Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/anarchism

message: Again, trying to state a position by logical argument ends with the opposition sniping at minor points, relentlessly trying to "win" irrelevent semantic differences, until the confusions overwhelm and the overall picture is missed. Notice first the quibbling over Proudhon's definition of property, then a segue into "wage labor", then distractions over the qualifications of "free trade" and so on and so on, all misdirecting the real issue, which is that over 99% of people in this world who call themselves anarchists are stridently opposed to capitalism. The tendency to ignore the overall picture and push an agenda, despite all claims of being "objective", is what characterizes someone who edits in bad faith.  Time and time again the so-called "left anarchists" have conceded factual points here and there, continuing the argument within reason, allowing concessions to the anarcho-capitalist position where it is warranted, but proponents of the latter only illustrate the saying, give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. This is the reason why mediation is needed. --albamuth 19:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So "99%" of anarchists are opposed to capitalism, aye? What percentage are are opposed to anarcho-capitalism then? I would guestimate that about half of the anarchists out there are anarcho-capitalists. Again, this is a guess. I suppose you have a source for your 99% claim. RJII 19:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never ever met an anarcho-capitalist in my entire life. I've never met a guy who was even close. Half of the anarchists out where are capitalist? Outside of the US, there is no anarcho-capitalism, and has never been. Their numbers are in double digits. Albamuth is right, the vast majority of anarchists now and throughout history were absolutely opposed to capitalism.Funkybeat 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anarcho-capitalists rarely consider themselves "anarchists", they overwhelmingly identify primarily as libertarians. Certainly if you simply ask an anarcho-capitalist if they're an anarchist, they'll have to clarify their pro-market stance in some way or another. In the cases where they do identify as anarchist, they use a very narrow definition of the term (simple anti-statism) so as to qualify, and generally regard other anarchists as going excessively overboard from that definition. Other anarchists can simply identify as anarchist, because the suggestion behind that word is an opposition to social hierarchy, although like any other social movement different groups and different individuals have a different approach towards such an end result.  The problem with anarcho-capitalism is its complete disagreement with both the message behind such a movement and the end result. The article in its current state exaggerates conflict within anarchism by dividing it into various "schools", an unrecognized subcategorization of anarchism arrived to out of nowhere, and a tool for pretending there is no cohesion. Sarge Baldy 20:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists define anarchism the same way traditional individualist anarchists do. For example, Benjamin Tucker defines it as: "the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished." There is not an anarcho-capitalist out there that would disagree with that definition. If someone says simply they're an "anarchist" it doesn't tell you much. That's why there are anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.. These doctrines get more specific in how one believes a society should voluntarily operate. RJII 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The IWW numbers over a thousand, and it is a stridently anti-capitalist organization . I daresay over half the membership describes themselves as "anarchist" (I don't recall meeting a Wobbly who doesn't). There used to be a Yahoo group, called, "The Anarchist Commune" which I participated in that had at its height around 800 members. I've seen blac blocs so huge they took up several city blocks and half an hour to march by. This is just in the US, where anarchism is the least popular. Ask any Italian anarchist if they are "against capitalism" and they'll laugh in your face. The only anarcho-capitalist that claimed to be so on this site so far has been User:Hogeye. Do "anarcho-capitalists" have events? Do they have conventions? Do they have organizations? If there are 50 anarcho-capitalists in the US, that still wouldn't make them over 1%. Yet where is there evidence of there being at least 50 anarcho-capitalists (not Libertarians)? --albamuth 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that's a hard distinction to make. Anarcho-capitalists generally consider themselves libertarian, and within right libertarianism there's actually a sizeable number of people. I don't think it's fair to say there aren't many anarcho-capitalists, but I don't think many identify with anarchism so much as with libertarianism. I was a (right) lib myself for 3 or 4 years, and for the latter part of that period considered myself anarcho-capitalist. However, even then I was only neutral on the idea of including that philosophy here, because the differences seemed pretty evident. I considered my views simply an advanced libertarianism that only wants to get rid of the state so as to "free" capitalism from government fettering. I don't think there's an exaggeration as to the extent of anarcho-capitalism, but I don't think the majority of anarcho-capitalists would even care to be labelled anarchists. Sarge Baldy 05:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rothbard considered