Talk:Capitalism/Archive 8

message: Strange that they locked the page. I thought a general consensus was starting to materialize --that we were going to provide the most common mainstream definition, rather than POV push. RJII 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea with page lock. As you refuse to consider any sources that do not fit perfectly with the anarcho-capitalist definition, and ignore sources like Encyclopedia Britanica or Alan Greenspan, page protection is good. Note that an arbitration case regarding RJII's use of citations is now open. Ultramarine 14:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine, don't start with your lies again about me pushing anarcho-capitalism. The record is plain to see that you are the one that has been mentioning "anarch-capitalism" and "anarchy" explicity, and I have been consistently deleted it. You are a disingenous individual and I resent your intentional misrepresentation of me. (Clear to anyone who does a search for "anarcho" on the Talk page). I don't think that anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned, nor should a special definition be tailored for anarcho-capitalists. The most NPOV way I know is to provide the "typical" or "maintream" definition. I've said this consistently. Keep it up and I'll bring an arbration case against you for consistently lying to damage another user. This is unjustified. RJII 14:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with anything? That's not this article but the anarcho-capitalism article where I was trying to explain anarcho-capitalism. I was pointing out that anarcho-capitalists don't use a Marxist definition of capitalism. RJII 14:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And your are in arbitration for among other things refusing to provide sources for this "Marxist" defintion. Ultramarine 14:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You and your buddy are involved in the arbitration thing. Another attempt to misrepresent and harass me with false accusations. RJII 15:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: page lock

message: But why should the communist definition be exluded? Or the anarcho-capitalist? The intro only state "some combination" not "all of the following". Ultramarine 19:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those are not examples of me trying to state an anarcho-capitalist position. Too bad. You've been exposed, Ultramarine. RJII 15:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try that before the arbitration committee. Ultramarine 15:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I will. I'm seriously considering an arbitration case against you given your pattern of harassment and dishonesty. RJII 15:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never stated that you have written "anarcho-capitalism" in the introdcution. But you have repeatedly tried to change the definition to the anarcho-capitalst one. Ultramarine 15:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't. I'm not even aware of any "anarcho-capitalist definition." As far as I know, they define capitalism the same way the mainstream does. Are you saying that the definition in Merriam-Webster is an anarcho-capitalist definition? That's the most mainstream definition there is ..Merriam-Webster..how middle-of-the-road can you get? Again, you have been the one pushing to get anarcho-capitalism in the article. And I was the one trying to take it out. And, now you're trying to turn it around to make people believe it was me. The evidence is voluminous. Your little game of deception is over. RJII 16:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You ignore Encyclopedia Britanica and Alan Greenspan as sources while citing a dictionary? It is you who wrote the definition of capitalism in anarcho-capitalism. And has then tried to change the introduction of capitalism to this, ignoring all sources that do not fit the definition you wrote in anarcho-capitalism. Ultramarine 16:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I did not write the definition of capitalism in the anarcho-capitalism article. It was s direct quote from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You yourself put the Merriam-Webster dictionary quote in the intro of this article, and I argued that it shouldn't be there. Need evidence? 
I wrote short one using MW, see the article. No interpretation at all in the text so maybe we can agree. :)Ultramarine 18:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  So, enough of this. Your deceptions and misrepresentations and intent to impugn my motivations are beyond ridiculous, and now apparent to all.  RJII 16:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried various attempt to compromise with you. Including representing every definition in the intro (including minarchism, anarcho-capitalism), only the mainstream defintions, or only an extremely short including a dictionary but stating that it is not the only definition. You have tried to change all of them to a definition close to the anarcho-capitalist one. Ultramarine 16:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blah, blah. RJII 16:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: evidence that Ultramarine has been the one pushing for anarcho-capitalism

message: This was protected with a recommendation of two weeks--I don't agree with long protects, and I'm seeing the names of a lot of people I know are pretty grown up and experienced, so before you all completely lose interest I'm going to unprotect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: From secondary sources it looks like Rand's definitions were derivative and so less likely to be useful for our purposes.  "When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reason as the separation of state and church."   This cite appears only available in googles cache rather than directly, so it may disappear soon.  Here is a good review/summary of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
Frderick von Heyek's definition is also difficult to discern from secondary sources.  It looks to me like he would define it as "Capitalism is the spontaneous order that occurs in a free market where property rights to goods and services are exchanged."
Greenspan appears the most promising with a large body of work both written and in speeches.  I've only begun my review, but here are a couple of sites that may be useful for several areas of the article. 
--Silverback 16:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section for discussion of  champions of Capitalism, Hayek, Rand, Greenspan, 

