Talk:Anarchism/Archive 41

message: I am continuously returning the ancap section to the issues section because that is where the majority of people seemed most comfortable with it before DTC and Thatshot arrived this weekend and began dispupting this article when everyone seemed to finally be approaching some kind of consensus. Also, i am deleting the "Communism" section in the issues section because it was added without discussion and is POV in the sense that the vast majority or worldwide anarchists do not have a philosophical issue with anarcho-communism. Before the ancaps start attacking me with allegations of pinko commie conspiracy i would like to reiterate that i am NOT an anarchist communist but rather an anarchist-without-adjectives. Obviously ancap needs to be included here but in the appropriate place. Additionally, there is the issue of DTC being a suspected sockpuppet, though i don't know that one way or the other. Piece, Blockader 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The communism section was added in violation of WP:POINT. The accusations of communist conspiracy are indeed a bit strange, since I am not an anarcho-communist, or communist of any kind, either. I support you in this matter. --AaronS 18:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just checked up on what you said and in the straw poll above. There were 2 in explicit support for it up there in the individualist section. 1 with implicit support. And 2 against; just you and Aaron. 1 more *for* is me. That makes four people wanting it up there and two against. So you're wrong that the majority of people want it out of the schools section. Also, you have no reason to delete the communism section because it's sourced. Why can't you just stick to the policies and not ignore information that is cited? There is like 10 sources in the article saying anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism. Please do not say the majority wants it out of the schools section because it simply isn't true. Most people accept cited information. You should too. That'sHot 18:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the editors who would disagree with you are absent at the moment, probably because of the sorry state of affairs that you and others have introduced. I don't really blame them. The communist section is clearly a violation of WP:POINT, and may very well be a violation of WP:OR, too. --AaronS 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not referencing the poll from yesterday but rather the consensus of most of the present editors at the end of last week after Cjames and others began cleaning up the layout. I don't know why so many regular editors are absent, Ungovernable, Blah, Cjames, Christfurio, etc, but Aaron is right that they have not been around. Until they get back those present must continue to push this article to a fair and appropriate middle ground despite the POV pushing that is going on. The fact is, whether ancap is a form of anarchism is a debated issue. Some scholars and anarchists lean one way others lean another. that is why it belongs in the issues section rather than after the american indiv section. further, placing a "communism" section in the issues section was done in an inappropriate manner. Blockader 18:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most scholars regard it as a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be precise. Therefore it belongs in the schools of anarchism section under individualist anarchism. If some scholars dispute it then just note that. But to segregate it as if the majority view is that it is not anarchism is POV. The weight of the evidence in scholarly sources says that it is a form of anarchism. The fringe view is that it is not. And no the communism section is not inappropriate. Obviously individualists have issues with communism, with many of them saying it is not a form of anarchism at all but a form of authority over the individual disguised as anarchism. The definitely deserves a section in issues. DTC 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most scholars regard it as a form of anarchism, individualist anarchism to be precise." Tosh, and you know it. "Most scholars ancaps like to quote" perhaps. But bringing 50 cited works to the table is hardly impressive considering the thousands of texts written about anarchism and the fact that most of them are approaching useless. POV of the worst kind. --Marinus 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So there is a 5th editor, DTC, that wants it in the schools section. So please stop the claims about us being in violation of consensus. Thank you. That'sHot 19:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have a gerrymandered snap poll that is supposed to immidiately contradict a few years of established practice? Hardly good faith, no? --Marinus 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the strawpoll stood at 2 against and 1 discussion till I cast my (opposing) vote. This is ridiculous. --Marinus 03:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They are sock puppets, and puppet master took a vacation. :-) -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is all this about AnCap being more of a problem than communism. Capitalism has always been under attack from anarchists, but as far as Bakunin goes communism is nothing of the better! If you look back through history, its the "big" writers of anarchism thats always been quoted, and they have never been quoted for anything who got anything to do with anarcho-capitalism. Communism on the other hand has been attacked without hesitation. Further Colin Ward, one scholar who knows more than most other people combined about anarchism are cited only for his discussion of the differences between Left and Right wing Libertarians, not his statement that anarcho-capitalism nevertheless has a place in the spectrum of anarchism. Also theres the quotation from Colin Ward thats quite wrong further down the text. The point of using sources rather than own perceptions are that maybe (and quite possibly) theres alot of people more trained for doing scholarly work than people in this forum. If theres a problem with having a Communism section it should be that its impossible to quote from anarchists through history a criticism of communism, but its not, its essential! --Fjulle 12:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your break, you might want to leaf through the stuff about personal attacks and assuming good faith. MrVoluntarist 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snark, snark, snark. So full of venom. Get a life, child. Is that what you're talking about? --AaronS 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaron, please. MrVoluntarist 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I don't find you peeping in the window at me one of these days. Your obsession with me, although flattering, is a bit creepy at times. I can't believe that, after all of these years, you still haven't gotten over my intellectual lambasting of you on ASC. I mean, really, I was in high school at the time -- it couldn't have been that bad. --AaronS 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of sockpuppetry, is Blockaddr taking a break too? DTC 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm done too, but I am certianly no ones sock puppet. If these ancaps want to POV push on here than so be it. They are just sad that they don't have a real movement or extant community. It really makes me sad but after Intangible threatened me with 3RR despite his cronies having violated the same rule ten-fold in the same time span (i assume he didn't threaten them) I really don't think i care to associate with certian people editing this page. Luckily, we have a powerful and diverse collective in Atlanta that will continue to do real and important work from a multitude of anarchist perspectives. I'm gonna go make some whiskey now, Blockader 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck reversing the ever progressing trend toward complete global capitalism. And please have a drink on me. DTC 19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DTC, respect WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA, please. --Marinus 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL. Yes, my adorable little acolyte. And you're quite right, Blockader and I are sock puppets. I commute to Boston from Atlanta every day. It's a beautiful drive. --AaronS 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a break 

message: Now now, children, play nice. Not to be rude but this is one of the most lopsided articles I've seen yet on Wikipedia. Absolutely leaning so far over to one side it may topple over onto the article directly to the left of it. Maybe we could clean it up by balancing it out a bit. Whiskey Rebellion 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lopsided in what fashion? It's actually pretty good - certainly worth keeping/salvaging --Marinus 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, although I'm technically taking a break, I am sticking around for sock puppet patrol *cough*thewolfstar*cough*. --AaronS 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marinus, this article is certainly worth keeping. I was not implying otherwise. Please know this. It just seems like there is so much Russian and European and not so much of Africa, South America or North  America. Whiskey Rebellion 23:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Latin-American gap especially is a major shortcoming, but I think that we should try to devolve articles - Anarchism in the United States is an example of the application of a theory being removed from a discussion of the theory (and a fine article, barring the usual AnCap vandalism) --Marinus 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Aaron, I see you've come down with a cough too! How surprising. *cough*sockpuppet*cough* Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by AnCap vandalism, Marinus? Do you mean AnCaps vandalised this article? Whiskey Rebellion 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty aggressive and conscious POV massaging - vandalism, in my books. Usually done by ill-lettered young men who badly slight the AnCap movement by their presence and unwillingness to have another POV exist. --Marinus 05:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, everybody, I have an idea. Let's have a section on Thomas Jefferson. --AaronS 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hows Thomas Jefferson got anything to do directly with anarchisme? I dont know, and i dont know much about him. Do you have some kind of source?--Fjulle 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a joke. --AaronS 13:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay :) I dont know anyting about him anyways --Fjulle 11:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lopsided article

message: Would it be too much to ask that moving sections around be done in a separate edit from content changes? 68.98.158.194 04:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that this is a controversial article, and that you show some knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes, could you care to log on? Anonymous edits are suspicious. If you can study the talk page it won't be too much trouble to create an account, would it? --Marinus 05:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Kill with fire. Neutral scholarly sources always recognize anarcho-communism as a form of anarchism. This is an extreme minority viewpoint. Besides, you guys keep saying that since neutral scholars say an-cap is anarcho capitalism, it should stay in, and you keep getting rid of the fact that most collectivists dispute it's place. How is this different (other than the fact that it's a minority view point, which gives it even less of a reason to be here)? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anybody getting rid of the fact that collectivist anarchists dispute that it's a form of anarchism? It's right there in the Capitalism section under the Communism section. DTC 20:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice that, but it keeps getting removed from the anarcho-capitalism section. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 20:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, the fact that "communism" keeps being placed above capitalism in the issues section is ridiculous. far more scholars/anarchists dispute ancap than ancom. even if it were alphabetical it would still be after ancap. blatant POV pushing if you ask me. thats why i keep removing it. Blockader 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ungovernable Force said, "Neutral scholarly sources always recognize anarcho-communism as a form of anarchism. ". Which neutral sources say this? Can you list some of them here? Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read several (probably between 4 and 6) encyclopedia articles on anarchism (including an in depth political philosphies encyclopedia) and they all give a lot of consideration of anarcho-communism. The online US encarta article even says that anarchism is "basically anticapitalist". The online UK encarta article has a long section on anarcho-communism and has one sentence on an-cap within the Indiv anarch section, and that one sentence makes it sound like it might not really be anarchism. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for answering my question. I have some thoughts on these answers, however, too. One thing is that encyclopedias are not the only source of information. And another thing. How come you refer to Encarta? Encarta is product of Microsoft. Microsoft is a huge corporation. And Microsoft is a very big supporter of George W. Bush. From your page, (I looked, please forgive me if impertinent), you don't like Bush. I don't understand. Why would you look to Encarta and Microsoft for information about anything never mind anarchism? Most likely they hate and fear anarchism. Whiskey Rebellion 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus Christ Allmighty. Are you trying to get into WP:BJAODN. (I'm pretty sure I broke a WP policy somewhere with this comment, but bloody hell). I frankly don't think Encarta has enough agency to make stuff up. Why don't you find me a neutral source that gives half the coverage to AnCap that is given here, hmm? How about Encyclopedia Brittanica? Or Colliers, or Collins? Oh, wait, they don't... --Marinus 02:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Well, why would I look to what you say either, you hate and fear anarchism as well (since anarchism as far as I'm concerned requires the abolition of capitalism)? Encarta is viewed as a relatively neutral source, far more neutral than any you've presented. Of course, nothing is compeletely neutral, but most people would recognize an encyclopdedia as relatively neutral and scholarly. And of course they're not the only source of information. What do you want me to do, find something written by an anarchist? I could do that in an instant, but then you'd say "Oh, well they're a collectivist, of course they'd say that". This really isn't the issue though. The issue is that relatively neutral sources have always included anarcho-communism as a major part of anarchism. And I don't think Microsoft is a huge fan of the government considering all the trouble the courts have caused them (I could of course be wrong). This seems unimportant though. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are ridiculous WhiskeyRebellion, or should i say Lingeron? When you are corrected based on facts you merely make insidious and inflammatory statements that make everyone here question your Good Faith. Blockader 16:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism section 

message: I archived the talk page (at a mere 221kb) to Talk:Anarchism/Archive40. It seemed a good time to do so. --Marinus 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. FYI, I'm putting some of the more recent threads back on this page, since some of these issues may not be resolved. It's usually best to not archive a discussion that may still be active, and only archive the stuff that is higher up and long dead. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 03:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive40

message: Is the Catholic Workers Movement actually anarchist? It wasn't clear from their site but i don't know much about them otherwise. 
Shouldn't there be some mention of the IWW in the anarcho-syndicalism section? While the group is not explicitly/officially an-synd, many or most of its members have been and are.  
Maybe a short section on anarchism without adjectives? Don't know where it would go though or i would just write it and cite de cleyre.
Thats it. Blockader 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions?

message: DTC/RJII, you can't just delete my references and then claim that there is a consensus among academics as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Scholars, as well as anarchists, disagree. As such, this article should not present the matter as if there is a consensus, and anarcho-capitalism certainly does not belong in the individualist anarchism section. It belongs under the issues section because, well, it's an issue in anarchism. Namely, the issue is: can anarcho-capitalism be considered anarchist; if so, is it a part of the anarchist tradition? To pretend that there is no debate surrounding these questions is quite preposterous. Further, simply reverting my edits (and deleting relevant information that had nothing to do with moving the section) without any discussion is childish, counterproductive, and disruptive. There's no point to it, because your reverts will simply be reverted back in due time. In the end, what we are presented with is a silly edit war, or game, that has really lost its novelty for most of us. While I understand that edit warring was one of RJII's preferred methods of editing (he said so himself), a great many of us do not consider Wikipedia to be a battleground. --AaronS 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little debate among scholars on the matter. The consensus of scholars agree that it is one of several forms of anarchism. The story is different among anarchists because a large number of anarchists are opposed to capitalism, but even then they are defining capitalism in terms of a state. They think capitalism and the state are inseperable. So that really isnt even a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism as most anti-capitalist anarchists define it. With that said though, I have no problem with you mentioning that anarcho-communists say that ancap is not a form of anarchism. BUt scholarly opinion in what matters the most, and most scholars say that it is. DTC 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most scholars don't have an opinion of the matter, because they do not even mention anarcho-capitalism in their assessment of anarchism, or only mention it as a side note. Those who do disagree. There is no consensus. --AaronS 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true at all. Any scholarly overview of anarchism mentions anarcho-capitalism. Of course you're not going to find it  mentioned in much in texts written prior to say 1975 because it was still very new then. DTC 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tosh and double-tosh. Cease and desist your POV malarky with all due speed. Please. --Marinus 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Quote from Colin Ward's Anarchism, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: "Some time later, in the 1970s, a series of books, from academics rather than activists, proclaimed a different style of American libetarianism. They where Robert Paul Wolff's In Defence of Anarchism; Robbert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom; and Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. This Phalanx of authors have provided the 'ideological superstructure' of the swing to the Right in federal and local politics in the United States, and in British politics for the aim of 'rolling back the frontiers of the State', which was actually a cloak for increased subservience to central decision-making." I would say that he gives, also beyound the quote, a fair picture of what is called anarcho-capitalism, but only within four pages of the 98 page introduction. With regard to the anarchist Left's critique of these academics he writes: "The libertarians of the Right have, nevertheless, a function in the spectrum of anarchist discussion. Every anarchist propagandist finds that the audience or readership is perplexed by the very idea that it might be possible to organize human life without government. That is why Kropotkin, as a libertarian of the Left, as we saw in Chapter 3, insisted that anarchist propagandists should identidy new forms of organization for those functions that the state noew fullfills through bureaucracy.". He gives his account of these libertarians of the right in his Chapter 7 called "The individualist response", and it seems to me that what these academics where trying to protect from government first and foremost where individual property, and because of this it is fitting to put an account of anarcho-capitalism in an individualist section. --Fjulle 16:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism 

message: Keeping with Wikipedia's conception of good style, can we avoid he-says-she-says discussion inside the article? Claims and counterclaims and the like. We are here to provide clear, neutral, concise information as much as possible, not a blow-for-blow. I know that we're probably to a man political trainspotters, but Wikipedia isn't where we indulge in discussing the minutae of personal disagreements among theorists.
Quotefarms are a definite no-no: they are not only ugly but also subtly influence the POV of the article. We should strive to not have a single quote in the article proper, especially not where there are a near-infinite number of opinions on anarchism, within the movement and without. Most of them are terrible.
I'd also appreciate it if we can leave blatantly POV (and false) statements concerning consensus out of the article. Thanks --Marinus 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we also strike the use of the word "however" from this article? However hard that might be... --Marinus 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style in this article

