Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 5

message: I noticed that the article makes no mention of IP (patent, copyright, or trademark). The anarcho-caps who I have spoken with do not consider IP to be legit. However, I'm not familiar with the ideas of big-shot theorists. I think that this is important since the article (incorrectly) implies that anarcho-caps approve of all types of property. IP is a big deal these days, and clarifying the anarcho-cap position on IP is important. I suspect that this would be best in the "justifications of property" section (Natural law vs. utilitarian), but I  did not read the article carefully, so I can't really say. AdamRetchless 19:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: N.B.: I agree that a section on intellectual property would be quite worthwhile. For what it's worth, the market anarchist / anarcho-capitalist tradition, and its precursors, is divided on the issue: Lysander Spooner and Hebert Spencer defended both copyright and patents (indeed, argued that existing copyright and patent law was not strong enough); Murray Rothbard defended copyright but denounced patent; and Benjamin Tucker, "Tak Kak" (James L. Walker), Tom Palmer, Roderick Long and others have argued against both copyright and patent on libertarian grounds. I don't have much to contribute in the way of the actual writing of the section at present, but mayhap someone else will--or I will sometime in the not-too-distant future. For some background, cf. Copyright and Patent in Liberty, Man, Economy, and State ch. 10 § 7, The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights, etc. Radgeek 20:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual Property

message: I highly reccomend this page. Sam Spade 03:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have an opinion too, but the truth is following policy (as it appears you are doing) is the only real soloution. Generally what happens is one or more well meaning editors assume bad faith, and/or disobeys policy, and everything goes to heck. I also dislike reverts, and maybe its time for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment (or whatever the next Wikipedia:Dispute resolution step is). Sam Spade 06:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you discussed this on Kev's user pages? Sam Spade 06:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: This is the third time that a third party has asked VV and I to cease this revert war.  As such, I will, for the third time, cease to edit or revert or in any way change this page for a single week.  I SINCERELY HOPE that VV takes the opportunity to actually discuss these issues this time rather than simply reinstating his own edits and letting the time go to waste.  As always I am open to discussion of each any every one of these issues.  All my concerns are already on this page or archived, but I will focus on repeating myself on any issue that VV doesn't have the time or energy to read the talk page to learn about.  Kev 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Truce]] 

message: I just got done looking at the last version of the article that Kev posted, and the differences that it had with respect to VV's edit.  And I was wondering if I was the only one who thought the most differences between the two were almost insignificant?  They amounted to nothing more than how forcefully one stated the opinion of the anarcho-capitalists.  Maybe it would be better for all if we made it clear when something being stated in the article is only the opinion of the anarcho-capitalists.
For instance, one place that I agree with Kev is his change to the paragraph:
VV's version:
:Thus, anarcho-capitalism is a variety of anarchism, in the sense that it rejects the state. They reject all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights. They also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them because they are violations of rights, not because they are committed by governments.
Kev's version:
:Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism in the sense of a rejection of statism. They reject all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights.
Who say's that anarcho-capitalism is a version of anarchism?  IMO that's nothing more than the POV of the anarcho-capitalist, since the libertarian socialist believes anarchism to be more than just a society without a state-government.  So it should be clear in the paragraph, that this is only what the anarcho-capitalists believe.
I don't like how Kev removed the last sentance completely, but in its current state, it also is not a NPOV.  Maybe we can change it so that it is more neutral:
:Anarcho-capitalists argue that they also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents.  In the opinion of the anarcho-capitalist they are violations of rights, regardless of if they are committed by state governments.
I can't see why anyone would object to pointing out that these things are the opinion of the anarcho-capitalist, unless someone were simply trying to turn this wikipedia article into a propaganda campain for anarcho-capitalism. millerc 20:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a lot of what you say, millerc.  I was trying to get my brain around the source of the edit war a while back, but I was surprised at how few substantial points are being argued over.  Personally, I don't see the problem with starting a paragraph "anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be ..." but it gets a little ridiculous to restate that multiple times through the course of the paragraph.  I don't see the problem with VV's final sentence here. - NYK 01:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:   Some thoughts on the revert war 