anarcho-capitalism to be an "anarchist" philosophy. RJII 15:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Albamuth, so you say "Ask any Italian anarchist if they are "against capitalism" and they'll laugh in your face." Why don't you ask these Italian anarchists: . That's a popular Italian anarchist website that advocates stateless capitalism. Italy has quite a few anarcho-capitalist theorists, actually. It's pretty popular there. And "anarco-capitalismo" is used interchangeable with "anarchismo individualistico" (individualist anarchism), in Italy. Guglielmo Piombini is a notable "anarchico individualista" that advocates stateless capitalism. Per l'Anarco-Capitalismo It looks like you've had a pretty sheltered view of things. Anarcho-capitalism is popular, if not more popular than communist-type anarchism --all around the world. You must remember that no all anarchism is a "social movement," as in people protesting in the streets. Much of it is philosophical anarchism -especially individualist anarchism. Anarchism comprises both social movements and philosophical movements. You can't judge how many anarcho-capitalists there are by determining how many are out in the streets forming a "blac bloc." That's not their mode of operation. RJII 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those websites are laughable -- one is just a list of writings and the other is a bunch of reposted news stories. The forums are funny, though, the same 3-4 people posting endlessly for long periods of time. If public mobilizations, conventions, events, gatherings, parties, and whatnot are not part of the A/C's "mode of operation" then what is? Trolling anarchist websites? Are they all hermits that don't dare show their faces to the public? Regular anarchists have gatherings, as I pointed out earlier, everywhere and all the time. Why no face-time for A/C's? --albamuth 23:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like classical individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism doesn't employ violence or mass street demonstrations to achieve their aim. Philosophical persuasion is their tool to gradually erode support for statism. RJII 23:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least the individualist anarchists put their theory into some sort of practice... hell, all the alternative, time-based currencies that people are trying to get off the ground is at least indicative of mutualist thought/activity. If A/C's just try to persuade by philosophizing, why don't they have conferences or groups or something besides a few websites? You see, there is nothing to indicate great numbers in any way. What is there that isn't written by Wendy McElroy or Brian Kaplan or Rothbard? Every anarcho-cap piece smacks of them tooting their own horn, anyhow. "There's a rising trend of A/C's about..." huh? Who what where? You don't even claim to be an A/C yourself and yet here you are insisting that they exist in as great numbers as regular anarchists, like they were the anarchists' own shadows, personified in cyberspace. --albamuth 00:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they do have conferences. I don't follow it that closely. RJII 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anarcho-capitalists are engaged in practical matters as well. There are many working in the area of private digital money. For example, http://www.e-gold.com is private money." Anarcho-capitalists aim to eventually take the business of issuing money out of the hands of government entirely, and therefore erode the ability to tax. They're working on perfecting anonymous untraceable private payment systems as well. I'm sure many are involved with the free state project as well, being in the mix with minarchists for the sake of expediency. RJII 00:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Verily, I have heard of e-gold. Indeed, if this were the end-days of the Roman Empire (US hegemony) and the Church was taking over (Neoliberalism), instuting their Inquisition (WTO/IMF/World Bank), the US Libertarians would be the Gnostics (wiped out by 13th century) and anarchists would be... I dunno, the Lutherans (that is, not coming to fruition for a long time yet)? --albamuth 05:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The US money is already private, as the Fed is a privately owned bank, if I'm not sorely mistaken. It is simply official government money by US fiat. There have been no government money in the US since the greenbacks.Funkybeat 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, you could say that. But there is a coercive monopoly. The US dollar is enforced legal tender for debts. Like Spooner points out, it interferes with a "right" of contract. It, in effect, doesn't allow two traders to contract a debt to be repaid exclusively in an alternative currency. The anarcho-capitalists, like the original individualists, would love to break that monopoly and have "free banking." RJII 14:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps I should advocate....?

message: As a complete outsider (I think all forms of anarchism are castles in the air), might I mention the success science has with objective empiricism. Actual real life cases. Anyone can claim anything. Real life has a way of bringing the castles "down to Earth". WAS 4.250 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a discussion on which theory is "better" or has more merit, but about the factual correctness and NPOV of the article. And the article is twisted in a way where thinkers' positions are completely misrepresented and minor theories are presented as major.Funkybeat 01:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective. Empirical. Sourced.

message: Since this particular theory seems to be very popular around here, I want to dispell it completely:
* "free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes, always on condition that there is no oppression or exploitation of others." Malatesta: Life and Ideas, p. 103
* "Collectivism could be imposed only on slaves, and this kind of collectivism would then be the negation of humanity. In a free community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below." Bakunin: Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200
* "when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work. But if he possesses under the capitalist law more than be can cultivate himself, we consider that we must not give him the right of keeping that soil for himself, leaving it uncultivated when it might be cultivated by others, or of making other cultivate it for his benefit."  Kropotkin: Act for Yourselves, p. 104
 
As for the social anarchists' opposition to property, just like Proudhon and Tucker, they oppose property used to exploit others, and support personal ownership of possessions which do not exploit others. Here are some quotes about that:
* "Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession."  Berkman: What is Anarchism?, p. 217
* "Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty. And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery? But then why do we oppose them? The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others..."  Malatesta: The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113
* Possessions: "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives.", whereas property is that "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital."  Walter: About Anarchism, p. 40
In short: Social anarchists, INCLUDING communists supports occupancy and use possessions, and Social anarchists, INCLUDING communists do NOT support forcing collectivism or communism on others, and have no problems with individuals organising themselves anyway they wish as long as they don't oppress others. Funkybeat 02:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear from the above quotes that they would allow private ownership of man-made means of production. "The watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people..."? What if someone wants to own a watch factory. Are they going to stop it? Individualists anarchists support private ownership of everything produced or acquired out of labor --machines, buildings, factories, money, etc. RJII 02:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear that they would, as long as they are not used to oppress anyone. Or, in Malatesta's words: "property that allows its owners to live from the work of others..." is what is opposed. Of course, if you choose to create your own means of production and use them on your own, nobody would bother you. It's just that anarcho-communists don't expect too many people to choose this avenue. Funkybeat 03:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said earlier, that's what I would expect from a true anarchist-communist. An anarchist would have to allow everyone to engage in any system they wish, including systems where consensual profit occurs. Individualist anarchist Clarence Swartz says in What is Mutualism: "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." RJII 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Swartz is not a communist anarchist or a syndicalist, I'll take Kropotkin's, Berkmann's and Malatesta's word over his. Funkybeat 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social anarchists do NOT believe in forcing "communism" on others 

message: Since this is getting too confusing, let's open up a topic for property too, like I did for the imagined "forcing of communism." All anarchists (from individualists to communists) believe in occupancy and use rights for property, including the ownership of their own labour. Proudhon (and most other anarchists) use the term "possession" for occupancy and use instead of property, some others (like Tucker) use the term "property", but qualify it. All of them opposed usury, which includes wages for profit, which means that the only type of "wage" is the full product of a person's labour.
The only major difference is how the products of one's labour are exchanged, whether on a market, or freely given away at no charge within a commune.
The artificial distinction between "anarchists who support private property" and those who don't is fake and incorrect. Here are some quotes about this:
* "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." Spooner gives his vision of a world without wages in his letter to Cleveland
* "It should be stated, however, that in the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual occupancy and use."  Tucker: Instead of a Book, p. 61 
* "Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount -- that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour -- then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." Proudhon on the difference between possession and property in What is Property? p395-6
It is clear that Proudhon and his individualist followers argued for occupancy and use to define property, which can also be called possessions. It is also clear that they opposed usury such as interest, rent, profit, as well as the right of ownership of unused resources. So while means of production could be privately owned, they could not be used to exploit others. Now let's look at social anarchists:
* "when we see a peasant who is in possession of just the amount of land he can cultivate, we do not think it reasonable to turn him off his little farm. He exploits nobody, and nobody would have the right to interfere with his work." Kropotkin
* "Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty. And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery? But then why do we oppose them? The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order." Malatesta: The Anarchist Revolution, p. 113
In other words, occupancy and use are perfectly fine, and nobody will bother you if you don't oppress others (usury). This is exactly the same as with individualists. So this huge made up rift on property doesn't exist.
The article needs to be changed to something like this: "All anarchists reject capitalist property, based on the doctrine of use and abuse, and replace it with the concept of possessions based on occupancy and use. All anarchists reject capitalism and usury. A movement called anarcho-capitalism appeared at the end of the 20th century, which tries to reconcile anarchism with capitalism, but most anarchists do not accept them as anarchists. Here is the page on anarcho-capitalism..." Funkybeat 03:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For individualist anarchists, the "occupancy and use" only applies to land, etc. That doesn't apply to the produce of labor. One still owns his produce whether he's using it or not --he can accumulate a load of capital and stick it under the mattress if he wishes. Several years later, if he wishes, he can take it to a mutual bank and loan it out. And, since there would be no restrictions on banking, competition would be so prevalent that interest rates would be at, or near, zero.  By the way, Murray Rothbard, anarcho-capitalist, says something similar on occupancy and use of land: "If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector 'as far as his eye can see'? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to 'cultivate' it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it.... If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be"  And, like the classical individualsts, anarcho-capitalists choose individual ownership of the produce of labor. Anarcho-communists do not. And again, the subjective value theory of anarcho-capitalists is the sole reason there is any difference from classical individualism. There is no requirement that you have to hold on to the labor theory of value to be an anarchist. RJII 13:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The individualists simply thought that a market where possessions are sold at production value is the best way to achieve socialism. Other anarchists had different models. The only different thing between communists anarchists, or syndicalists, and individualists is how to spread the products of labour around. A communist would freely share his products with others. But he wouldn't force a person to give him his products if he doesn't want to share -- after all, anarchism is against coercion, that's what capitalism is about. Once again, anarchism is a socialist theory and all of its proponents have been anti-capitalists. The point of anarchism is to achieve freedom through the absence of economic coercion which is the origin of oppression in today's society. That's what anarchism is about. Anarcho-capitalism is like "beef veganism", where you combine the theory of veganism with a tasty beef burger. Funkybeat 19:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because anarchists in the past have adhered to the labor theory of value doesn't mean you have to do so to be an anarchist. Just because anarchists of the past have opposed  state capitalism doesnt mean that an anarchist today can't support stateless capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is real ..the theory exists. Philosophy of capitalism has been altered to a stateless form, and it is now one of thee various schools of anarchist thought. There is no turning back. The individualist anarchists didn't want to accept communist anarchism as "true anarchism" either. Tucker called it "psuedo-anarchism." Same thing is happening with anarcho-capitalism. RJII 19:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchists are traditionally socialists, which is the opposite of capitalist. The rift is far greater than STV/LTV. Capitalism is about individual control of resources and forcing the less fortunate into wage labour. As I said, you can mention "anarcho"-capitalism and link to it, but don't vandalise the non-capitalist pages with your POV stuff. LOL at "three various schools". Funkybeat 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be "the various schools." Classical individualist anarchism is about individual control of the produce of labor. Anarcho-capitalism is also about individual control over the produce of labor. Since the former has a labor theory of value, they think profit is exploitative. Since that later thinks value is subjective, they see no problem with it. Classical individualist anarchists allow people to contract trades that include profit, believing that contract is the higher law. Anarcho-capitalists also allow any contract. I'll be sure not to "vandalize" any pages with "POV stuff." You do the same. RJII 01:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On anarchist property 

message: This is turning into yet another talk page. We know already that this doesn't work. So we're still at a stalemate and a revert war, and the main page is still hopelessly biased. Funkybeat 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently one of the parties doesn't want to continue... Andre (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to continue. And I'll get other anarchists too if necessary. Funkybeat 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, socialist anarchists have this strange habit of making obviously false claims and then scurrying off when someone corrects them on the talk page.  I'm not saying this as a diss; it's something based on repeated observations.  If you're going to stick around, Funkybeat, more power to you. MrVoluntarist 02:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I should probably confirm here that I have abandoned this mediation. Arguing history or trying to interpret what well-known anarchists thought seems to me to be moving on the wrong track, in the same way I think creating a feminism article based around what Susan B. Anthony or Simone de Beauvoir thought would be a poor decision. Adding to that time restraints, a pessimistic attitude towards the future of the article in general, and what I perceive as self-excusing but abusive trolling (see comment above), I think I'm done here. In response to the above I feel I should also clarify that not all anti-capitalist anarchists consider themselves socialists, and some in fact are hostile to both frameworks. I'm certainly happy with Funkybeat as a replacement advocate. Sarge Baldy 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll advocate for the anti-capitalist position along with Funkybeat. Chris Acheson 08:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This shouldn't be about pro or anti capitalism. You already have the wrong attitude. RJII 15:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a perfectly appropriate way to differentiate between the two sides of this debate.  