message: I am firm in my belief that anyintroduction shoulod introduce the article as a whole, and does not have to define "capitalism."  Moreover, since there are many definitions of capitalism, no one definition will be NPOV.  Since there is so much contention around capitalism -- the length of the talk page itself is proof that it is a contentious topic -- the introduction must orient people as to the conflicts.  I am not defensive about my own work, and of course do not mind improvements to what I write.  I do maintain, though, that the introduction must be NPOV and must introduce the article as a whole.  As for specifics: the claim that capitalism provides the conditions for economic growth is not a moral claim, it is an empirical claim -- capitalist economies grow.  Moreover, this is not a pro-capitalist remark.  Marxists and Greens who are anti-capitalist agree that capitalism generates growth. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Respectable encyclopedias define capitalism in the intro. This one should be no different. Definitions are NPOV. It appears to me that the typical mainstream definition of capitalism doesn't jibe with your POV, and that that's why you're against capitalism being defined in the intro. RJII 20:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Respectable encyclopedias define capitalism in the intro. We should as well. RJII 21:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: RJII, I note that you have again deleted mentioning the role of the state in protecting property rights. . Something considered essential by Alan Greenspan and the influential economist Hernado desSoto. See citations from them in definitions of capitalism. Can you give an explanation or is it simply deletion of views that contradict anarcho-capitalism? Ultramarine 11:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted a paragraph. Mention of the state happened to be in it. Mention of a state is not why I deleted it. I deleted it because I thought the paragraph was unnecessary. I have absolutely no problem with a state being mentioned as long as capitalism is not defined as containing a state. That would not be a typical definition. The essence of capitalism is its private nature. My concerns here have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. The way the state was mentioned in that paragraph is fine since it's not presented as a definition of capitalism. It's just that the paragraph was unnecessary and should have been incorporated into the previous paragraph. It also contains some duplicate information. RJII 16:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What duplicate information? Why is the paragraph unnecessary? Why did you delete the whole paragraph? Ultramarine 16:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State protection of property rights 

message: From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (my emphasis):
:Wikipedia articles are not:
:Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Some times an article can and should begin with a good definition; this is often not possible for complex or controversial topics (as definitions themselves become matters of controversy), in which case a clear description of the topic is more appropriate. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Dictionaries are not appropriate sources for complex topics. Dictionaries are not cited as evidence for the true meaning of complex subjects like intelligence, race, or time. No one would consider a dictionary the best evidence for a mathematical definition or theorem. Dictionaries are secondary sources and inferior to academic sources when discussing complex topics. If there should be a defintion in the introduction, which as the policy above shows is very doubtful, then dictionaries are inferior to academic research in complex topics. Ultramarine 18:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. Dictionaries are a great source to determine the typical popular usage of terms. So are encyclopedias. And, determing the typical usage of the term "capitalism" is not "complex." And, look who just a few days ago added "this is often not possible for complex or controversial topics (as definitions themselves become matters of controversy), in which case a clear description of the topic is more appropriate" to that article.  No one other than your edit-war partner-in-crime Slrubenstein!  You guys are unbelievably shady.  Guess what? It doesn't say that anymore. Tada! RJII 19:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you have a point that this sentance is new and cannot be considered established policy. Please spare me your personal attacks. Ultramarine 19:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries are good for typical usage of terms. But that is not a definition, but a statement of usage. No one is citing dictionaries as evidence for the true definition of complex topics like time, race, and intelligence. You actually consider a dictionary to be superior to academic research? Ultramarine 19:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dictionaries don't contain definitions? That's a new one. Dictionaries are an extremely useful source of definitions. I'm not singling them out as the only source. But they certainly are useful for determining the "typical" definitions of terms --the popular encyclopedias are well. By the way, nice "play dumb" act above. RJII 19:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another personal attack. Please avoid them. Again, you actually consider dictionaries to be more important than academic research? Ultramarine 19:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as supplying the typical mainstream definition of capitalism, absolutely. Dictionary definitions are the result of research aimed at determining that. RJII 19:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is better to cite a dictionary than academic research in order to find the true meaning of mathematical defintions and theorems? Or the true defintion of intelligence, race, and time? Ultramarine 19:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "True meaning of mathematical definitions"? We were talking about the definition itself, not the "meaning" of the typical mainstream definition of capitalism. What kind of "academic researcher" tries to determine the typical definition of terms? A lexicographer. Where do lexicographers publish their research? In dictionaries. If you want to find the typical definition of a term, look in the dictionary. Duh! RJII 19:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, you actually think that it is better to cite dictionaries than academic research as evidence for the right defintion of mathematical definitions and theorems? Or for the correct definition of intelligence, race, and time? Ultramarine 19:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the right definition of mathematical defininitions..."? What on earth are you saying? A definition of a definition? Get your ideas together before you talk to me. RJII 19:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop avoiding the question. Again, you actually think that it is better to cite dictionaries than academic research as evidence for the right defintion of mathematical terms and theorems? Or for the correct definition of intelligence, race, and time? Ultramarine 19:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never said anything about mathematics. I've said that dictionaries and encyclopedias a great place to look in order to find the typical definitions of words. If you want to get a good idea of how capitalism is typically defined, open a dictionary. The better dictionaries are backed up by qualified researchers who do nothing but look at other sources (including academic sources) and determine what they believe to be the typical definition of the word "capitalism." Look at all the "academic researchers" that you want. My guess is after you compile all the information, you'll come up with the approximately the same definition. You would be doing the same thing the lexicographers are doing. Why not save the effort and use the dictionary to determine the typical popular definitions of words? As I said, use any source you wish, but you'd better be prepared for a full-time job of compiling it all. And, I trust the professional lexicographers more than I trust you (not that I trust you at all). RJII 19:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You're looking for the "most correct one"?  Don't you understand that what makes a definition correct is that it reflects the typical usage? There is no intrinsic correctness or incorrectness about definitions. They are merely the product of consensus. If people typically define capitalism as X, then the "correct" definition of capitalism is X. Correct and typical are the same thing. RJII 20:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Don't you understand that what makes a definition correct is that it reflects the typical usage?" -- this is precisely why we shouldn't open with a dictionary-like definition.  What RJII says is true for dictionaries.  But this is not true for encyclopedias.  Encyclopedias are not compendia of usage (that is what dictionaries are for), they provide state of the art articles meant to expand people's minds, which means going beyond what people already know, beyond what is common or popular.  Otherwise, there is no need for an encyclopedia.  And this is why anyone who wants to contribute to an encyclopediua needs to do real research, and not just look up a word in a dictionary. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  15:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All respectable and widely-referenced encyclopedias do open with a definition of capitalism. It makes perfect sense to do so, and is very easily done. RJII 16:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy on definitions in the introduction 

message: I was just wondering what specific factual claims made in this article are disputed. lets work on them so we can get the tag off.  thanks 
Mgw 00:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the tag there. It looks like what I was having problems with have been fixed for now, so I'll take it off. RJII 01:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: Silverback, your opening is POV.  There is no reason why an article cannot begin by explaining that the topic is controversial. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The free market abstraction is the way economists look at it, information costs, transaction costs, and externalities are all understood as deviations from the free market abstraction.  It appears to me, that we need to explain why some countries and economies are called capitalist.  It is not because labor has it tough, or because there are disparities in income, these are criticisms.  The distinguishing elements is what academic economists point to, the efficiency of the spontaneous order that occurs in markets.  Markets are able to process the incomplete information about costs, resources, consumer and business preferences and priorities, much better than central planners, who impose their own values on decisions, and can't process as many possible cost paths as distributed individual decision makers who are closer to those costs.  Workers will worker harder for what they think they want, than for whatever someone else thinks they should "really" want.  Like other controversial topics, they should be introduced before they are criticized.  Related topics like anarcho capitalism should be wikilinked away to, from a natural position in the prose.  I don't see a need for much more than this sentence about anarcho-captilism in the article.--Silverback 20:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some sources or is this all original research? Ultramarine 20:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not original research it is a descriptive summary.--Silverback 08:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine wipes out the whole Intro paragraph and his stated reason is "Rv NPOV violation by deleting link to alternate definitions"????  Why doesn't he just put the link back in then? This guy is out of control. RJII 20:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the link to the many alternate defintions and replacing with just one definition is violation of NPOV. Ultramarine 20:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's tell it like it is. You just don't want a paragraph there that you didn't write. And, how dare someone put a paragraph above yours. RJII 20:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I should change 18 to 19th century.  I do not have to provide one source for this.  Since it is not making an analytical or synthetic statement (it is just a descriptive summary), it does not count as original research.  However, it is verifiable.  See Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers.  The purpose of this sentence, like the whole purpose of the introduction, is to introduce the article.  What theory mentioned in the body of the article did not develop in the 19th or 20th century? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback's definition