message: I myself consider the Anarchist FAQ (wrongly linked with Infoshop - they only host it, it's older than and independent from Infoshop) an excellent source - beautifully referenced, mind-bogglingly comprehensive, well-argued, even-handed, etc. It also, and this is of great importance, nicely documents the majority consensus opinion amongst anarchists. It isn't the work of a single expert but the collective creation of a group of practicing anarchists, with input from hundreds and the approval of thousands upon thousands of anarchists. Reasons we shouldn't just rewrite the core of the FAQ here are: (1)it's too long (2)it would deprive us of hours of delightful arguments (3) it is polemical (or, as we say on Wikipedia, POV). So I say editors should be welcome to use it as a reference without taking over the polemical tone (for instance, it wouldn't be very nice of us to mirror the FAQs view on anarcho-capitalism, which can be summarised as "kill with fire, salt the earth it stood on, burn effigies of it forever more, use as a bogeyman to scare generations of children into collective action") but we should feel welcome to refer to its quite impressive arguments (and reams of citations) when making statements in this article. Any disagreement? --Marinus 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Anyone can write a FAQ and claim to be an expert on anarchism. That's like a group of us getting together and writing a Anarchist FAQ and posting it on the web and then referencing it here. It would have no credibility. Wikipedia has a policy for reliable sources. DTC 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand how the Anarchist FAQ came about. I recommend you take a look at it, or even just my above comment, again. Your comment, I shouldn't need to say, is simply false, the first sentence a platitude, the second and third plainly false and the fourth a non-sequitor. --Marinus 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how it came about. People on the internet arguing over anarcho-capitalism. The managers of the FAQ transcribe the arguments from forums and such over to the FAQ and put their own two cents in. It's not valid as a reliable source at all. DTC 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It's referenced to the roof. I don't deny that it's polemic. I question your ability to evaluate evidence. --Marinus 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all because it's not a reliable source according to policy. See WP:Reliable_sources. Secondly, the writer/editor(s) provide their own interpretations of the writings of anarchists. It might be a good place to go look for quotes from the writings of famous anarchists, but their interpretations of anarchist writings is not reliable. It just regular people on the internet who call themselves anarchists. What credibility does that give them? What qualifications to they have to interpret the sources? That's the reasoning behind the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. DTC 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think it's a reliable source. I think it should be our primary source. The part which solidifies my faith in it is that it's factual views are independently held by other secondary sources (like every recognised encyclopaedic entry I've seen on the matter). Pray tell how it falls short? --Marinus 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a reliable source. Reliable source is a matter of definition. Read the policy. If you think it has views held by reliable sources then why don't you use those sources?  DTC 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I do. But it seems that you are able to raise an objection, but unable to qualify it. DTC, with every comment you make my patience for you decreases: if you are going to make accusations, you should be able to back them up. I do not see how the Anarchist FAQ fails as a reliable factual source. I ask you to explain it to me, you insist that it simply isn't and that I'm ignorant. Not very nice at all. Will you work towards an agreement? --Marinus 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're losing your patience, that's not my problem. I gave you the link for the reliable source policy. Apparently you didn't read it. It says "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym....Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference..." DTC 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're calling the Anarchist FAQ a personal webpage? Unbelievable. The source policy makes allowance for online secondary sources, which it is. --Marinus 04:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm calling it a self-published document. The writer(s) publish it themselves, meaning they compile the document and circulate it. Self-published sources are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia. The only exception is "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." DTC 04:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you should well know, "self-published" refers to one-man-and-his-dog outfits, pamphlets and the like, not the collective effort of dozens with input from hudnreds, approved by thousands and thousands and offered by many, many organisations as a primer to a field. It passes all the conciderations for a reliable source - it isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is reliable. It backs up every claim, it has undergone extensive peer review amongst practicing anarchist (who it represents!). Your objections are silly. --Marinus 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, self-published does not mean one person. It means it was published by the writers. It wasn't submitted to an independent journal or publishing house who make the decision whether it's credible enough to be published. And "peer review" among "practicing anarchists" is useless if those practicing anarchist have no academic qualifications or esteemed reputation to interpret the work of famous anarchists. Wikipedia policy is very clear that it is not a reliable source. DTC 04:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And allowance for such souces are made. It has been independently verified, unless you want to deny the same of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published by Stanford). I'm also specifically excluding the interpretations, but want to use the FAQ as a comprehensive overview of primary sources, for which purpose it is sourced to high heaven, easily verifiable (and verified by everybody that matters).--Marinus 04:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article in a self-published The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would be a reliable source if the writer of the article is known. The policy says, "Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes." The policy makes an exception for the major encyclopedias but, as you can see, you should exercise caution if the article is unsigned. There are no exceptions for FAQ's. The Anachist FAQ is self-published and not permissible as a source on Wikipedia. DTC 05:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that most objections of DTC's has shown to have no real basis in reality: An Anarchist FAQ#Influence. --Marinus 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According the WP:Reliable_sources the only exception for self-published sources is if "a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." Various junior anarchist from around the internet writing a FAQ is not well-known professional researchers. DTC 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Firstly, the Anarchist FAQ is ten years old, and has been edited by numerous anarchists. Secondly, the entirety of its arguments are based upon those of the famous anarchists. Thridly, and most importantly, the FAQ is being published as a book next year, by a reputable publisher. Therefore, it is obviously a proper book and its use as a source is obviously valid. Supersheep 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally disagree with using the "FAQ" as a major source. I have writen the authors and publishers of the "FAQ" numerous times with questions and corrections, and requests for sources (plenty of the accusations and assertions are unsourced) always to no avail. The fact that it is "respected" by plenty of dilitante college "anarchists" doesn't make it any more reputable than whatever pamphlet happens to be widely circulated currently. I, however, do recognize that it's a great resource for finding sources and quotations, however the actual FAQ itself should not be referenced as a reputable source because it's makes liberal (in degree, not political 'alignment') interpretations of the sources, and also fails to take into account sources which are contrary to the agenda of its authors and supporters. —Two-Bit Sprite 14:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you could give an example or two, because I have yet to come across any such examples in the FAQ? (Please do not interpret this as a personal attack - merely that I have only read part of the FAQ) Nonetheless, the FAQ is being published, so it seems to me that it now fits into the category of a good source. Supersheep 14:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point in time, I tend to agree with Sprite. Until the FAQ gets edited and published, I don't think that it can be used as a neutral reference. Editors who view the FAQ as a good source should use it as a conglomeration of good sources; in other words, as Sprite suggests, it can be a wellspring of good references, both primary and secondary. --AaronS 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is an example. Do you see any sources allowed in that FAQ that say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism? Obviously not, since their whole intent is to perpetrate a lie that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. An informative FAQ would include sources from both sides. There are a multitude of sources from scholars that say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. That'sHot 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's also the fact that it pulls Rothbard way out of context in a lot of cases. I.e. it attempts to strongly imply that Rothbard thinks that the land stolen from the native americans is legitimate, which he specifically refutes. Another example: the quote "Now what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge, and resign themselves to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so long. Perhaps, indeed, more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves the libertarians' very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness which they might not have dared to claim before." [Op. Cit., pp. 54-5] is meant to imply that Rothbard believes in this Randian "libertarian" view, which is not true at all; they intentionally confuse Rothbardianism with Randianism for the sake of erecting a straw man. I have contacted the authors about this before, with no response. — Two-Bit Sprite 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it seems like more people are in favour of not using the FAQ, so I will accede there. Still, it's very frustrating to know something (that proper anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalism anarchism) and not be able to prove it... Grrrr!!!! On reflection, the whole anarchist schools of thought needs a bit of a workover - not knowledgeable enough to do it, though... Supersheep 17:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is about presenting what is verifiable, not about presenting what is true. That said, the FAQ can still be used as a source supporting the claim that many anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism, although it would be good if it could be supplemented with something else. --AaronS 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well then you just have to collect every single written word from every single person who called him og herself an anarchist. Otherwise it wouldnt be fair right? It sounds impossible. If somebody said something, why then not just quote him og her (or maybe a couple more), and stop at that, not needing to quote 1001 other people who say excactly the same. After all this isnt a place for the majority of anarchists, but for everybody, that meaning all kinds of perspectives should be repressented (for and against). About the anarcho-capitalists and anticapitalists, shouldnt it be enough to write that some anticapitalist anarchists think that anarcho-capitalists arent anarchists while other thinks they could be called anarchists, and then quote each perspective once og twice (or...). To say the many or the majority is to go well beyond the limits of reality with regard to the history of this idea called anarchism. Its too diverse to talk in that way. Using X thinks Y or some thinks Y (with quotes from more than one ofcourse) is watertight. Otherwise it should take more than just saying "most anarchists believe X". --Fjulle 00:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Anarchist FAQ as a source

message: Marinus, why did you remove this: "It is important to note though they though profit was unnatural and exploitative, they supported the right to profit. They would not interfere with it by coercion. Tucker pointed out, "In defending the right to take usury, we do not defend the right of usury." He simply believed that usury (profit) would disappear by increased competition if the state stopped interfering with the economy." Tucker is saying there that he defends the legal right to profit, but does not defend the moral rightness of profit. The 19th century individualist opposed using coercion. They believed that the state is what made profit possible by reducing competion by protecting the banking monopoly. DTC 03:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those facts had already been stated in the section, because it's claim-counterclaim and because that section is already too long. --Marinus 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: indiv anarchism and profit

message: Can someone please explain why the Rothbard pic is such an eye sore that it must be removed? —Two-Bit Sprite 14:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply have aesthetic reasons, but if you disagree, that's fine with me. I don't really mind one way or the other at this point. --AaronS 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... we'll call it a compromise... I let you hide the anarcho-capitalism section way down in the issues section, and you let me put the pic there... deal? :) —Two-Bit Sprite 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. You can even make it 5000px, if that's the case. :D --AaronS 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That just won't do. Too many sources say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. Any contemporary mainstream overview of anarchism is going to agree that anarcho-capitalism is one of the many forms of anarchism. That'sHot 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many sources don't mention it, or contradict you. Please stop pretending that there is a consensus on the matter. --AaronS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell there is a consensus on the matter among scholars. There are a whole string of sources in that section saying that it is a form of individualist anarchism. All you and other opponents can come up with is one or two sources saying that it's not. And those are from anti-capitalists. Not that that's not a legitimate source, but it doesn't hold as much weight as a more neutral party saying that it's not anarchism. The anarcho-capitalists have provided sources from netural parties as well as sources from anti-capitalists that say anarcho-capitalism is one of the many forms of anrachism. That'sHot 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing a pic because someone doesn't like it? It's becoming more and more evident to me that there is something really corrupt going on here. And the fact that this corruption runs deep is clear by the overpowering domination happening here. This is an encyclopedia article not a place to air one's personal feelings about anything.   Whiskey Rebellion 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thewolfstar, if you keep making disruptive and counterproductive comments like this, I'll take the time to present the case for your sock puppetry. I really don't like relying on silly administrative channels, which is why I'm being patient with you, but, so far, you haven't really provided me with any reason to. --AaronS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whiskey, don't let him intimidate you. That'sHot 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not intimidation. I'm giving her a chance. She's been banned from Wikipedia so many times that, maybe, she has learned how to play nicely with others. --AaronS 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right lingeron, there is a terrible communist wikipedia conspiracy dedicated to corrupting the image of all six existing anarcho-capitalists. damn, we must have a mole! also, whiskey rebellion is obviously lingeron/shannon and should also be earmarked (sic) as a sock.  Blockader 15:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rothbard pic 

message: Perhaps a compromise can be reached at allowing a small subsection of anarcho-capitalism in the schools section, and then also having a Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism in the issues section. While it is true that anarcho-capitalism is an issue in anarchism, it is also a school, however much it is refuted. For example, most christians I know reject "christian science" as a form of christianity, yet it is still listed in Christian denomination... Just a thought, I'm not going to participate in any edit wars, I'm just thinking out loud hoping to add to the debate. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict response (boy your mind's busy!): Your addition to the debate is much appreciated, as is your spirit of compromise. I know that the religion analogy is often made -- I have made it myself -- but I'm not sure how far it goes, really. For instance, it is not as if there is scholarly academic debate regarding whether or not Christian Scientists are really Christians. That's a matter that is left to the field of the Church. Some better analogies might involve more academic subjects. For instance, the article on evolution makes no mention of Intelligent Design. See the article's talk page, where they debate the matter, as well as the "evolution is just a theory" schtick. Evolution is part of the evolution series, whereas Intelligent Design is part of the creationism series. And yet, both theories claim to be a scientific theory that explains how current species came to exist. --AaronS 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the evolution analogy is tenuous... the evolution article is about the theory of evolution, not the general theory of origins; your analogy would be a better fit to if someone were trying to add anarcho-capitalism to the republicanism article, as they are two seperate political theories competeing for mind-share, much as evolution and intelligent design are. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. I was trying to think of that analogy but couldn't quite formulate it, as my brain is fried. I was thinking something along the lines of adding "People's Democratic Republic of China" to "List of democracies" or "List of republics," simply because it has "democratic" and "republic" in its name, and claims to be a democratic republic. --AaronS 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe, even better, we can have an offshoots section, or related ideologies section which would list anarcho-capitalism, and maybe even communist anarchism (not sure if there is enough consensus for this one though). —Two-Bit Sprite 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or (and maybe this is a stretch) we could change the whole Schools section into Philosophies claiming to be anarchists or Schools of thought related to anarchism... then it wouldn't be questionable where ancap would go, they'd all go together, each also with thier respective criticisms... ? Again, I'm just throwing out some ideas. —Two-Bit Sprite 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all great ideas, and I'll need some time to think about it. Again, thanks for being open-minded and contributing in a very good way to the discussion. --AaronS 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, one possibility might be a redirect: (1) anarchism, a group of political philosophies that reject all forms of authority, including capitalism; (2) anarcho-capitalism, a political philosophy that rejects the state, but embraces capitalism --AaronS 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea of a disambiguation page has been discussed before, but it's probably too deep in the archives for me to bother digging up, but I might be open to the idea. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's ridiculous. How is that going to solve anything? There is still the consensus of scholarly opinion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Even if were 50/50 that would still warrant putting anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism article. DTC 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acutally, when looking at it again, the current introduction I think helps guide our decision. It says "Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy, or a generic term for a group of more-or-less related political philosophies" (emp. mine). I think this spells out well that the article is about philosophies that have a relationship to the concept of anarchism, tenuous or not. So I think the option of changing the title of the Anarchist schools of thought section to something more open would be the best solution, and then having a Debates within anarchism section go into depth about the rejection on ancap by other anarchists. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of your ideas i like the first one best. a small subsection in the "schools" part that intimates the existence and contentiousness of ancap with the existing longer section moved into the issues section. since anarcho-communism is one of the earlist and most predominant types of anarchism (dont attack me with your red scare bullshit, i am not an ancom) i doubt you will find many other than ancaps who would support moving it to issues. Blockader 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you jump the gun and assume I am like RJII or any of them, I have never resorted to accusations of being part of some kind of "communist conspiracy" or any of the crap. Now that we've resolved that :) ... I am ok with not putting ancom in the issues section, as I said, I would only support it if there was consensus for it since I have seen the issue come up on these talk pages before about ancom, etc. —Two-Bit Sprite 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was addressing twobit there but a redirect might also be appropriate. Added- i wasn't referring to you specifically at all with those paras but rather other editors who have repeatedly made such accusations after reading posts. sorry for the misund. Blockader 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding a redirect, it might be best for anarchism to direct a user to this article with a disambiguation link at the top. --AaronS 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous. That will never work, because the consensus of sholarly opinion is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. How would you keep ancap out of the Anarchism article? I and others would be putting it in. DTC 18:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: also, the "anarchism in china" article is ridiculous and has no citations. there is a reasonable article entitled "chinese anarchism" though. a delete and redirect would probaly be appropriate there. Blockader 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your two bits but that's not the case. The sources in this article saying anarcho-capitalism is an individualist form of anarchism are from a variety of pursuasions. As far as I know there is only one pro-capitalist in list of sources. Several sources are socialist/anti-capitalists. The overwhelming number of contemporary scholarly sources say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. The other side of this dispute is only able to come up with very few if any sources that say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism and they are only from anti-capitalist anarchists. So they're the ones you should be directing your "two bits" to. DTC 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Y'see, I don't have access to any of these books, so I can't tell. And I'm not trying to say that ancap isn't anarchism (even though it isn't to any anarchist). I'm merely trying to say that most anarchists don't see it as such... Which is undoubtedly true. Actually, based on its current revision, I'm fine with it - my main problem was that folk kept removing the line I added saying the above. Supersheep 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, one minor point - the sentence "Anarcho-capitalism is not viewed as an anarchist philosophy by the majority of anarchists, with anarcho-capitalists differing from individualist anarchists in the latter's strong mistrust of capitalism and advocacy for mutualism" should be moved to the beginning of the paragraph, or alternatively the lead should be moved to the end - keep the bits together so it looks better. I think it should replace the second sentence of the paragraph (anti-capitalist tend to dsipute it) and then stick a 'however,' in after the comma in the sentence. I would change it myself, but you're editing away there, so I don't wanna get in your way. Supersheep 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we make the "Recent developments" section a sub-section of "School", called "Recently developed schools" or something, and include anarcho-capitalism there? The way in which anarcho-capitalism claims an afinity to classical anarchist theory, without being directly a development of it, seems somewhat similar to post-left anarchism (although post-left has ties to the anarchist movement that a-c lacks). VoluntarySlave 04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism isn't a recent development. It's from around at least 1949/1950. "Rothbard himself relates that in the winter of 1949/50, in the course of a conversation with some left-wing students, he realised that it was impossible for him to support the free market in all fields and at the same time be in favour of a State police force, “my whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist” (Crocetta, Roberta Modugno, The anarcho-capitalist political theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its historical and intellectual context) DTC 04:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the anarchism article from the Columbia encyclopedia (hosted elsewhere) - not a single mention of anarcho-capitalism --Marinus 09:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a goodie American Encyclopaedia of Conservative Thought specifically mentions Rothbard and his anti-statist opinions, but as an anarchist trend in non-anarchist politics, nor does it identify anarcho-capitalism. Strange, that. Lots about socialist anarchism, thought --Marinus 10:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encarta doesn't know anything about anarcho-capitalism, but you already knew that. If there's a consensus on anything (amongst credited, well-known secondary sources - Wikipedia's favourite source, by the way) it seems to be different from the one you're claiming. --Marinus 10:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny. My MS Encarta Encyclopedia mentions anarco-capitalism and says it is a modern form of individualist anarchism:  And it's written by an expert. About the Encyclopedia Britannica I guess it's just not very thorough. On what basis do you claim I am pushing a minority point of view? More sources have been presented saying that it is anarchism than it is not. As far as I can tell, you're pushing the minority point of view. You can threaten me with arbitration all day long, but you don't scare me one bit. This is how Wikipedia works. Things have to be sourced. And if they are sourced, don't ignore the sources. DTC 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that RJII used to misquote that source all the time. Levy does not say that anarcho-capitalism is a modern form of individualist anarchism. That's just your interpretation of what his words imply. Further, it's begging the question to say that, if a source does not mention anarcho-capitalism, it must not be thorough, because you're assuming, at the outset, that anarcho-capitalism is significant or worthy of mention. We'v been over this a number of times. --AaronS 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Offshoots'' or ''Related Ideologies''

message: Marinus, I'd like to verify the sources you've put in the article but you haven't provided any page numbers. Please provide more thorough sourcing. Before you claim I'm baised or start threatening me with arbitration like you did a short while ago,if you look back I actually removed a source that was claimed to say that anarcho-capitalism was individualist anarchism. I obtained that book, looked it up and it didn't say that so i removed the source. I'm checking up sources on both sides. I don't want Wikipedia to give out false information.
I need page numbers and quotes for John Clark, Noam Chomsky, David Weick, and Brian Morris.
For what I could find:
* Peter Marshall. I don't think your Peter Marshall sources is good. I think it's pretty clear Marshall is regarding anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism: "The phenomenon of anarcho-capitalism is not however new. With the demise of Benjamin Tucker's journal _Liberty_ in 1907, American individualist anarchism lost its principal voice; but its strain of libertarianism continued to re-emerge occassionally in the offerings of isolated thinkers." He simply notes that it's different from "traditional" individualist anarchism and might be best called by another name: "traditional individualist anarchists and that anarcho-capitalists "might be best called right-wing libertarians than anarchists." 
* Albert Meltzer. He says that a philosophy has to be communist in order to be true anarchism: "It is only possible to conceive of Anarchism in a form in which it is free, communistic, and offering no economic necessity for repression or countering it. Common sense shows that any capitalist society might dispense with a "State" (in the American sense of the word) but it could not dispense with organised Government, or a privatised form of it, if there were people amassing money and others working to amass it for them. The philosophy of "anarcho-capitalism" dreamed up by the "libertarian" New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."  So, his position is that all individualist anarchism is not real anarchism. He does explicitly single out anarcho-capitalism so it is a good source.
* Peter Sabatini. Here is communist that opposes private defense services. "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors."  He does explicitly refers to Rothbard. However, it's just an article somebody sent in to Anarchy magazine, so I don't consider it very reliable. But I'll probably allow it since you have so few sources. It appears he's an amateur and not very knowledgable about anarchism, as he doesn't seem to know that Benjamin Tucker also supports supports policy, army, and law. 
  
I need page numbers and quotes for John Clark, Noam Chomsky, David Weick, and Brian Morris or they'll have to be removed. In the future please source the information properly, with page number, publishers, etc. 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chomsky qoute is good as i have read that article in "Chomksy on Anarchism" and remember him discussion the illegitamcy of ancap as bonafide anarchism. My mom has that book at the moment but i will call her tonight and see about a page number. yes, my mom is an anarchist. not sure about the others but i seriously doubt Marinus would fabricate sources so please allow adequete time for him to respond to this before you take action as he is not consistently here. also, please sign in. Blockader 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was someone who was signed in and hit an extra tilde by mistake. Also, nameless one (DTC maybe?), I think Meltzer is saying what Sabatini says - that ancap simply sets up multiple private states. Marhsall may not be the best source on that quote, I'll grant that. Also, one or two of the sources in footnote 40 need pages citing too. (A minor issue though.) I'm also going to put the sources from #41 in a bulleted list, for neatness. Supersheep 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now given proper (other than not having page numbers, as I don't have these to hand obviously) citations for all the sources in #41. I can't get into Red and Black to see if they have anything on ancap. Will talk to my friend and see if he has any sources whenever I can. Supersheep 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should have said that I have cited all except the Sabatini and Morris articles, as I cannot find books/journals for these. Supersheep 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, one thing I don't like is threats. I am therefore going to remove your false sources. I can file an arbitration case against you for threatening me for doing what a good editor is supposed to do..verifying sources. I thought I'd give you some time to get your act together but your belligerence leaves me no choice but to remove your bad sources. DTC 04:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you a chance to reconsider your action. It's unfortunate that this disagreement becomes so heated. But the policy is clear: you can't remove sources only because the page numbers aren't given. It's still verifiable. Let us attempt to make a more reconciliatory, less grudgeful attempt at crafting a useful article. --Marinus 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That remark, Marianus, "If you remove these sources, DTC, I will move to have you banned from Wikipedia for aggressively distorting POV", is an exceptionally mean and nasty one. You could get brought up on personal attacks for that and more. The irony here is that you are the one that is pov pushing. If DTC does file an arbitration case against you I will support him. Whiskey Rebellion 05:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want this issue up for arbitration, do so. If it is shown that I have been mistaken, I will apologise. --Marinus 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you think you scare me? You don't. You may be used to bullying people to get what you want but it's not going to work on me. By the way, I looked through the books and I don't see it mentioned that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. You need to provide a page number and quote so what you say can be verified. I will continue to remove your sources unless they can be verified. You said yourself that you got your sources from another article. In other words you didn't read the books.DTC 05:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. And threatening to ban someone from editing is real antagonistic. Whiskey Rebellion 05:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a third time I am going to ask you to not remove these sources, since it would not be in accordance with WP policy. I am not trying to scare you: I am trying to prevent a distorted picture of anarchism enter Wikipedia. --Marinus 05:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I will remove any source that doesn't back up what it's supposed to back up. DTC 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The burden is on you. Provide the page numbers and quotes. I can provide you a page number, quote, and even a scanned copy of any source I provide. I have immediate access to thousands of books. You need to back up your claims. DTC 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, DTC - a lack of page numbers is not sufficient reason to remove sources. For one, I highly, highly doubt that only a particular section of a book entitled (from memory) "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" or "Libertarianism as Conservativism" is relevant to the question of whether an-cap can be considered anarchistic. Your ability to back your sources is laudable, which is why I haven't contested them: I have contested the weight given them, but that's something else. --Marinus 05:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy says the only time page numbers are "not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." Your saying that the source makes a specific claims, that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Everybody knows anti-capitalist anarchists oppose capitalism, but many anti-capitalist scholars still say anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. I have sources to attest to that. You need to provide a page number and/or quote if you make a claim that someone says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Otherwise there is no way to verify your claim without reading the entire book and looking for a specific sentence without even knowing how it is worded to know what you're looking for. DTC 05:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding WP policy WP:CITE#When_you_add_content and WP:CITE#Page_numbers. I recommend you reread them and give the matter some thought. I'll come back to this tomorrow. --Marinus 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A quote from WP:CITE#Page_numbers: "Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." This is an example of the second case, to the best of my knowledge. As such, I will restore the sources. And I ask everyone to please calm down. There is no need to start a war, when we've been almost at agreement. Supersheep 10:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marinus's sources

message: Finally I managed to track down a source that says most anarchists don't view anarcho-capitalists as anarchists - it's in the Peter Marshall book. Chapter 36, the section on ancap. Here's a link , but I can't give a page number, so whoever might have this book (DTC, I think you do?) could you please look up a page reference for the last paragraph? Supersheep 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. Chapter 36 is good enough, as it's copies of that chapter are on the net for anyone that wants to check it out. DTC 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a quote? It seems that I can't find the part where he is talking about most anarchists. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's the last paragraph in that link, which I will reproduce here: "As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker.  In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice.  Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.[15]" If I find any other suitable things, I'll add them too. A page reference would be nice if it's not too much trouble - it just looks more encyclopedic. Also, I've removed the words "and anarchists" from the sentence "However, other scholars and anarchists do not believe it is a legitimate form of anarchism" because it's redundant with the sentence following after, which allows us to give a separate reference. Supersheep 09:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.-- Vision Thing -- 15:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Source for Anarchists 

message: I don't think RAW belongs in the cultural phenomena section. In an interview with Utopia USA he states, when asked about government, ";...I’d like to see it limited. I’d like to see it pushed back to the level of the Constitution, what we usually call Jeffersonian democracy." Later he states, "I tend to shy away from the word anarchist, because most people think it means bomb throwing. And a lot of people who consider themselves anarchists seem to think that too. But I can’t use libertarian, because the people who got their grip on that word are even less rational by my standards. I guess "decentralist" is the word I’d have to pick out for myself. Decentralist grassroots Jeffersonian something or other. Does anyone have a source where he does identify himself as an anarchist or are is his inclusion based on general anti-authoritarian (but obviously not anarchist if he agrees with a Jeffersonian democracy) sentiment? Blockader 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interview from Starship magazine where he says, "I am not an anarchist anymore." He says he's a minarchist libertarian.  DTC 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bob is far from an ex-anarchist, I did his Non-Euclidian Politics course at the start of the year and he still strongly identifies himself in the tradition of the individualist-mutualist anarchism of Proudhon, Tucker and Spooner (restated in his latest book "email to the universe"). However, he also puts himself across as a pragmatist and stridently anti-dogma. I'd argue that he sees anarchism as the ultimate goal, but, in the current climate, seeks to reduce the power of what he calls Tsarist Occupied Government. A major part of this has been his campaigns for the constitutional rights of the states (particularly on medical marijuana). Trying to define Bob's politics in normal terms is, however, always going to be like trying to catch an eel. He's a philosopher, not an ideologue. Donnacha 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Anton Wilson

message: Communism is one form of Socialist organization. Please do not confuse the two as the same and then inject this misgiving into the article. Blockader 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Blockader, what is the difference between the two, then? Whiskey Rebellion 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the articles. Are you really serious? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism DOES NOT Equal Socialism WhiskeyRebellion

message: These excerpts are from Communism: 
Communism  is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.
Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a state transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx and Engels
Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the systems which they perceived to be responsible for the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism.
The word "'communist'" itself was coined in 1840 by Goodwyn Barmby, after the French word communisme, while discussing the egalitarianism associated with Gracchus Babeuf, one of the most radical participants in the 1789 French Revolution, and the Abbé Constant. A correspondent of Engels, Goodwyn Barmby himself founded the London Communist Propaganda Society in 1841. "Utopian socialism", a term itself coined by Marx in contrast with "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Engels), designed all utopian writings and foundation of settlements by writers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint-Simon.
So like I said, "What's the difference?" Whiskey Rebellion 20:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe i am actually having this discussion with someone who supposes to edit any wikipedia articles on politics! I not attacking you, i am just surprised. All you have to do is go the wikipedia article on socialism and read the definition. It states that socialism, " refers a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control." There are many forms of political philosophies that make up the general idea of socialism, which is generally considered to be the opposite of capitalism. Communism is one type of socialism, and "marxist" state communism was indeed the most visable of these types for much of the 20th century. Other types of socialism include platform, liberatarian (of which traditional anarchism is a part), democratic, christian, etc. The wikipedia article on communism states that " It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement." Equating socialism and communism is similiar to equating a republic and a democracy. a republic is one type of democracy alongside with many others. it is a subset essentially. Then too there is the difference between big C Communism and little c communism which i will leave to you, with your new found understanding of political classifications, to discern. hope this clarifies something, Blockader 20:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Communism is the extremist form of socialism, as in Kropotkin. I guess you could say the least extreme form of socialism would be the 19th century individualists like Benjamin Tucker. It's just one step away from capitalism. Though, Tucker's philosophy wouldn't be called "socialism" by the modern definition of the term because he is for private ownership of the means of production. I guess the fact that he has a labor theory of value which says that profit is exploitation is what may justify calling him a socialist. DTC 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I might say that primitivism is the most extreme form of socialism. then communism, collectivism, mutualism, syndicalism, and social democracy (evolutionary), being examples that trend respectively towards the middle (granted while remaining still very far left in relation to current atmospheres). Blockader 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I didn't hear one word that made any sense, Blockader. It sounds like a run-around, do a ballet dance around  the issue to me. In the communism article the words socialism and communism are used interchangeably over and over and again. And to say that "primitivism is the most extreme form of socialism" is downright egotistical. The socialists act like they invented the whole world the way they like to take credit for everything. Now they're claiming some sort of ownership over the beginnings of human society. This is all just too much. Everyone knows there is no real difference between communism and socialism. And also, the idea of socialist-libertarianism is off-the-wall. It's sort of like making a Totalitrian Freedom Party. Whiskey Rebellion 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I didn't hear one word that made any sense Whiskey Rebellion. "Everyone knows there is no real difference between communism and socialism"--O RLY? Can you cite that, because I know a whole lot of verifiable sources, not to mention myself, who would strongly disagree. And btw, libertarian was originally used to refer to a branch of socialism, so the idea of libertarian socialism really isn't contradictory at all. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Whiskeyreb, wow. Have you ever taken a course in political science? or read a book on the subject? You really should because its hard for most of us here to tell whether you in good faith but ignorant and ineducated or whether you suffer from extreme bias and are therefore malignantly pushing POV in this article. Also, i was refering to the modern primitivism movement not the early stages in the development of human "civilization."Blockader 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is just a sock of Thewolfstar/Lingeron. Compare this with this. Same stuff. Same old deal. Same disruption. I think that everybody deserves several chances, but if she's just going to be doing the same old stuff, then I begin to lose patience. I do, however, appreciate the fact that she is now much less disruptive. --AaronS 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: communism and socialism

message: This article gives the very peculiar impression that anarchism is a philosophy mooted about by some Greeks and Lao Tzu, which was adopted by Rosseau and some French Revolutionaries, and came to America through the pioneering efforts of Warren in the 1820's.  If you look up "origins of anarchism" you will find an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson, but that is all the mention that the American revolution receives.  The subsequent Whiskey Rebellion only occurs as a user name.  
This is an absurd situation.  Clearly the American revolution was pivotal in opening up these philosophical discussions and advancing the idea of absolute freedom as a real-world goal.  The rebels may not have called themselves anarchists (and generally weren't anarchists) but their opponents weren't so stingy with the label, and certainly some of the rhetoric from the time seems best described as anarchist.  Even the non-anarchist theory of social contract implies the possibility that people can reject the social contract and live in anarchy, which would seem to be what the later communes were about.  Conflicts like the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays' Rebellion reflect some of the economic system issues from the article and discussion.  I hope the experts here will explore this history and its relationship to anarchist philosophy in more detail. Mike Serfas 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of precursors to anarchism that later influenced anarchism. But they're not discussed here, because this is an article on anarchism, not on precursors to anarchism. Something about political events that prefigured anarchism in some way would be useful (it could include the English Civil War and the French Revolution, as well), but I'm not sure it should go in this article, which is already pretty long. Unless you want to claim that the American Revolution is somehow uniquely significant to anarchism (a claim I think many here would dispte), it would be more appropriate at Origins of Anarchism, or perhaps as a new article on its own. VoluntarySlave 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American revolution deserves more discussion 

message: Thanks for your apologies - apologies accepted. And thanks for not referring to me as this user anymore. My name links to my user page and my talk page. I see a lot of editors whose signatures do this. Again, I do not despise any anarchists. That's why I gave that article link, or one of the reasons. It's true that I don't like communism, but I don't despise communist-anarchism or certainly not communist-anarchists. I believe I have misunderstood the concepts behind this, at least to some extent. For that I apologize. I would like us all to stop the bickering, like TwobitSprite so aptly calls it, and work together on this article. Wouldn't that be so much more productive? Thanks to all for your consideration of this. Whiskey Rebellion 17:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blockader

message: I agree with  Mike Serfas and just about everything he said. The only thing I don't agree with is the idea that it started in the U.S. It started when there were no states or governments, before civilization itself. Blockader said this and I agree with it: If you are going to look at anarchism in a society then there are plenty of indigenous/aboriginal ones that come far closer to actual anarchist tenants then the United States."
Like I said (again) way up there I made many valid points which were not actually addressed. Please see U.S. and the seed of freedom. US anarchism like US type libertarianism or classical liberalism is not represented in this article. Anarcho-capitalism is a type of US libertarianism. The seeds of freedom, in a modern society began here, with all it's faults and all it's tragedies. You can't just dismiss it because you don't like America. Whiskey Rebellion 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you say that other editors are biased against America. Again I will ask you to retract this baseless assumption of bad faith. --Marinus 03:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear: are you saying that Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are types of anarchism, and so should be included in this article? If so, that's a surprising claim, and I'd like to see what sources you're basing it on.VoluntarySlave 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American revolution deserves more discussion (again)

message: For purpose of avoiding this kind of wasteful discussions in the future, I propose that we should only use sources where it's explicitly said that anarcho-capitalism is/isn't a form of anarchism. Does everyone agree? -- Vision Thing -- 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Whiskey Rebellion 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I Agree. I think some people here just assume because some writer says he's opposed to anarcho-capitalism that it means he holds the opinion that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. But that's a leap in logic. There are sources in this article from writers who say they oppose anarcho-capitalism but say that anarcho-capitalism is indeed a form of anarchism. Also, someone saying they oppose capitalism is not necessarily saying that they oppose ANARCHO-capitalism, let alone is it the same thing as saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. If it's not explicit then it's not a source, because saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is a specific claim. I would expect the anti-anarcho-capitalists here to want the same kind of explicitness in sources saying that anarcho-capitalism is form of anarchism. DTC 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you ignore the plain logic of people's arguments, and instead caricature them, because it's easier to swing at a straw man that you have created than actually be confronted with the possibility of error. --AaronS 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 2 

message: When somebody put a contradiction tag on this article I thought it was about this paragraph.  In its current form I think it's worse than nothing.  The fourth sentence contradicts all the others, and the last sentence is only there to refute an earlier version of itself.
Because the types of anarchism vary so largely, anarchism cannot be considered an ideology in the ordinary sense. Rather it is a set of ideas from which ideologies are drawn. On its own anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is undesirable and unnecessary. Anarchism is, according to the majority view, universally socialistic.Treatments in major secondary sources to this effect include:
*Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 (UK version) http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved
*  Anarchism. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 10 Sept. 2006  <http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9272850>.
*Anarchism, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2006, Columbia University Press.
 There are dramatic differences on economic arrangements, ranging from advocates of complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of private property and free market competition."Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought" (1991), edited by David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Conolly and Alan Ryan Most forms of anarchism, including individualist anarchism, are associated with social movements or social activism of some kind.Colin Ward. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2004.
In the light of the contradictory available sources it seems POV to assert either that "anarchism" is a unitary philosophy with specific characteristics or to assert that it's not.  Statements that can't bridge the gap between the two positions may not belong in the introduction. EbonyTotem 21:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear from the article itself that anrchism is not a unitary philosophy with specific characteristics. There are no two anarchists here that agree with each other on how anarchy would be or who envision the same thing. Whiskey Rebellion 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problematic second paragraph 

message: Some basic questions that should be addressed somehow in the article (please feel free to add more, or to provide answers).  Please note that I am simply stating these questions as topics that should be covered, not as an attack on any particular ideology.
1.  Do anarchists support the right of a person to be tried by a jury of his peers?
2.  What ensures that an anarchist punishment (revenge, 'direct action', etc.) will be commensurate with the crime?
3.  In anarcho-capitalism, is there a mechanism to prevent private police agencies from agreeing to an arbitration system that is blatantly biased against the poor?  Do those too poor to afford police have any representation in determining the regulations to which they are subject?
4.  In anarcho-capitalism, if several police agencies rely on negotiation of their philosophical differences, is it necessary for each to be prepared for large-scale conflict in order to negotiate effectively for its customers?
5.  Which are more esteemed by anarcho-syndicalists:  worker-owned cooperatives or customer-owned cooperatives?
6.  Who determines what resources are or are not property in anarcho-capitalism?  (For example, copyrights, patents, radio broadcasting bandwidth/intensity, beachfront and river basin property, mineral rights, water rights, fishing rights, right to operate a cable or utility monopoly, domain name trademarks, public protest rights, child naming rights, slave ownership...)  Where resources are owned subject to the regulation of a government, international, or private agency, is the arbitrating power of this agency seen as legitimate?
7.  In anarcho-collectivism, is there provision for different wage levels depending on the difficulty or unpleasantness of work?
8.  In anarcho-collectivism, who hires and fires people?  Who starts new businesses?  Who shuts down old businesses, and what happens to their leftover equipment?
:The role of answering such questions is not encyclopedic. "An Anarchist FAQ", already the first-mentioned source for further information, is the best for answering them. While WP is the first source of information on general topics for a lot of people it is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not an internet filter, portal or theory-of-everything. --Marinus 05:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQs 

message: There is an apparent contradiction in the text.  It says that the CNT came to advocate voting in Spanish elections, while saying that "in general" anarchists oppose voting (in Ends and Means).  Given that the CNT was one of the larger concentrations of card-carrying anarchists in history, I think that latter text needs to be softened a bit.Mike Serfas 22:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - when the CNT advocated voting in the elections it explicitely stated that it was doing so contrary to anarchistic principles. It made compromises in a variety of ways, most importantly in joining the Republican government (which had an anarchist Minister of Justice). Their actions are important but not defining. --Marinus 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: "These anarchists are also said to participate actively in the anti-globalization movement." Huh? "said to", "participate"? Anarchists involved in the Reclaim the Streets movement were among the primary originators of the so-called "anti-globalization" movement. There's no "said to" about their involvement and participation, virtually all active anarchist groups have played a part in the major protests. The black bloc organisational tactic is specifically an anarchist one, as are the fluffies. Anyone seeking proof to this blatantly obvious statement should look through the archives of Ainfos Donnacha 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We know, don't blame it on us, that edit was made by one of the "anarcho"-capitalists. I'd say change it. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed, better? Donnacha 00:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalization section

message: Through dicking around with the references they are now an unusable mess. Congratulations. If anybody adds or removes references make sure that everything is still working. Thank you kindly. --GoodIntentionstalk 07:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. Somewhere in this disaster the original use of reference "Skirda" was lost and I don't have the time to find it now. Can somebody grab it out of the stable version of the article we had, oh, about two weeks ago? --GoodIntentionstalk 07:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Vision Thing -- 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The references are a mess

message: Uh, i come back from my weekend break (i only have internet access at work) to find these ancaps accusing me of being aaron's sock? first, i am somewhat offended that you people view me so pitiously to assume that i am aaron's sock and not the other way around. this is ridiculous. i am not someone's sockpuppet though the people accusing me likely are sock puppets. as far as i know the only socks to ever appear on anarchism have been ancaps. if you fools want proof of who i am you can go to www.myspace.com/blockader and view my stupid profile or you can call me at the homebrew collective i operate in Athens, GA at 706-548-5035. you can send me an email at justin@uga.edu proving that I attended the university of georgia and not BU or whatever school in boston that aaron attends. aaron and i could arrange to post without signing in at exactly the same time identifying our seperate ip addresses or whatever you call em. frankly, i am fairly computer illeterate and i don't even know how to create a fucking sock puppet. lastly, due to these allegations, DTC and WhiskeyReb etc, my gloves are fucking off. i thought i was at least getting along with DTC  and was begining to build a functioning dialogue with whiskeyreb despite the fact that he is obviously lingeron/shannon, but fuck that shit. piece, Blockader 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Although, I wouldn't let it bother you. DTC was just retaliating against me for suspecting him of being a sock puppet of RJII, which, I suppose, is a wildly fanciful suspicion, considering that they act in a very similar manner, that they make almost identical edits, and that DTC arrived out of the blue to start editing this article where RJII left off. But I'm just assuming bad faith. Anyways, don't take it personally. It's quite obvious to anybody with eyes and a brain that I am not the same person as you, and most of my edits come from either Harvard or Dartmouth IP addresses. I do hear that Georgia is a beautiful place, however, and would love to see it sometime. Oh, and I live in the real Athens of America. ;-) --AaronS 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspected you were a sockpuppet of AaronS. But from the pictures on your myspace account is sure looks like you're a Georgian to me. And I'm not going to argue against someone who plays with guns and wears what looks like terrorist garb. You're not a sockpuppet. Forget I ever mentioned it, please. DTC 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, aaron, georgia is beautiful but very very hot very often. and boston may be the real athens of america but i live in the "dirtiest" athens of america. i guess "forget i ever mentioned it" is as close to an apology as i'm gonna get here so thankyou, apology accepted from DTC. Blockader 18:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets plenty hot and humid up here during the summer, trust me. And dirty, too. But there's no doubt that you live in the Southiest Athens of America. I once had a friend from Georgia. He was very touchy with regard to the subject of General Sherman. --AaronS 18:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i have a friend at BU for grad school, she says its almost as hot in the summer and a shit ton colder in winter. Unfortunately, Athens, TX is further south than here so we can't even claim "southiest" (did colbert use that at some point?). i would say we are the drunkiest athens (per capita) but all those damn irish in Southie distort the statistics. maybe if we discounted them as outliers? slainte, Blockader 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Póg mo thóin! I think we might be the drunkiest, too. Why, with Sam Adams, Harpoon, Ipswich Ale, Smuttynose, and all of these delicious brews, and especially with the subzero winter temperatures, it's rather hard to maintain any substantial level sobriety most of the time. --AaronS 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Could this be a touch of humor? If so, I'm shocked. As for editing while drunk, sadly, I'm afraid I only edit Wikipedia while passing time at work. When I'm drunk, I usually have more interesting things to do. --AaronS 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not humor at all. I'm dead serious. It's good to know that you don't edit drunk. DTC 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I find it doubly humorous, if only because it's unintended. --AaronS 19:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blockader, I don't remember attacking you again after apologizing. If so I absolutely apologize again. But, AaronS going to the noticeboard thing and calling me a sockpuppet was not nice at all. Whiskey Rebellion 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet

message: (edit conflict) The personal, weird and off-the-topic conversation between Blockader and Aaron, that we all just got subjected to, sounded like two drunks at a bar. It really just did! Please don't edit Wikipedia while drunk. You will likely make a lot of off the wall edits and further screw everything up. Please just edit while sober. The things you say while sober are strange enough never mind what you say while drunk. Also, please have personal dialogues elsewhere as they disrupt any meaningful debates that may occur here. Thanks. (I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings, either, though.) Whiskey Rebellion 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. This is hilarious. But seriously, I work a 9-5, it would be irresponsible for me to be drunk. Being drunk while editing Wikipedia would be twice as irresponsible. I'm a responsible kind of guy. Trust me, when I'm drunk, the last thing I want to do is sit in front of a computer and argue with nerds. --AaronS 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, have some humor. i would say our tangent was an effective way to diffuse the tension YOU created by calling me a sockpuppet. instead of apologyzing and admitting you were wrong, you instead attacked us again for what was obviously light banter. I too only edit at work because that is where i have internet, and though I operate a homebrew collective I am don't generally drink at work. Also, you haven't initiated any "meaningful" debates since youv'e arrived here. Rather, you have attacked editors for being "communist" and "strange" and demonstrated a general lack of knowledge where anarchism and political doctrine in general are concerned. Actually, i think we can assume you are constantly drunk due to the nature of your postulations and edits as well as the fact the word "whiskey" is in your name. hows that for sock puppets and personal attacks? Blockader 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he's rebelling against whiskey. DTC 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humor's good, accusations are not. If anyone was attacked originally here it was me, DTC and That'sHot. Here is where I was attacked and accused of being a 'sock' Talk:Anarchism#Lopsided_article. I tell you what, if you all apologize to me, I will apologize to you, as you all actually started this sockpuppet namecalling thing. You say you generally don't drink at work. How often do you drink at work? And as an afterthought, you get paid for a job while editing Wikipedia? I would call that stealing. And also, Whiskey Rebellion was an historical event. So your retort was rather lame. Sorry. Whiskey Rebellion 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not apologizing for anything. You're obviously a sockpuppet. --AaronS 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're obviously a drunken witch-hunter. Whiskey Rebellion 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish. That would be fun. I have some friends in Salem. I just might do that this weekend. --AaronS 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well i proved i wasn't a sock. I will drink at work whenever i damn well please, drinking and being drunk are not the same thing. I know what the whiskey rebellion was, i was a US history major. yet again that statement was made tongue in cheek, a fact apparently lost on you. lastly, i can't steal from myself can I? though you are currently stealing my fucking patience. Blockader 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, i did apologize to you. I wrote, "Actually, i think the article is pretty decent at the moment. My goal now is to prevent it from being changed too dramatically. I will stop refering to you as Lingeron. Its just that you bear many similarities to that user and his sock Shannon. From your stances on ancap and Jesus, to your virulent anti-communism, even the way your name signs with different colors/links. i guess there could be two very similiar people in the world so i will cease. apologies, Blockader 16:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blockader, I don't remember attacking you again after apologizing. If so I absolutely apologize again, but your offer to eat you....No. Out of the question But, AaronS, going to the noticeboard thing and calling me a sockpuppet was not nice at all. Whiskey Rebellion 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This where you attacked me three days after i apologized, "Also DTC has pointed out how Blockader is your likely sockpuppet. This wouldn't suprise me..." Blockader 15:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming it was vodka that did it, no? Always good in that cold Russian climate. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one and only. --AaronS 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whiskey is better. Whiskey Rebellion 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing while drunk

message: Let me just say that the fact that this discussion exists makes my day. Blockader and I actually were two drunks at a bar. We stumbled across a public Internet terminal, and, after praising Stalin (God bless him), we began happily disrupting Wikipedia with our confused and intoxicated notions of truth. --AaronS 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming it was vodka that did it, no? Always good in that cold Russian climate. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one and only. --AaronS 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whiskey is better. Whiskey Rebellion 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joy, or LoLz 

message: Peter Kroppotkin, did he call himself an anarcho-communist, did he strive for the ideal of anarcho-communism? I can agree on the fact that his philosophies are akin to what later have been defined as anarcho-communism. But was the concept even used at that time? At all? Because if it wasnt there id say whats important is not that Kropotkin where an anarcho-communist, as the structure now gives implicit, but him and his ideas and thereafter his impact on anarcho-communism later on. Why not take it from the begining to the end instead of going around and around. The classical characters, the history of a social movement, then the ideas from the present and so on. Offcourse, for starters, its all about kropotkin and the term anarcho-communism. --Fjulle 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kropotkin was arguably the leading figure of anarcho-communism (a term he and others used at the time in pamphlets, books, etc, referring to the contemporary and pre-existing tradition) of his time, and also the most important theorist of all anarchism, especially anarcho-communism. His knowledge and involvement was so well recognised that the Encyclopaedia Brittanica asked him to write the article on Anarchism for their well-known 11th edition (one that asked for contributions on each field from the most recognised expert in that field). Because of his unquestioned status as a leading anarcho-communist the section refers to him a lot. The only other comparable figure would be Emma Goldman, who was less inolved in theory but nothing short of a miracle-worker in organisation, unionisation, feminism and whatever needed action on the ground. So I don't really now what you're getting at. --GoodIntentionstalk 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just that i never thought they actually used the concept anarcho-communism ... woul have thought it something like "communist anachism" if anything, but allright. I have too read Kropotkin at first hadn soon anyway. But still have you discussed if maybe taking the first steps about something is done best with the humans who stand at the first step? It might work for anarcho-capitalism as well as anarcho-communism. What i think happens when you try to give a complete review if some speciel branch is theres many different scholars who says different things about it. Its their views we want, not some POV'ing from the people writting the article. Maybe to make sure thats whats happening lets start with the people behind all these concept. Let them explain whats to be explained. --Fjulle 11:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "communist anarchism" "anarcho-communism" "libertarian communism" is all the same thing, just a different phrase reflecting different translations or the preferential wording of the person using the phrase. --GoodIntentionstalk 04:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Kropotkin 

message: I changed that to 'paying' they don't pay you to be in the IWW!!!
:i wish they did though :) Blockader 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IWW paid ?=

message: How about a section on government versus state? If seen a few sources on anarchism discussing the difference between government and the state and say that the state is what anarchists are actually against. hot 03:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Fundamental of anarchism Whiskey Rebellion 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government versus State

message: DTC, read the book, for Christ's sake. Ward sketches an outline of individualists who were not anarcho-capitalists spanning the 19th and 20th centuries. --AaronS 13:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anarcho-capitalists are also from the 20th century, so you have to differentiate the pro and anti-capitalist individualists. DTC 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, he's talking about individualist anarchists. But whatever. This is my last comment. Have fun with this article. --AaronS 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th friggin' century 

message: From Proudhon and Bakunin to the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, anarchists have traditionally been skeptical about and opposed to organized religion, believing that most organized religions are hierarchical in nature and, more often than not, aligned with contemporary power structures like state and capital.
On the other hand, Christian anarchists believe that there is no higher authority than God, and oppose earthly authority such as government and established churches. They believe that Jesus' teachings and the practice of the early church were clearly anarchistic, but were corrupted when "Christianity" was declared the official religion of Rome. The most famous Christian anarchist was the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy whose 'The Kingdom of God Is Within You' is considered a key christian anarchist text. The Catholic Worker Movement is a modern Christian anarchist organisation.
It contradicts itself, doesn't make sense and or is totally unnecessary.
Part I says: Proudhon, etc...reject organized religion because of hierarchy etc. Part II says: On the other hand.. Christian anarchists oppose earthly authority such as government and established churches, etc..
So there is no argument between the Christian anarchists and any other anarchists, concerning human power structures and authority. Whiskey Rebellion 00:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response above. Second, plenty of anarchists reject religion as a whole, so if you want to take that out, then take out the whole section on religion, since most anarchists are atheists. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still contradicts itself in the way that it is written. And why should Christian anarchism not have it's own section? It needs to be written in the least. Whiskey Rebellion 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it contradict itself? Most anarchists distrust religion, but some anarchists are nonetheless religious. Seems clear as crystal to me. --GoodIntentionstalk 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just said how it used to contradict itself (above). I rearranged it and took the contradictory phrase out On the other hand. Now it's okay. Whiskey Rebellion 02:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't. There is a difference between "traditionally being skeptical" and "absolutely dismissing". --GoodIntentionstalk 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't contradict itself at all. it says MOST anarchists distrust religion but ON THE OTHER HAND, some anarchists are of the christian variety and therefore religious. Blockader 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you just said was not what the article said. Whiskey Rebellion 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting really hard to assume good faith with you. It was quite clear, and if you think Blockader's interpretation is somehow a huge deviation from the original text, then, well, I don't really konw. It was pretty obvious though. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about Blockader's edits!!??? What I said is here Talk:Anarchism#Here_is_the_section and I can't see what's so hard to understand about it. Also, why are you beating a dead horse? My main objection was to the phrase (on the other hand) and it's not there now. I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you say, "Bockader's edits." I have done nothing wrong. Why are you having a hard time "assuming good faith"? Whiskey Rebellion 02:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's pretty clear that you are a recreation of a banned user, and I honestly think you're here to make trouble. Sorry, but you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Regarding blockader, I was refering to their comment that you responded to above. I don't know why you have a problem with that phrase, in fact, it doesn't make sense to not include it. We say that anarchists traditionally don't support religion, then we start talking about christian anarchists without any kind of transition? It's important to mention that others disagree and have different views. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 05:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is the section