message: No apology nesesary just make sure you create this break so people don't get confused. thanks. GrazingshipIV 02:11, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC) 
Sorry for placing this at the bottom of the page since it belongs with the thread right above this one, but I wanted to ensure feedback.  As a comprimise to what I have stated above in the Some thoughts on the revert war section, I think it would be best to go with Kev's version, of the initial sentance to make it clear that this is the POV of the anarcho-capitalists, but I would leave the second sentance alone, as was deemed appropriate by NYK.  So the paragraph will be changed to:
:Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism in the sense of a rejection of statism. They reject all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights.  They also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them because they are violations of rights, not because they are committed by governments.
I hope this compromise is sutable to all who were involved in the previous discussions.  If anyone has any problems they should speak out about it now, before I place the new paragraph into the article. millerc 01:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. - Nat Krause 05:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, this is not really a compromise.  The whole point of having "in the sense" was to distinguish anarchism in reference to what may be dubbed the "anarchist movement" (left-anarchism) from a more general use of the term to describe statelessness, and thus make it unnecessary to have the words "hold their position" (or related qualifiers); by having both it's way watered down.  Also, the "rejection of statism" language favored by the anti-ancaps is terrible; ancaps do not reject statism, they reject the state.  Classical liberals would not say they are statists, either, but as minarchists they'd accept a state, though they would dislike and distrust it.  Anyway, though I see where you're coming from, it may be hard to find compromise, because there's been a lot of give to the anti-ancaps already, but they seem insatiable. -- VV 23:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "hold their position to be" is more effective for this purpose than "in the sense".  As I understand it, the ansocs disagree on the meaning of the word "state", so they do not agree that A-C would reject it.  So, I would propose: Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism: a rejection of the state.  How does that sound? - Nat Krause 09:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really an argument they use?  I hadn't heard that one.  The only one I was getting was that anarchism means one and only one thing, what the ansocs say it does.  Thus, I had "in the sense of", to allow for maybe-a-little-bit the "literal" definition.  I was hearing that government included any property (some said by "definition"!), but state was perhaps okay.  (If you'll humor me, the double standard is remarkable, in that on anarchism partisans insisted coercion means only what they say it does by defining anarchism as opposition to it, and undid every edit I made to qualify this, while here when I put in that ancaps oppose "coercive control", it created this huge conflict.  Sorry, lingering frustration there.)  So, I would still prefer the existing version, although you may be on to something. -- VV 09:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't know, maybe they wouldn't really use that argument -- I'm attempting the old "write from the other guy's perspective" trick.  I tend to use "government" and "state" interchangeably, but I know some other people don't, so maybe I'm confusing their arguments about the one with their arguments about the other.  Personally, I prefer my proposed wording either way, I just think it flows a little better as prose.  I understand your frustration with regard to some of the editors -- the only solution I can suggest is that, as necessary, we can go line by line on this article to make sure it says things are true as clearly as possible. - Nat Krause 15:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks for the understanding.  But, I should say the "line by line" approach has the potential to falter, as the cumulative effect of edits good on their own can be to provide a certain biased impression.  Anyway, as for this matter, at this point I could go either way.  I do feel the sentence as written is better, but the version you propose might be valuable in pre-empting endless edit wars (negotiating with edit warrers?), even if it's not ideal.  In any case I'm too weary of this to concern myself with such a small difference.  So, I definitely won't object if you still prefer it and drop it in. -- VV 20:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just comming from a different perspective...I agree with the statement by Nat Krause that "hold their position to be" is more effective for this purpose than "in the sense".  Since I didn't quite get that "in the sense" was a qualifier when I first read it, which is why I thought that there might need to be more.  But, I think you also have to point out that the Anarcho-capitalists are using the word anarchism to specifically mean rejection of a state (I will agree with the differentiation between statism and a state).  Left anarchists use the word "state" in the same way that Anarcho-capitalists use the word, but the problem arises when left anarchists mean much more than simply rejection of the state by the word anarchism.  They use the word for rejection of any form of hierarchical governance (including heirarchical buisness structures).  So IMO saying that they use the term "government" in a different way than the Anarcho-capitalist would be more accurate.  I also don't mean to water down the article (I will remember this on any future suggestions).  I understand that you have fought with people over this before, which can be quite aggravating , but I thought the compromise might fend off future conflicts. You don't have to accept my suggestions. millerc 03:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: I move that the conflict be declared over for this page and that disputed neutrality header be removed. Are there any objections? --Thorn969 07:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: I think this - Anarcho-capitalism is a view which is best described by the saying "other people are not your property". - is a very inadequate definition.  Besides the slogan being uninformative, it implies that ancapism is the "only" view in which people are not property, which is nuts. VV 09:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro