Talk:Anarchism/Archive 39

message: Thanks for making those changes, Sarge. Now, one more concern:  the phrasing "the 20th century saw the formulation of the contentious anarcho-capitalism."
The adjective "contentious" seems to modify "anarcho-capitalism" rather than whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism. This would likely imply to new readers that there is something internal to anarcho-capitalism causing dispute. What we really mean, of course, is that there is a dispute about whether anarcho-capitalism qualifies as anarchism - quite a different thing.  One could properly talk about, e.g. contentious propaganda of the deed, since prop of the deed involves violence and contention, but not anarcho-capitalism, if you catch my drift.  Would you clarify what contentious is modifying by changing it to something like:  the 20th century saw a contentious/disputed/controversial (take your pick) formulation of anarchism called anarcho-capitalism?
Further tweaking it: the word "capitalism" itself is, as you know, defined differently by different people, and has changed considerably over time.  So why not specify what is different about this formulation?  In particular, inserting the word "pro-market" (or "modern pro-market" to distinguish it from older Individualist Anarchist pro-market notions) explains even better. Thus we now have, the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.
IMO the last one is best, most precise, etc.  But at a minimum the adjective "contentious" should be moved, as in the first suggestion.
Also, anarcho-capitalism should be a link, since it is the first occurance. Finally, what's with the double reference to Encarta in the same sentence?  The "and to this day" seems gratuitous, and can be omitted.  Thus we have:
:Anarchism traditionally and popularly is described as anti-capitalist"Anarchism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved., though the 20th century saw a contentious, modern pro-market formulation called anarcho-capitalism.
BillyBong 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree the wording is poor. I don't know about "the rise" (since it suggests it's older), and "modern pro-market" is confusing. How about "although the 1970s saw the formulation of a contentious free market philosophy called anarcho-capitalism"? Though there might be a better word than philosophy. Sarge Baldy 02:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, revision: "though the 1970s saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism." Sarge Baldy 02:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  Thanks. BillyBong 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. It's not like we're actively sitting here trying to figure out how to marginalize your POV. I'm very open (maybe too open) to compromise and cooperate and find fair solutions. But this really just isn't the best article to jump into and rewrite whole sections unilaterally. That's really the main thing that bothers people. Sarge Baldy 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Anarchists argue that the State is not a natural phenomenon, and that hunter-gatherer societies lacked division of labour, accumulated wealth, decreed law, and had relatively equal access to resources. In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Peter Kropotkin argued that mutual aid was a natural feature of animal and human relations.
*In the second paragraph of the same section, replace "earlier" (than what?) with "pre-modern" or "ancient."
*The Proudhon section is very redundant, e.g. it says he opposes capitalism six times, and that doesn't include his direct quotes, or descriptions of mutualism which clearly show incompatability with capitalism.  It smacks of an editorial agenda, or overreaction, or defensiveness. Since "capitalism" is such a connotative and disputed term, I'd hack out most references to the "C" word and let Proudhon's explanations of possession and mutualism speak for themselves.
*In the Other issues section, the Anti-Racism, Anti-Fascism, and Anti-Oppression subsection, the second half of the paragraph should be deleted, starting with "Anti-Racist Action is not an anarchist group..." (Neither is Zapatista, strictly speaking, and anarcha-feminism is already covered.) Cut, trim, snip.
*The whole Cultural Phenomena section can go.  If someone is really attached to it, they can make it a separate article, with a See Also link in this one.
*Probably that book they use in college philosophy courses, "In Defense of Anarchism," should be included in the book section.  It's really pretty good, and academically respectable.
BillyBong 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Suggestion 

message: Can one encyclopedia use another one as a source? --cesarb 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course it can. We have quite a lot of articles that were based directly off other encyclopedia articles. Admittedly it's a bit incestual in a way, but encyclopedias are generally a bit more neutral than most other publications that could be dug up. Sarge Baldy 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are articles that were copied from older encyclopedias, not that use them as a source. --cesarb 15:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Though I guess the questions I would ask is whether the source is reliable or neutral. I would generally consider an encyclopedia an adequate secondary source, if not the best one. Though it might be a question worth addressing at WP:RS. Sarge Baldy 16:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encarta? 

message: AFAIK the IWW rejected involvedment in the 3rd International and was never 'pro-Comintern.' The pro-Comintern members left to form the CP while the neitral and anti-Comintern members stayed with the IWW. Can anyone cite sources for the assertion in the article? Jacob Haller 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IWW and 3rd International 

message: There have been recent attempts to delete the anarcho-capitalist position on property.  This does not seem reasonable, since property is a major consideration for anarchists.  Should we delete Proudhon's or Bakunin's theories of property, too, to be consistent?  That said, I think
Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can result only from being the product of labor and that it may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time).
should be rephrased to
Most anarcho-capitalists believe that private property can originate only from being the product of labor, and may only be legitimately transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment (after a given period of time).
: I'm going to fiddle with this wording just a teensy bit. --Christofurio 18:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's crucial. We have explanations of the communist anarchist position on property, as well as for the labor-value individualists. The property philosophy of anarcho-capitalism is essential. And, it only takes one sentence to explain. (By the way, I think your version is an improvement.) RJII 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of Property 

message: Any objection to putting Agorism on the template?  What about a subsection in the article? WickedWanda 18:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. It's a wingnut fringe of a wingnut fringe, neither of which have much to do with anarchism. --Tothebarricades 16:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As if anarchism itself is not a "wingnut fringe." RJII 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced it's important enough in itself, but I suspect it can serve to bring out important features in related traditions. For one thing, agorism splits the possession-to-property left-right axis from the workers' revolution-to-capitalist hegemony left-right axis, with the Elmer Smiths of the world on the right of the former and the left of the latter. Jacob Haller 02:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. In Wikipedia's Le Guinian terminology, agorism is the middle "soft propertarian" ground between anti-propertarian socialists and hard propertarian capitalists. It is tolerant to both community property and private property. WickedWanda 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agorism 

message: I don't see it in the article, but I see it in the source. WTF?  Perhaps it needs to be "sprotected" rather than "semiprotected". WickedWanda 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, apparently the banner has been replaced with that lock icon in the top right. Which I guess is less intrusive. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there it is! WickedWanda 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection template 

message: Why was Anarcho-capitalism removed from this article? AC deserves just as much time in the article as i.e. anarchist communism. I don't know how to revert pages, so could someone please fix this? I understand that many self-proclaimed anarchists feel that AC is not really anarchism, but wikipedia is not the place to voice your philosophies, it is the place to present the facts behind a subject from a Neutral Point of View and there is a strong enough of an anarcho-capitalist presence which claims to be anarchistic and this deserves to be mentioned.
:I fixed it. Twice. Apparently (look at Talk History) Max is a known edit warrior.  I can only undo one more time today, so someone else may have to take over. WickedWanda 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU are not a wikipedian Hogeye go away, stop vandalizing the article with original reseach and POV You swear, personal attack, and get frequently banned as well as using sockpuppets ad infinitum.  -- maxrspct leave a message  19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3"  : (using political ideas by barbara goodwin  ) -- maxrspct leave a message  19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that A/C is not a proper form of anarchism, please explain your position under the A/C section of the page, but do not delete it. Your single source (which has questionable reliability as the author does not even have a page on wikipedia nor is the book in question readily available) does not call for blatant omission of information relevant to the subject of the article. Two-Bit Sprite 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In case anyone hadn't noticed, there are sources attached from scholars saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. If anyone needs more source let me know. I have plenty more. It's not original research so there's not justification to delete it. RJII 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you just look for yourself? They're right there in the footnotes. They're certainly not what one would call "fringe sources" RJII 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha haaa.. Typical .. - none are non-fringe. U have admitted yerself that Peter Marshall's book as inaccurate.. so.......  -- maxrspct leave a message  22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last laugh is mine. You'll NEVER be able to censor anarcho-capitalism from this article. When I'm going in about a week you'll still be here waging your futile war. Have fun. I hope they pay you well. You wouldn't be sensless enough to do this stuff for free would you? RJII 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's all about living life RJ, whoever you are. Getting paid? Yeah it's like Orwell's 1984 > speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write speak/write  - maxrspct leave a message  22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it curious why you care. Anarcho-capitalism is obviously very different from all the other branches of anarchism, so why do you wish so much for it to be associated with them? -- infinity0 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a form anarchism. Each form of anarchism is very different from other forms, in my opinion, as well. I would replace anarcho-communism just the same if someone tried to delete it. RJII 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism is no more a form of anarchism than Creation Science is a form of science. It is an outside movement that has co-opted the term "anarchy" for its own purposes. Never was part of the movement, never will be, never could possibly be. Why? Because capitalism is a power heirarchy and anarchism is opposed to power heirarchies. Simple as that. --Aelffin 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AC removed 

message: It's been suggest by a couple of people that this section be removed. Any objections?WickedWanda 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are the people? A bunch of sockpuppents of Hogeye? The Ungovernable Force 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably. I hadn't heard anyone else say anything about wanting to get rid of it. Sarge Baldy 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural phenomena 

message: I have to say, I kind of liked what Bacchiad did to the page (prior to its reversion), it at least started to restore some consistancy in structure, however I think some improbements could be made to it, for example I feel that anarcho-capitalism is downplayed in as a subheading under "Issues" and I feel that the tension between social anarchists and capitalistic anarchists (and even between say mutualists, agorists and syndicalists) that it should have its own heading, maybe...? Two-Bit Sprite 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it as well, and think it lays things out better (with a movement section, followed by one for individualism, and then one for issues). It's less cluttered. And I don't feel it downplays anarcho-capitalism, as if there's any word to describe a/c's place within anarchism, it's "disputed". Putting it against anarchism's long opposition to capitalism doesn't seem unfair to me, it seems to put things more into perspective. It's also a lot slimmer, which would be a nice change. Sarge Baldy 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer the issue-based style as well. I think it works better to look at "capitalism" and say what different anarchists have had to say about it rather than looking at each different group of anarchists and saying what they had to say about each specific issue. There's too much overlap to look at individual traditions. There's movements and history, and then there's specific issues. And that's all we should be concerned with. Sarge Baldy 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, anarcho-capitalism does not belong in the intro.  The overwhelming current of anarchist thought and practice has been fundamentally anti-capitalist.  Ancap deserves no more mention in the introduction than other small, late-anarchist groupings, like Green Syndicalism or Anarcho-Primitivism.  Bacchiad 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I don't think it should have its own section. It should be listed along with the issue of capitalism, so that people can better understand its disputed place. Sarge Baldy 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. In a way it's better that way, since the anti-capitalist disclaimers are preceeding (rather than mixed in with) the ancap paragraphs. WickedWanda 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "big edit" by Bacchiad 

message: Where does it say that most anarchists are against institutions of capitalism? -- Vision Thing -- 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right; it says "Those activists who identify with anarchism are usually anti-capitalist; among these, some would also call themselves socialists (presumably of the libertarian variety), some would not." but that's talking specifically about people opposed to neoliberalism. Although I would say I find it literally insane that anyone could think anarcho-capitalists "outnumber" traditional anarchists, especially since anarchism has been growing everywhere in the last decade. It's hard to find a scholarly source saying that most anarchists are against capitalism, because that's the sort of thing people should already know from their intro to political science classes. Very often people write about anarchism without acknowledging the existence of anarcho-capitalism, whether because they believe it's negligible, not anarchism proper, or simply haven't heard of it. It's not hard to find statements from non-anarchists that go "Anarchists believe that human corruption results when differences are enforced through the maintenance of property and authority." (The Anarchist in the Library, Siva Vaidhyanathan) Likewise, the Library of Congress excludes books about anarcho-capitalism from the HX category (which is for "Socialism, communism, anarchism, utopias"). Seeing as the whole field of library science is dedicated to the categorization of information, it seems interesting that they decided anarcho-capitalism doesn't classify as anarchism. But it can stay "many" for now. Sarge Baldy 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.monthlyreview.org/0901epstein.htm Monthly Review link]

message: I've worked a bit on cleaning up the Anarcho-capitalism section, but it still needs some work, namely:
* The sentance "Another prominent anarcho-capitalist is David D. Friedman." looks thrown in out of the blue. I agree that Friedman is very important in the A/C tradition, but he needs to be worked into the article instead of stuck into the middle of it, know what I mean?
* The last paragraph seesm to have some misconceptions that I'm not sure how to correct. For example it gives the impression that the NAP is inherantly an aspect of Natural Law. This is incorrect, there are plenty of pragmatist ancapists who perport the NAP as merely a guideline for facilitating the peaceful coopertation of individuals, not as some form of "natural law".
* It also seems to have a strange misconception of the term Utilitarianism. Ancapists who use utilitarian arguments typically state that capitalism is better fit to provide for the needs of the individuals involved in that it generates wealth and hence utility.
Two-Bit Sprite 13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained the D. Friedman reference by contrasting his utilitarianism with Rothbard's natural law outlook. I noted the contractarian basis for NAP, and managed to smuggle in a Jan Narveson link.  I changed "utilitarian" to "consequentialist" in the last paragraph. WickedWanda 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good thanks! :) I think this section has turned out very nicely, and is just long enough to inform the reader of the essentials and just short enought to be concise. We'll see how long it lasts this time ;) Two-Bit Sprite 18:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A/C cleanup 

message: :: Throughout most of its history, anarchism has been defined by its proponents in opposition to capitalism - which, they argue, can be maintained only by state violence. 	
		
:Can someone provide a link to the (or any) argument that capitalism can be maintained only by state violence? I'd like to see how that is formulated. --Serge 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the problem's been solved with the insertion of as they understand the term. This effectively acknowleges the different use of the term "capitalism" you note above. WickedWanda 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This solves the issue for me. Two-Bit Sprite 13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. Socialists tend to conflate statist capitalism and market capitalism, whereas libertarians are quite keen on the distinction. Libertarians usually refer to statist capitalism as "fascism,"  and existing capitalism as "a mixed economy." WickedWanda 13:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anticapitalism fact citation

message: Apparently there is some objection to a paragraph about the NAP, i.e. a short explantion on what it is and noting its relationship to anarcho-capitalism.  Why is this? Is this a POV thing or what? 64.92.163.234
:It was too long.  I think it does merit some mention though, so I've included a parenthetical reference.  Bacchiad 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Aggression Principle

message: Apparently there is also some objection differentiating the main article about anarcho-capitalism and the article about the semantic debate on whether anarcho-capitalism is really anarchism.  Why is this?  64.92.163.234
:They should both be main articles, simply because it is debated. It's not quite fair to say one is the main article and the other isn't, since its place is very much disputed. Sarge Baldy 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main article vs. debate article

message: This article is much too long. I propose that we move the "Origins" section into a new origins of anarchism article. We could then condense that section, describing the subsections in one or two sentences. What say you all? I think that this would be highly uncontroversial as far as POV is concerned, and probably the best way to reduce the article.
This would require a bit of thought, as the different strains of anarchism are introduced in a chronological manner. We could keep that chronology, but take their description outside of the context of explaining the history of anarchism. Make sense? --AaronS 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  That sounds good to me.  Either abbreviate or remove the Origins section.  There used to be a section on predecessors of anarchist thought, with references to Taoism and the Stoics.  That could go in the new article.  Bacchiad 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I'd advocate cutting the Other Branches and Offshoots section out entirely.  Almost everything described there is non- or minimally- notable.  Bacchiad 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that post-left anarchism is worth mentioning, but the others could possibly have their own article, new branches of anarchism, for example. --AaronS 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition: "Origins of anarchism" article split 

message: I've moved almost all of the material from Other Issues and Other Branches and Offshoots into a new section called Relations with the Left.  The title of that section probably sucks; we can change it.  But since all of the moved material deals about the same issues, I think it should go in one place.  We can now start trimming it. 
I moved the Technology part to Cultural Phenomena.  Bacchiad 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've very much reduced the "Issues in anarchism" section, giving it its own article. The page is now at 40KB. We're rapidly approaching a reasonable size. As always, feel free to change my edits or alter them -- I just think that it's important that we cut out the fat, first. Then we can work to improve what's here, while remaining confident that we aren't working with a drunken elephant. --AaronS 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Branches and Offshoots -> Relations with the Left

message: Since we're doing a major weeding out, I suggest we delete paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Anarchism and organized labor section. These paragraphs have to do with rather detailed history, and are more appropriate for the Anarcho-syndicalism article. Pbanger
:At first glance, that seems reasonable. --AaronS 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening Anarchism and organized labor 

message: :If consensus isn’t reached on that option, I’m for option number two, but with anarcho-capitalists take on the issue of globalization. -- Vision Thing -- 09:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of state coercion, free capitalism would naturally and inevitably develop. Hence, Rothbard's statement that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." This has met resistance from anarchists who hold that capitalism is inherently oppressive and hierarchical.
I want to do the anti-globo people the same courtesy.  Also, I don't want to paint an (I think false) picture of ancaps as corporate apologists; a lot of the most prominent ancap people, like the Mises Institute, are equally anti-WTO, -G8, etc.  They may disagree on tactics and prefer to phrase it as opposition to "world government" rather than "globalization", but I don't want to obscure that position.  But I think we could settle on a short sentence with a good reference that captures the thing properly.  Let me think on it and, if no one else does first, I'll post a draft version to the talk page.  Bacchiad 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To capture the thing properly, we need to note the semantic quibble.  To anarcho-socialists "globalization" = "neocolonialism." To anarcho-capitalists "globalization" = "expansion of the division of labor." In short, both are against neocolonialism, but only the ansocs (some, anyway) are against the division of labor. Per your reduction of disclaimers suggestion, I moved the latest disclaimer to the Capitalism intro section. Beeboe
Beeboe, you seem to have an over-riding interest in semantic quibbles.  Let's say for a moment that if the semantic distinction were important to a lot of notable ancaps and if they used the same definitions as you do, it would be important to include in the article.  Let's just assume that as a thought experiment.  Now, could you provide a couple of good citations where notable ancaps do that?  Then we could hash out whether it merits mention.  Bacchiad 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancaps and anti-globalization

message: What should we do about terminology which is misleading due to obsolete usages?  A current concern (in the Individualist Anarchist section) is how it should be noted that people in the 19th century who called themselves "socialist" are not at all socialist the way the term is used today.  Probably at the very least we should use "scare quotes" and a footnote. Beeboe
:Who really cares, you're not supposed to be here anyway, remember? The Ungovernable Force 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I care. So should anyone editing here.  It's supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a propaganda piece. We shouldn't purposely try to mislead people. ("Not supposed to be here?" Please give reasons, rather than poisoning the well.) FreeJohnG 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I'm sure you're not just another sockpuppet, right? The Ungovernable Force 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you're not up for reasonableness today. Everyone's a sockpuppet, eh? FreeJohnG 21:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just everybody who signs up within the past 48-72 hours, suddenly finds themselves on this page, becomes immediately acquainted with Wikipedia editing and policies, and supports Hogeye. Please, we're not idiots. --AaronS 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it up hogeye, it won't ever work. The Ungovernable Force 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquated Terminology 

message: The article currently says: Many participate actively in the anti-globalization movement. Here, as elsewhere, anarchists have differences of opinion over tactics; thus the black blocs are prepared to engage in property destruction, while the activists of Food Not Bombs advocate more peaceful means. Although FNB as a group says it's nonviolent, in my own experience, many if not most of the people involved don't have any problem with black blocs and property destruction. I don't think there is really any disagreement, the only difference is in the tactics used by the people at the time. When you want to destroy property you do it as a black bloc, when you want to give out food, you do it under the banner of FNB--it's not a matter of disagreement. The Ungovernable Force 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Food Not Bombs have to do with globalization?  Shouldn't that be somewhere else, like a section on parallel structures? FreeJohnG 20:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food Not Bombs vs Black Bloc 

message: Why does somebody keep deleting references to the fact that anarcho-capitalist David Friedman is the son of Republican-monetarist Milton Friedman? It certainly seems relevant. It illustrates one of the directions (I don't say the only direction!) whence anarcho-capitalist thoughts can arise. Whether you think of David as rebelling against Dad, or staying essentially within Dad's fold, or as something between the two is up to you. But the fact of their relationship is NPOV, and should be in here. --Christofurio 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reason we cut out/cut down the paragraph on Latin American syndicalism, the bio of Warren and Tucker, the blockquote in anti-fascism, and other stuff: economy.  This is a big long article that has to cover a lot of territory.  In broad terms I think it's interesting that David is Milton son, but that's most interesting in his own article, kind of interesting in the ancap article, and in my personal judgement least interesting in the anarchism article.  Personal judgment call, but I thought the most relevant things were utilitarianism and medieval Iceland.  Bacchiad 03:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's a personal call, and one that I'm not willing to edit war about. So be it.  --Christofurio 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's an irrelevant detail. We should keep things as concise as possible, and such a trivial point really doesn't have any reason to be here. It's a perfect example of the sort of fluff that we need to keep out of this article. Sarge Baldy 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milton and David

message: RJII checking in from a cafe in Provincetown. I went ahead and edited some articles. Oh, I'm banned for life? Ok, ban the IP then. See ya. 72.93.12.116 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provincetown, eh? I bet you're right at home, there. ;-) --AaronS 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RJII

message: The article says Tucker advocated labor notes and mutual banking. I don't think this is correct. Drowner 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're definitely wrong on mutual banking.  On labor notes, I don't believe he explicitly advocates them, but he does cite them with approval.  The point is, they're stuff that, according to him, workers could do more of without invasive monopoly.  Bacchiad 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Division of anarchism on social and individualist strands is common in the literature about anarchism. Maybe we should mention it in the intro.-- Vision Thing -- 13:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: individualist anarchism

message: I'd like to propose a small change which, under normal circumstances I might just be inclined to edit without a discussion.  However, because this page is constantly vandalised and hotly contested, I thought it best to discuss the matter first.  It is the matter of whether anarchists should be defined as deeming goverment/authority as "evil," as the current summary does:  "Thus 'anarchism,' in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are evil and should be abolished."
I dislike the use of this term because is suggests a moral bias based in a dicotomy of good vs evil, such as a christian morality of rightiousness vs a moral evil.  On the surface it may not seem to be a problem, but many anarchists do not see this matter in such terms.  To that end, I would suggest a definition which does not depend on moral subjectivity.  Perhaps using the term "harmful" or "negative" instead would be best?  I propose two possible alternatives, the second of which is something of a quote from Lawrence Jarach's anarchist phamplet, "Instead of Another Meeting."
"Thus 'anarchism,' in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are [1) harmful to society] [2) a negative means of maintaining social harmony] and should be abolished. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cast (talk • contribs) .
:Well, it's already been changed, but no, it should not say evil for the same reason you gave. A lot of anarchists do not believe in evil as a concept and reject dichotomies like "good" and "evil". This is especially true for post-leftists, and probably others as well. The Ungovernable Force 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority as "Evil" vs. "Harmful" 

message: I am the one that substituted 'evil' for 'undesirable'.   Can you back up your statement above, "A lot of anarchists do not believe in evil as a concept, etc.". About the revert of my recent edits, unless you can show how they are incorrect, then they will go back to the way they were. I'm not particular about the word 'evil', itself, but undesirable is just softening what any self-respecting anarchist would agree on..the putridness of governments. Another thing is the push for communism in this article. Are we talking about anarchism or communism? I'm reverting it back again. This article is not cutting it in my perspective, and I am 100% anarchist anti-authoritarianism. I know what anarchy is. Shannonduck talk 02:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I didn't revert it the first time, someone else did, so I'm not sure why this is directed towards me. Second, read Days of War, Nights of Love, especially this essay on Crimethinc.com. Crimethinc is one of the most influential anarchist groups in america right now in terms of ideology (or lack thereof), so the fact that they are saying this suggests that many anarchists probably feel similarly. And although I don't feel like searching for any of it right now, there have been debates on infoshop.org about the idea of morality, and many people involved have rejected it. As for the rest of your edits, why are you so intent on changing it? This is the version of the intro we have agreed upon. I don't see the benefit of your changes. I especially hope that you will not just change it back again without a consensus on this page first. Lastly, why you are bringing in this "are we talking about anarchism or communism" here thing, like the two are mutually exclusive--many anarchists are communists as well, and most if not all (depending on your definition of anarchism) are socialists or socialist-inspired. If you have a particular problem with it somewhere in the article, could you say what it is? The Ungovernable Force 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: can you show this, Ungovernable Force?

message: User:AaronS is trying to revert my perfectly cited addition to anarchism. "Some" in this case does not mean "as opposed to many." It just means here that there are people out there holding to the first view, and that there are people out there holding the second view. "Many" in itself is a weasel word best to be avoided. Intangible 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you addition is false.  Your write: For some anarchists, this includes not only the state, but many or all institutions of authority, such as state socialism and capitalism; others see individual sovereignty as reason to reject the state. What does this even mean? That while some anarchists reject the state, other anarchists reject the state? That's redundant. If that's not what you mean, then it needs to be reworded. Or, does it mean that, while some anarchists reject more than the state, other anarchists reject only the state? No, anti-statists do that, not anarchists. Why are you changing this agreed-upon intro? It took a long time to reach a compromise. --AaronS 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the latter. If you reject the latter, you reject the inclusion of individualist anarchism in this article. Intangible 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Also, please answer my question about changing the agreed-upon version of the intro without any discussion. --AaronS 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You change the agreed-upon version of the intro without any discussion many times if I remember correctly. -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, says who? I haven't seen any disagreement. --AaronS 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See the 1889 article. With my change I think I brought in a good nuance to the article. Intangible 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To give a quote from the 1889 article: "The Invididualistic Anarchists accordingly profess to have very little in common with the Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists." Intangible 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wording of the statement should be improved, but I agree with Intangible, "individual sovereignty" is an important concept so it should be mentioned in the intro. -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we could add, either just before or just after the mention of differences of opinion over the economy, something about there being many different justifications for opposition to authority among anarchists (liberal rights theories, individual sovereignty, non-aggression, self-realization, efficiency). Although I'm not sure the intro really wants to be any longer. VoluntarySlave 18:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Sources should adhere to WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability" I cannot see how your logic would exclude my source. Intangible 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh look, the journal has even a Wikipedia article: Political Science Quarterly. Intangible 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous. This is not even close to being a primary source. Intangible 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is for the same reason why we don't use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica except as a primary source for this article. --AaronS 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion? Where does it say one cannot use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, or a 1889 article. Where does it say one cannot even use a primary source? Intangible 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The first line of the article is "In anarchism we have the complete antithesis of socialism and communism." However, on the second page, the author writes: "All scientific writers who have discussed Proudhon have placed him among the socialists." Thus, clearly the first line is not intended as a summary of the generally accepted understanding of anarchism, but rather a controversial thesis that the author intends to argue for in the article. That is to say, the article is a primary source. VoluntarySlave 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial? This was 24 years after Proudhon's death. My concern is not with Proudhon though. Intangible 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  individual sovereignty and NPOV 

message: Sources should adhere to WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. They should not be used to promote WP:OR. Please stop reverting, Intangible. --AaronS 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sources should adhere to WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability" I cannot see how your logic would exclude my source. Intangible 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh look, the journal has even a Wikipedia article: Political Science Quarterly. Intangible 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous. This is not even close to being a primary source. Intangible 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is for the same reason why we don't use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica except as a primary source for this article. --AaronS 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion? Where does it say one cannot use the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, or a 1889 article. Where does it say one cannot even use a primary source? Intangible 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The first line of the article is "In anarchism we have the complete antithesis of socialism and communism." However, on the second page, the author writes: "All scientific writers who have discussed Proudhon have placed him among the socialists." Thus, clearly the first line is not intended as a summary of the generally accepted understanding of anarchism, but rather a controversial thesis that the author intends to argue for in the article. That is to say, the article is a primary source. VoluntarySlave 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial? This was 24 years after Proudhon's death. My concern is not with Proudhon though. Intangible 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Removed per discussion. --AaronS 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Or anarchists at all? I don't really buy this whole "clash of the POVs" characterization. Sure, there are some people, here, who have clearly drawn the line in the sand. That's beneficial, because it's honest, but it's also detrimental, because it allows people to portray every one of your edits as being POV. A long time ago, I refused to endorse my own beliefs as socialist or socialist anarchist. I still do. My interest in this subject is academic. I'm too young, uninformed, uneducated, and downright stupid to know what politics would be best for the world. I find the anarchist ideal to be, well, ideal and romantic, but I do not let that enter into my editing process, just as I wouldn't let my love of, say, J.R.R. Tolkien's work allow me to add "The Lord of the Rings is the best piece of fantasy fiction" to the Lord of the Rings article.
I wager that there are other editors, here, who tend to find themselves at the receiving end of some of the anarcho-capitalist editors' accusations, and who feel the same as I. I resent the characterization of the frequent disputes regarding this article as being between a cadre of socialists and a cadre of right libertarians. Sometimes, some of us, who just love knowledge, history, politics, or whatever, get caught in the middle. The fact of the matter is that the users who many accused of POV-pushing -- Hogeye and RJII -- were eventually banned for or admitted to doing just that. RJII even drafted quite an amusing manifesto as to the success of his "psychological warfare," sounding not so different from a deranged Caligula returning from a victorious campaign against the ocean itself, adding to his treasury a sizeable bounty of seashells and sand, and declaring himself Jupiter.
This is about what is verifiable and encyclopaedic. So, let's stick to that. We know RJII has sock puppets, but it doesn't really matter. Let him play with himself. In the meantime, stick to the article and its content, and stop sticking it to one another. --AaronS 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. - FrancisTyers · 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I personally do label myself as a socialist, and I think there are some good aspects to certain types of communism, but I'm more of a post-leftist. I tend to dislike narrow ideologies and I try to be open-minded, especially in the real world. The problem is that there are many people, like RJII and Hogeye who come here immediatly on the offensive, pushing POV's that don't mesh well with history. To defend against this, some of us react aggresively and it may come accross as a strong communistic pov. I think RJII loved to characterize everyone who disagreed with him a commie, and some of the newer supporters of an-cap around wikipedia seem to have the same problem. I however am not really a communist, and I don't think most of the other editors here are either. The Ungovernable Force 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-leftism is quite interesting. I think I said once that, if I were to embrace an anarchist ideology, it would be post-lef anarchy. That's probably true. Or maybe post-anarchism. The problem with this article (and RJII's fading influence on Wikipedia) is that it is a frequent target for gaming the system. --AaronS 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm an anarchist-without-adjectives myself.  My biggest problem with the couple banned editors is their misrepresentation of various forms of anarchism as necessarily anti-thetical, blowing the dichotomy between individualists and communists out of proportion and falsely asserting that there can be no reconciliation.  I think they do this to generate the impression that anarcho-capitalism is not a disputed ideology in anarchism, because all forms of anarchism dispute each other.  But anyone who has spent time with individualist and communist anarchists know that their disagreements are a sidebar at most.  If anarcho-capitalists could just have the intellectual integrity of balancing their edits, rather than waging constant "war", I would welcome their input on the under-represented branches of anarchism.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So you think that RJII is deranged but you accept what he said as truth? Interesting... -- Vision Thing -- 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can safely assume that which fits into his psychological profile. But I think you missed the point -- it doesn't really matter. --AaronS 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I got the point. I think that we should make an effort to make out of this at least a  good article. However, there seems to be a lot of bad faith going around. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why must all editors who disagree with anarcho-capitalist POV be socialists?

message: This seems like a forgotten fork. Any reasons why it should not be deleted?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, blast from the past. I scanned it real fast, it didn't seem too necessary. I did however take the current version and put it into one of my sandboxes for a second so that if it is deleted, we can always look to see if there was any info that we might want. It's in the history here. The Ungovernable Force 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its puzzling what to do here, I'm tempted to just delete it outright, but I don't think it is covered by any of the CSD, so you'd better AfD it just to be sure. - FrancisTyers · 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anarchism/historical]] 

message: How typically socialist to describe someone who gets in your way as deranged. Shannonduck talk 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This actually made me laugh out loud. --AaronS 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deranged

message: Time for an archive. How does archiving everything up to "Length reduction" sound? --AaronS 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like a good move. -- Vision Thing -- 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Please put the para on Godwin back in, Aaron. Kropotkin is far from the only major writer to peg Godwin as a key player in anarchist theory. And Kropotkin's EB article is far from an 'unreliable source' by the way. Though if you need others look at Rocker, Woodcock, or I imagine almost any introduction to anarchism or even any serious anarchist website. Or indeed the current EB article.Bengalski 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I was unaware of that. For this article, however, I would probably consider Kropotkin's EB article a primary source. As such, we should note that Kropotkin is the one saying it, or back it up with other, more reliable sources. I didn't know that there were other sources available. So, I have no problem with the statement being in the article. --AaronS 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From that WP article: "In historical scholarship, a primary source is a document or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied. In this sense primary does not mean superior. It refers to creation by the primary players, and is distinguished from a secondary source, which is a historical work, like a scholarly book or article, built up from primary sources." So I'd say Kropotkin on Godwin was a secondary source - they were not contemporaries. The fact is that most historical works on anarchism have been written by anarchism - that doesn't necessarily invalidate their scholarship. But yes we should attribute the quote to Kropotkin.Bengalski 15:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop removing Godwin 

message: This article is seeing too much reverting... 2 people blocked ofr 3RR today. If you don't stop, I shall protect the lesast popular version I can find William M. Connolley 15:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I can understand protecting to prevent edit warring, I'm quite disturbed by that comment. From Wikipedia:Protection policy: In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. Going out of your way to protect a page that will upset the most people is ridiculous. It's spiteful and just plain mean. The Ungovernable Force 22:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with The Ungovernable Force. Shannonduck talk 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. That's absolutely out of policy, and not helpful to anyone. Sarge Baldy 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: I keep putting this in 'with little organization' and whoever keeps reverting it back. (oops typo, sorry) See here for why I am rephrasing this. Spontaneous_order. An anarchy, having no head or centralized authoritarian power would not have a highly organized society, now would it? Shannonduck talk 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spontaneous order says that the phenomenon can also be called "self-organization," which, in fact, is a term often used with approval by anarchists. So I'm not sure why you want to equate a lack of authoritarian power with a lack of organization. Besides which, the version prior to your edit referred to anarchism as "a manner of organizing society," which doesn't imply anything about either a large or small amount of organization. The point is that anarchism refers to both a philosophy and a society which is in accordance with that philosophy. Lots of political terms have this ambiguity ("communism," for instance). Perhaps instead of saying "a manner of organizing society" we could say "a form of society," or "a type of society." Saying that "anarchism is a loosely organized society" doesn't accurarely characterize those anarchists who are in favor of organization, for example platformists. VoluntarySlave 01:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I personally like the idea of small-scale organizing and have some problems with strong levels of federation, that is a common anarchist position, especially within classic anarchism. I think with post-leftism and primitivism there are a lot more anarchists who are opposed to highly organized societies, but many anarchists past and present have advocated complex socities organized in a non-authoritarian fashion. To say anarchism is inherenlty unorganized (or has little organization) does not represent the facts. The Ungovernable Force 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree as well. Obviously you'd need some form of organization, or you really would have chaos, but it would have to be light. I would think most anarchists are opposed to formal organization such as bureaucracies, but accept informal organizing such as common associations among a group and grassroots organizing. It's more a matter of scale. Sarge Baldy 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: your reversions are not making sense

message: I am an anarchist and I don't "share a dislike of all forms of capitalism" as  Blah asserted. I do hate fascism and socialism, however, and any other type of authoritarian government or (state).
to Blockader: That's nice that individualist anarchists get a section in this article. Communists get almost the entire rest of the aricle. This is supposed to be an aricle about anarchism not communist-anarchism And you say that the individualists are ttying to take over the article. Something is dead wrong here. Now read this following concerning Proudhon.
:Word count for anarcho-communism section: 412 words. For the individualist anarchism section: 316 words. The anarcho-capitalist section: 342 words. Where's the bias? I didn't include the sections on organized labor, the Russian Revolution, or the fight against fascism, because those are just examples of anarchist history. --AaronS 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response to the above statements by Blah and Blockader

message: Here's a big whopper of an idea: the contents of this article have nothing to do with what anybody wants them to be, what anybody wishes them to be, what anyone believes or feels they should be, or what anybody thinks they should be. The contents of this article depend only on what you can reliably verify. All of this nonsensical theoretical discussion is useless, and it gets us nowhere. The same goes for the clever selection of out-of-context quotations to support a particular point-of-view. Nobody trusts Wikipedia for these very reasons. This is why you'd receive an "F" on a paper relying on Wikipedia as a source. It carries no more clout than a personal Geocities web page. I really have no idea why people think Wikipedia is a place to push their POVs or ideologies. For Christ's sake, it's just a web site, it's not a scholarly resource, and it suffers from a damning systemic bias towards pimply technogeeks. Please, just stick to the verifiable sources, people. Please, for the love of God. Some of us are just here to have fun and learn. I suppose that the good thing is that, no matter what, we will. --AaronS 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guess what? 

message: You people are unbelievable in your ignorance and the ease to which you get brainwashed by subversive propaganda.
# Learn to read. I said that Paine and Jefferson came up with the ideas for a minarchist government whereby the freedom and equality of the people would  be protected. Have you read Paine and Jefferson? You are attacking the wrong men. If you want to rightfully attack an American forefather attack Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and others.
# I never said they were anarchists. I do say, though that Jefferson expressed his admiration for anarchism. If he had suggested it at a congressional meeting he probably would have been shot or lynched or they just would have impeached him. (Something that many of them wanted to do anyway.)
# Being patriotic to your country and anarchism are not mutually exclusive. Sounds like you have been reading too much Communist propaganda. Communists just love to subvert governments and China is trying to subvert this one right now. I personally would love to overthrow the fascist-socialist state we're in right now and get back our freedom. But Maoism is not something I would have in mind in the way of freedom.
# Blah and Bockade, since you think you know the ideologies that are best for me, let me find one for you. Hmm, maybe subverting your current government into a dictatorshiptotalitarian state would be appropriate. Or perhaps, as you are incapable of reading comprehension or the most rudimentary thought, working in a convenience store, rather than editing what used to be an encyclopedia would be a good idea for you. Or maybe, how about going and fucking yourself. Now, after having  baited me with your ignorant and idiotic comments, go running to the admins and report me for PAing you, thereby proving beyond any shadow of a doubt how unanarchistic yet socialistic you really are.
::Apparantly, Aaron this article is the way you want it to be, just to get some accuracy into your last comment.
:::Intangible, thanks for your support and for your intelligent comment. Shannonduck talk 03:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, your response to these "personal attacks" wound up being the most blatant personal attack I've seen in the history of this article. I'd suggest you control your temper if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously on this talk page. Sarge Baldy 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're so intelligent, huh? The Ungovernable Force 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be the last time I waste my time reading one of your messages Lingeron.  Good luck.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I hope you won't take this as a personal attack, Shannon, but you seem to have serious gaps in your understanding of anarchism. Anarchists, from Proudhon on (perhaps even before) have been generally understood as socialists. To posit a sharp distinction between anarchism and socialism (such that Proudhon wouldn't qualify as an anarchist!) along with the belief that liberals like Jefferson are especially relevant to anarchism, while it might make an interesting area to study, would be original (and controversial) research, and so inappropriate for Wikipedia. VoluntarySlave 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sure. Socialism is anarchism. And war is peace. And love is hate. And positive discrimination makes sense. At least I'm not a voluntary slave, VoluntarySlave. I won't even be a forced slave. Shannonduck talk 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anarchism is socialism. This is a basic fact about anarchism; if you don't realise it, I'd question your understanding of both the history of anarchism and the history of socialism. So I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at your ignorance of Etienne de la Boetie. Seriously, I'd echo the advice above that you read some introductory texts about anarchism, such as the Encarta articles referenced in the article. VoluntarySlave 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're taking this a bit too seriously, Shannon. Dreaming up socialist/communist conspiratorial cabals and then attacking them is not very productive. --AaronS 11:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response to your nasty personal attacks, Blockader and Blah

message: Aaron, you asked for references and told me and others to get the references and add text to the article. I did this and you still argue it's validity. VoluntarySlave, can you give a sound reason for removing my edit? Shannonduck talk 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because this is an article about anarchism, not about non-anarchists who influenced anarchism. To have Jefferson be the only non-anarchist cited as an influence in the article is to absurdly overweight him. However, I thought we did have, and we probably should have, another paragraph in the Origins section pointing out that anarchism did not spring fully formed from the mind of Godwin, but was in part a continuation of earlier political tendencies; and that should include Jefferson. I'll try and write something (and incorporate the references you and Intangible have put in the Jefferson section). VoluntarySlave 19:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: enough with the nonsensical reverts