One side claims that anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, by definition.  The other side claims that they are not. Chris Acheson 16:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some think that anarchism and anarcho-communism are mutually exclusive. Benjamin Tucker called anarcho-communism "pseudo-anarchism." I don't think the argument is important. Everybody thinks their anarchism is the "true anarchism." If you want an NPOV article, then all schools of thought that purport to be anarchism must be included. And, our POV (we editors) of what is or isn't real anarchism should be excluded. RJII 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These people are in the small minority. Tucker considered Kropotkin a non-anarchist. But ALL anarchists, from Tucker, Proudhon, Spooner, to Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. were anti-capitalist, they were ALL socialists and they were all against rule, whether by state or anybody else. To come 200 years later and claim that you can inject capitalism into an utterly anti-capitalist theory, and claim that this is NPOV is like going into the article on Democracy and adding Democratic People's Republic of North Korea as an equally valid type of democracy and then showing how it is developed from Rousseau. Funkybeat 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spooner was a funny sort of "socialist" given that he was prone to founding for-profit businesses, such as his American Letter Mail Company.  Socialism is not in any way compatible with "no rule", since it takes a heavy degree of coercive oppression to force people into the socialists' collectivist schemes.  Capitalism is about freedom of enterprise. *Dan T.* 01:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is exactly why virtually all anarchists throughout history have identified themselves as socialists. Except Lyndsay Spooner, who believed in destroying capitalism slowly. Tucker had a savings account, and Proudhon paid taxes. This is because they believed that the state and capitalism had to be defeated from inside and that you couldn't form anarchy and start being an anarchist straight away. Funkybeat 20:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical individualist anarchists define capitalism as government-backed privilege for capital. If you define capitalism as individualist anarchists define it, then anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism. RJII 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Individualist anarchists, just like all other anarchists, object to usury, which is what capitalism is based on (making capital "work" for you). so to say that individualist anarchists don't oppose capitalism is incorrect. Capitalism without usury is impossible. Funkybeat 20:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The classic individualist anarchists DO oppose capitalism, by both their definition and the modern common definition (which is contrary to the way individualist anarchists defined it). Anarcho-capitalists oppose capitalism by the individualist anarchists' definition. The is just a semantical point. Classical individualist indeed oppose capitalism as it is defined today --because it includes "profit" (usury). But again, there is no requirement that you have to oppose profit to be an anarchist, especially if it occurs between consenting individuals. The only thing that stops the classic individualists from expressing no opposition to profit is the labor theory of value. And, you don't have to adhere to the labor theory of value to be an anarchists --there is no such requirement. RJII 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what happened to mediation? 

message: This is from the talk page, in response to RJII.  I believe it's relevant to the current mediation:
:I'm not Max rspct.  I'm a concerned reader.  The current state of this article is, quite frankly, crap.  It was decent when all treatment of "anarcho"-capitalism was confined to one section of the article.  That's all it is warranted, really.  If readers want to know more about the subject, there's an entire article about it.  I hear that it's quite good, too--it was featured on Wikipedia's main page not too long ago.
:Currently, this article treats anarcho-capitalism as a factional view of the philosophy of anarchism, which it is not.  It is a factional view of classical liberalism.  Anarchism is based on opposition to hierarchy/rulership/power-inequality (the literal, etymological definition of "anarchy").  Classical liberalism is based on minimization of government.  The fact that your particular faction sometimes self-identifies as "anarchist" confuses the issue.  They are not part of the movement that is typically and traditionally refered to as "the anarchist movement", so disambiguation is necessary.
:I noticed the sorry state of this article more than a week ago, and I've been aware of your participation for quite a while.  At first I thought you were just persistent, well-meaning, and misinformed.  It wasn't until today (well, the 22nd) that I noticed the link to "luciferia" in the "opposing views" section, which (according to the edit history) you added.  I'm beginning to strongly suspect bad faith on your part.  Honestly, what possible purpose could the inclusion of that link serve, other than to damage the credibility of those who disagree with you and to push your own political agenda?
