Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 7

message: Given that this entire article contains arguments for anarcho-capitalism, with arguments against being restricted solely to this section, I think it would be less misleading to simply label it "criticisms of anarcho-capitalism".  Yes, arguments for anarcho-capitalism are still in this section, but that simply makes it the same as the rest of the article.  I'll make this change pending comment.  Kev 03:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is misleading.  "This entire article" is an exposition of anarcho-capitalism, and thus presents what it is ancaps believe, why, and what their take on various issues is.  Calling these "arguments for anarcho-capitalism" makes it seem like a polemical piece when it isn't. VeryVerily 05:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sounds all lovely when you put it that way.  Unfortunately, if that were actually the case you wouldn't be spending so much of your valuable personal time removing all attempts to provide exposition on the politics and history surrounding anarcho-capitalism and calling it "overstuffing with criticism".  Since when is giving a fair and balanced portrayal of both anarchism at large and anarchist individualism in particular a means of criticising anarcho-capitalism?  Oh, right, when doing so happens to present a history that anarcho-capitalists wouldn't want the readers to hear.  BTW, I do appreciate so much your return to the discussion page.  Kev 09:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for and against Anarcho-Capitalism 

message: I'd like to clean up this article, and wouldn't mind help, but I'm not going to be very happy if it all gets reverted due to some POV foolishness. For example, no one editor can express what "individualists" think, esp. not if that involvbes an opposition to something as basic as "rent". Does that also rule out "work" and "bills"? I never knew individualist = bum. ;) 
Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 12:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bias couldn't be more clear, you won't even allow historically accurate statements to stand.  We are not merely talking about "individualists" Sam, we are talking about anarchist individualists.  I'm sorry if you think these people are bums for challenging the legitimacy of rent, but that is your own personal POV, and you have NO RIGHT AT ALL to remove their views just because you think they should be dismissed out of hand.  If you don't like the history of anarchism, feel free to move onto a page you can more easily stomach.  Kev 12:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you don't like NPOV and Factual accuracy, feel free to move on to a blog ;) Seriously tho, you can't claim to express individualist anarchist thought as some sort of homgeneous commodity, anarchism is necessarilly diverse. If you have a leg to stand on, cite it. Lets hear your sources. Otherwise I'll continue to think of you as a 'means of production' of hot air ;). Cheers, Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 12:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   This is as inane as arguing that you can't make any claims about anarcho-capitalism on this page or libertarian socialism on its page.  Individualist anarchists have a tradition, they have their own page too if you want to see it, and the evidence that they (tucker, spooner, stirner) oppose property entitlement and thus rent is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES on the very pages of the individuals in question right here on wikipedia.  Not only is not my job to educate you when you go off editing subjects you don't have the knowledge required to even understand properly, but you have more than once demonstrated your willful ignorance of the subject matter and your insincerity in editing these articles, so I'm not going to waste a single moment supplying evidence for undoing edits that you supply -no- evidence for having made in the first place.  Kev 13:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your refual to supply references is noted. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 13:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   You are the one asserting that individualist anarchists do not oppose rent, yet I am the one who must provide evidence?  Back where I come from we have this funny tradition whereby the person making the claim is required to provide the evidence, but apparently you think my refusal to do your work for you will provide a convienent cover for the fact that you have provided no evidence yourself.  Kev 13:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My claim is that indivualists are diverse, and that you might do better to cite a particular individual than a broad spectrum. I have no interest in your head games. Please go have a cup of tea. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 14:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   Great!  Then please provide evidence for this claim.  How about a single anarchist individualist that advocates property as entitlement a la the anarcho-capitalists rather than property as possession a la Proudhon.  This should be very easy evidence for you to provide, yes?  Kev 14:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered writing a Wikipedia article on possession (anarchism), to help others better understand the disctinction above? - Nat Krause 05:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up vrs. reverts 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anarcho-capitalism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anarcho-capitalism|Link suggestions]] 

message: In the Libertarian Socialism article, Sam Spade led a laughably biased crusade to get the article trashed or severely edited, claiming that the term was a contradiction, citing the modern right-wing American definition of libertarianism.
The vast majority of anarchists consider anarcho-capitalism to be a contradiction, as anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. While I'm not suggesting or implying that the article be scrapped/overhauled, as such a proposition is as stupid and juvenile here as it was in the Libsoc article, would anyone be willing to write a section stating that anarcho-capitalism is, at best, the black sheep of the anarchist tradition, at worst, simply the American right-wing form of libertarianism in disguise, and that most anarchists do not consider such anarchists to be anarchists at all? ~ Bloodsorr0w, Jan 23, 2005
The Sam Spade crusade was like a year ago. Why are you bringing it up now? Anyway, this article currently states: "It would be an understatement to claim that anarcho-capitalism's place within the anarchist tradition is hotly contested (see Anarchism); in fact, it is disowned by most anarchists, who believe that capitalist economic relations constitute a form of social domination, and thus contradict the fundamental anarchist belief in freedom." That seems entirely sufficient. - Nat Krause 20:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   The Sam Spade crusade continues today.  He has simply shifted gears from completely wiping out all information on anarchism to portraying it as only being correctly viewed when it is considered chaos and rioting in the streets.  He has even said as much on the anarchism discussion page. Kev 17:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, well, yeah, I guess that's a different crusade. - Nat Krause 00:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?