/ an Ancap society-- exploitation of workers who are suppressed by force. . .  but it also is sort of an Ancap Rorschach test.  After all, in the picture, the Teamsters are attacking the cops.  Who's coercing whom here?  Also, a strike to a certain extent would be a legitimate recourse in an Ancap society.  This might not be the right picture for the section, but I'm open to suggestion.  Saswann 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It seems pretty POV to me. Especially the caption. And, yes, unions and strikes, being market forces, are quite compatible with anarcho-capitalism. I don't like it. RJII 17:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I like the picture of the Teamster strike violence. It livens up a very thorough but very dull article. I didn't quite understand at first what it was or why it was there, however. I'll see if I can do something to make it clearer.--Bcrowell 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Never mind. I see you drew your own. Nice. RJII 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW there was a complaint about the license during the prior fac attempt .  Saswann 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  This might be woth spinning off into the article proper-- maybe "Ancap in practice," which might refer to some of the other possible examples (I think a few people keep citing Somolia) Saswann 20:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. The article comes off as extremely theoretical and hypothetical. I'm not qualified to do the section myself, though.--Bcrowell 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about that too. I don't think it needs another article though. I think just a small section mentioning some things like Somalia and Iceland thing. RJII 21:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a Past and present anarchist communities article. Iceland is in there, with a small discussion of Somalia. RJII 15:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crit picture  

message: Stop accusing me trolling. And what is this supposed to mean: "I know, you define private property differently than they do" ??? RJII 19:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was reffering to effect, not motive.  There are a lot of folks out there who are hyper-sensitive to the subject.  As for the definition of private property, tell me you and Kev haven't danced around and around and around on the definition of private property and what constitutes opposition to it. :) Saswann 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He just didn't know what private property was. First he was trying to convince himself that individualist anarchists didn't support private property, then after that was shown to be false, he resorted to the belief that they were opposed to private ownership of the means of production. That has been shown to be false as well.  Given that he had been claiming he was an individualist anarchist, I suspect he'll be moving on to another philosophy. We can't tailor an article around one editor's ignorance of the subjects. RJII 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  RJ, I'm not going to step between you two, I'm just pointing out that these aren't universally accepted issues.  I'm not even talking about "facts" here, just the way they're presented.  Saswann 19:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Saswaan

message: I've started breaking out this section. (again)  It is a topic that could keep expanding without limit, and this article is getting huge again.  I haven't pruned anything yet, but I think we can cut out all but part of the first section (that makes the point) and the Left/Right section that refers to the chart. Saswann 15:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism 

message: Hooray!  Thanks to all who put effort into this article. It's very nice and well-documented. MrVoluntarist 02:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt. RJII 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article status! 

message: I was going to go ahead and make this edit, but I didn't want to jeopardize the article's chance of appearing on the front page, so I thought I'd discuss it first. This statement has been troubling me for a while: "While some current adherents of liberalism and anarchism wouldn't call Molinari an anarcho-capitalist, his thoughts were influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries." Now, is there any reason someone would believe Molinari would not meet the current definition of anarcho-capitalist?  Because if liberals and anarchists are merely objecting to the connection because it would shatter their worldview if it were the case that anarcho-capitalist beliefs have been around since the mid 19th century, obviously (at least I hope it's obvious), such an objection doesn't merit inclusion.  On the other hand, if there is a genuine reason to dispute Molinari's anarcho-capitalism, it would help the article immensely to include it.  But then, that's the problem, isn't it?  You see, I've asked numerous people who dispute the connection to name one - just one - political view Molinari had that would conflict with present anarcho-capitalists, and so far, no one's been able to come up with even a flawed one.  So, would the liberals and anarchists please justify this position or remove that statement? MrVoluntarist 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objections, the baseless anarchist claim is out. MrVoluntarist 04:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molinari trouble again