:The version of the article that I've been reverting to, while probably not the best in the entire edit history, is a good deal better than the current version.  If you'd prefer not to participate in a revert war, I'm entirely willing to compromise on this issue.  A disambiguation page would suffice.  I'd even agree to have a section of the anarchism article dedicated to explaining the ambiguity surrounding the use of the words "anarchism" and "anarchist" as they pertain to anarcho-capitalism.  Just let me know.
Chris Acheson 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about. I don't do much editing in this article in regard to anarcho-capitalism. Most of my edits have been in regard to classic individualist anarchism. As far as putting up the Luciferia site, I felt it was necessary to put up evidence that some think individualist anarchism is not real anarchism. That site says explicitly "Individualist anarchism is not anarchism." If you have a better one, feel free to put it up. It seems almost everyone recognizes individualist anarchism as anarchism. I don't have any agenda other than presenting each kind of anarchism accurately. I've also contributed to other sections, such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, black anarchism, and national anarchism. RJII 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Movements, Bad Faith 

message: And here is evidence that Chris Acheson is engaging in blanking. He's  deletion entire sections, and huge sections of text on other sections, such as individualist anarchism:  Now, that's bad faith. RJII 14:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me? I hope you're not talking about me. I haven't emailed anyone. RJII 00:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chris Acheson editing in bad faith

message: Mediation - An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.  - 
Well, looks like nobody's been trying to settle or compromise.  The neutral party never showed up.  Has everyone given up?
What's most interesting to me is that in the real world, (outside of wikipedia), public policy is moving further away from the ideal of both anarcho- and individual- anarchists.  I think a great deal of the reason why this has taken place is that within the community of people who want to be less controlled, there's been a phenomenal lot of disagreement as to what that actually means.  There must be one ideal solution!  You must follow me/my favorite hair-splitter's system!  Which of course is at odds with the goals of anarchism, however it smells to you!
Every hack philosopher, and among them I am including many of your (and my) favorite ones, made themselves famous by finding a fine hair to split.  Divisive?  Yes.  Helpful?  No.  Various factions should be forming alliances, not ... well, I was going to interject some sort of a bad hair pun here, but the truth of the matter is that later posts are devolving into more finger pointing than anything.
So what the hell does this mad midnight ramble have to do with anything?  Here's what I propose:  first, let's try to define our terms.  Let's start with "capitalism", then maybe proceed to "private property", "coercion", "power", "property rights", "individualism", and maybe even "land".  Let's save "anarchism" for last, because its meaning mostly depends on how you define some of the other terms first, especially "capitalism" -- is it a "belief" (as in, anybody can be a communist by belief) or a "practice" (as in, you can only be a stock broker by practice, not belief)?  Does it involve a "free market"?  Or "corporatism"?  Are these mutually exclusive?  I have a strong suspicion that there is more in common on both sides than not, if we get our baseline definitions straight, or at least mutually understood.
When we do target "anarchism", let's try to find similarities first.  This is a practical matter.  The more in common, the less to maintain in what should be one of *the* premier wikipedia articles.  Then spin off variations.
And as a continuing guideline, let's limit the straw man arguments, caustic finger pointing, dirty kleenex hurling, claiming that 99% of all anarchist philosophers in the world throughout history (except those in Poughkeepsie) love (or would love, or love beyond the grave) the taste of Wheaties in the morning, claiming the clairvoyance necessary to speak for the "other side" of the issue (seen that several times above), taking your favorite philosopher too seriously (remember, they had their own definitions too -- and as they're mostly all dead, so they can't defend themselves from your own misinterpretations), and especially, let's limit the impossible run-on sentences of doom!  (And maybe, on that subject, limit the verbal irony to self-deprecation.  What sounds witty to you sounds snarky to someone who doesn't agree with you.  Then they leave, and the "other side" claims some sort of murky moral victory and does the chicken dance.  It lacks in savoir-faire, I can tell you that.)
