Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 11

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 05 and June 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/Archive12. Thank you. Saswann 21:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: Currently much of the article, in particular the sections on "The Contractual Society", and "Systems of Justice", stack the deck toward an anarcho-capitalist conception of human relations by stating on multiple occasions that they only support voluntary agreements between individuals.  While this is in fact what the anarcho-capitalists believe, and as such should be mentioned, it is also relevant that this is a major point of contention between them and several other philosophies (like traditional anarchism and state socialism).  The need to qualify these statements when they were first made and give a brief statement concerning their source in AC worldview was not so important when the criticism section actually dealt with this critique directly.  However, that critique has now been removed (or minimized to scare quotes), and the article it has been removed to is about as heavily POV as a thing can get, probably facing VfD soon.  As such, these statements now need to be qualified or that critique needs to be put back in the criticism section.  This is important to NPOV, because currently the voice of wikipedia is being used to state that anarcho-capitalists support only voluntary agreements, and such a statement is not a fact but a POV. Kev 20:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Further problem 

message: Most of the dispute about the POV of this article hinges on very technical (and in some cases, arbitrary) definitions of terms.  The fact is that Anarcho-capitalists and Socialist anarchists are using different dictionaries that have particularly nuanced points of view (the definition of voluntary comes to mind) which means that both sides, in some cases, are reading a different article with the same text.  With that in mind, I added a sidebar that gives the anarcho-capitalist definition of terms that might be unclear or contentious. Saswann 18:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job!  I tweaked the defs a little. --Hogeye 19:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sidebar 

message: Probably we should settle on which term to use, just to keep the terminolgy consistent throughout the article.  I vote for "aggression" since we are using the term  "non-aggression axiom."   "Coercion" is usually more broad than "aggression," and normally means 'use of force' rather than 'initiation of force.' --Hogeye 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree coercion is better, and you're right that there can be initiatory or defensive coercion. Ancaps are not against coercion, unless it's proactive. RJII 03:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aggression" vs. "Coercion" 

message: Certain individuals continue to change the content of a certain criticism in the criticism section to make it sound like a different criticism altogether.  The "individual as lowest denominator" foundational belief of capitalists is not shared by all people, thus their attitude that their active restriction of natural resources qualifies as "non-human factors" is considered ridiculous amongst many political philosophies.  The point is that anarcho-capitalists property relations are not considered voluntary or even defensive amongst many non-propertarians, but this keeps being changed to an issue of whether or not non-human factors can make a situation relevantly involuntary.  But non-human factors are not the issue here, as capitalist propertarians are in fact humans and are in fact engaging in forceful restriction of necessary resources.  Allowing this criticism to remain on this page should not be a difficult thing to do for anyone who has any integrity in their belief in AC.  I'm not going to continue to reinsert this criticism everytime it is purposefully altered to misrepresent it, I will simply reinsert the NPOV dispute tag until partisans can calm themselves.  Kev 19:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An NPOV tag just gives editors free reign to say whatever they want. Go ahead. RJII 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "anarcho-capitalists (and propertarians in general) appeal to an entitlement theory." <- what does that mean? RJII 06:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the distributive justice link, you'll find out.  But obviously I'd better put a direct link.  Thanks.  --Hogeye 19:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Criticism section 

message: " Later, as the monopoly economy expanded, Tucker argued that vast concentrations of wealth which arose from monopoly could eventually sustain usury even in the absence of the state."  Kev, please provide a source. I know you said State Socialism and Anarchism by Tucker, but could you provide a sentence or at least a paragraph that concurs, because I don't see that in there. RJII 14:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SSA.38 Today the way is not so clear. The four monopolies, unhindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust, and the trust is now a monster which I fear, even the freest banking, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy. As long as the Standard Oil group controlled only fifty millions of dollars, the institution of free competition would have crippled it hopelessly; it needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth. Now that it controls, directly and indirectly, perhaps ten thousand millions, it sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer a necessity. It can do without it. Were all restrictions upon banking to be removed, concentrated capital could meet successfully the new situation by setting aside annually for sacrifice a sum that would remove every competitor from the field.  Kev 17:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: This information is intimately relevant to the comparisons being made.  And the quote does indeed deny that usury is "only" made possible by government backed monopolies.  It clearly states that in the absence of government-backed monopolies previously existing concentrations of wealth would still be able to maintain usury, this is a big departure from anarcho-capitalism.  As to why this isn't present in the IA article, I'm still working on that.  Wikipedia is a work in progress you know.  I agree that the comparisons should be short, I also believe that they should not be overly simplistic to the point of misrepresenting the subject they are attempting to illuminate.  Kev 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes...  Kev 20:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: source requested for Kev's edit

message: The portraits looks better when the subjects are facing toward  the middle of the page. --Hogeye 18:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asthetics of portraits