You're not going to convince anybody that they're wrong.  Please stop.  No one is going to collapse in a puddle of their own contradictions and wake up a better frog/bear/whatever.
Looking back, maybe this is nothing more than a ramble after all; I ought to be sleeping, my daughter will be in demanding culinary services in a few hours.  My hope is, however, that maybe some folk can come back to the table and actually bring about that "peaceful settlement" so that we can get back to the real world and disestablishmentariani sauce.
BordOWitz 06:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the neutral party and I've been here the whole time. However, though it is my job to mediate, the disputants have to decide what they want so I can help them reach it. Andre (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errrrmmmm....  What really did happen to "mediation"?

message: Let's try the concrete. The social weight of ancaps vs. anarchists. For anarchism, we have major historical events such as Makhno's revolt in the Ukraine, the Krondstadt rebellion, the Spanish Civil War, the Seattle riots, Genoa, Quebec city, May 1968, the Paris Commune, need I go on? Name one historical event of any significance that involved ancaps. Next, current organizing. Where are the ancap organizations and what do they do? What are their membership numbers? What is their worldwide outreach? In comparison, anarchist organizations exist in mass numbers, such as the numerous international federations and the IWW. Perhaps even more importantly, anarchist industrial unions still exist in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, and across Europe, whose memberships number in the tens of thousands and even the hundreds of thousands. Next to anarchism, ancaps are grains of sand. This article should do no more than mention ancaps in a "see also" link, and deal with the historical and concrete anarchism in the page itself. That's the only rational response to an ideology based almost entirely on the internet with no major contributions to history, no major mention in the media, and no major organizations.-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 08:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "An ideology based almost entirely on the internet..." What the hell is that supposed to mean? The internet is just a means of communication. The anarcho-capitalists exist in the real world. The fact that there is discussion on the internet in support of anarcho-capitalism, is evidence that anarcho-capitalists exist in the real world.  Philosophy has to be written somewhere --but it's also written in materal books and essays.  It appears you're looking at it like people that are actually IN the internet. It's bizarre. They are REAL PEOPLE. RJII 14:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is anyone who has a livejournal. My point is that until this ideology actually does anything concrete, or builds concrete organizations, it is meaningless. By comparison, we have an overwhelming amount of real-world history and organizing around anarchism, hence equal weight cannot be given to the mountain of anarchism and the molehill of ancapism-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 01:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you think anarcho-capitalists don't do anything concrete? I'd call working on private money systems, for example like e-gold concrete. They, like the original individualist anarchists, are working hard against the coercive monopoly on money. Anarcho-capitalism, like classical individualist anarchism, is very much a philosophical movement rather than a "social movement" where people are out protesting in the streets. But, make no mistake ..there are many. Anarcho-capitalism is extremely popular.What's the big deal anyway? What does it matter whose paragraph is bigger? I certainly don't. So maybe you better debate with someone that does. RJII 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you don't mind having more space for ancaps than should be given! Put it this way, if someone claimed there was an "anti-racist" section of the Nazi party, would you be satisfied if it took up the same space on the Nazi article as the mainstream, historically documented racist party itself? Would you be satisfied with someone editing the page to make it look like there was a major split between the two camps, and that in fact they were two equally important "sections"? of course not, because it has to be shown for what it is, a fringe at best, historically non-existant for all intents and purposes.-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 01:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory not enough? 

message: You clearly all have points of view. Can we list them all in the article, properly sourced and covered by NPOV? Andre (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've supported my POV with ample citations. My problem with the article is that individualist anarchists, who were anti-capitalist socialists just like the rest of anarchists, are portrayed as precursors to capitalism. The only NPOV thing to do is to say that they were anti-capitalist socialists, just like the rest of the anarchists, which is what they themselves claimed. Furthermore, I don't feel that anarcho-capitalism belongs to this page other than a link. It is vastly different from all other types of anarchism (which are all anti-capitalist and socialist), and quite frankly, it is a recent fad that has never been of any importance, politically, intellectually or socially. In order to make it seem more important, historical facts are misrepresented. And this is the overwhelming opinion, both in the discussion pages of the Anarchism article and here. They can explain themselves on the Anarcho-capitalist page instead of hijacking half of this one. Funkybeat 23:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only solution that only makes sense is that one.-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 01:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this