Talk:Anarchism/Archive 33

message: === Useful policy/guideline references ===
*Maintain a neutral point of view
*No original research, please
*Material must be verifiable
*Citations should reference reputable sources
*Assume good faith
*Lastly, please be civil to each other --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read this first! 

message: *Maintain a neutral point of view
*No original research, please
*Material must be verifiable
*Citations should reference reputable sources
*Assume good faith
*Lastly, please be civil to each other --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful policy/guideline references 

message: *A primary source: "A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles."
*A secondary source: "Secondary sources are texts based on primary sources, and involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. In the study of history, secondary sources are those writings which were not penned contemporaneously with the events in question."
*A tertiary source: "Where a primary source presents material from a first-hand witness to a phenomenon, and a secondary source provides commentary, analysis and criticism of primary sources, a tertiary source is a selection and compilation of primary and secondary sources. While the distinction between primary source and secondary source is essential in historiography, the distinction between these sources of evidence and tertiary sources is more peripheral." --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources? 

message: Because this is a contentious topic, I propose that no biased sources be used; I also propose that primary sources should be avoided, and that secondary sources should be preferred. This is because "[s]econdary sources often are subjected to peer review, are well documented, and are often produced through institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation. A primary source like a journal entry, at best, only reflects one person's take on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete. Historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny." (see primary source). While primary sources are often used by experts and historians, none of us are experts and historians; and, if we are, then we should reference our own reputably published works. --AaronS 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed source standards 

message: I've requested that the article (but not the template) be unprotected. Hogeye 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now that editing is up again, be sure to stay civil and avoid edit wars.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoid edit wars? A likely story. Straight away Hogeye and RJII have re-introduced all the elements that they know have caused most dispute: Hogeye's pet chart of influences; the division into 'individualist' and 'collectivist' schools; the controversial intro para on dictionary definitions; major section on anarcho-capitalism in the middle of the page; liberal anarchism etc.... however much we go over the same points, these two are unwilling to give an inch. There have been edit wars in the past on all these points, and there will be again. They wear down the latest enthusiastic anti-capitalist arrivals, but sure enough more will come along soon and it'll start up all over again. In short, no progress at all, and if the page needed protection before the need hasn't gone away. Perhaps a permanent NPOV dispute tag would be the honest approach, as this is a permanent NPOV dispute.Bengalski 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: As promised in Talk:Anarchism/Archive32 I'm pruning back the sections.  The entire article is too long.  Everyone wants their own tendency full featured and explored.  This is not the purpose of a head page.  Regardless of the composition and selection of sections, all sections must be much smaller.  Expect other sections to receive similar treatment to what Individualism, Anarchism at Work and Anarchosyndicalism received. Fifelfoo 01:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on; I had the same idea, as you can see.  I think you already had a shorter version of Individualist Anarchism. I looked for your shorter version in Archives but couldn't find it, so I'll leave that to you. ... Good, you've already done it. And anarcho-syndicalism, too! Hogeye 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Click go the shears, comrades, click click click 

message: What photos should be included?  IMO we need photos for Proudhon and Rothbard.  Both are more noteworthy than Hakim Bey. Hogeye 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind Warren being there instead of Tucker. Warren is historically important, as he started the whole native American movement. It depends on what kind of presentation you want to have. RJII 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Concurr on Bey.  A Goldman / Berkman group shot would be good.  A CNT-FAI group should would be excellent (one of the CNT-FAI trucks full of militia from 36/7 would be great).  Less dead white men, more group shots.  19th century line drawings should be available too. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want something recent, I took this photograph when I was in Barcelona a couple of years ago, or how about this photograph of CNT collectivised workers? - FrancisTyers 11:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Francis! Fifelfoo 11:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: The labor-value individualism is the most signficant, but that is not the only kind of individualist anarchism. I don't like that Stirner is not included in the individualist anarchism section. Proudhon probably belongs there as well. I'll play around with it. RJII 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: individualist anarchism

message: Social anarchism's opposition to anarcho-capitalism isn't sectarian.  Opposition based on fundamental differences is not sectarian: they lack a shared basis for agreement. Fifelfoo 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sectarianism in no way implies that there are no fundamental differences.  Besides, there are fundamental similarities, too: opposition to the State. Hogeye 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectarianism 

message: I'm happy to see the Anarchism article back open for business. Ya'll can always use me for reference. I'm an old version of the Anarchism article. :) Look at me: Anarchism 04:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchism

message: I've pared down each issue to one paragraph. My intention is to make a bullet list like I did for Contemporary (now Other branches and offshoots), making the TOC smaller.  Any objection to that? Hogeye 04:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet list for Issues 

message: Either way is acceptable to me, but if we are going back to a Schools structure with anarcho-capitalism under individualist anarchism, then it's only logical to be consistent and put 2.3 The International thru 2.8 The fight against fascism under collectivist anarchism. Otherwise we should go back to having a Contemporary section. Hogeye 05:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Contemporary section seems crazy to me. The original types of anarchism are still contemporary --plenty of anarcho-commmunist groups around, for example. We would have to repeat the sections twice ..once above the line and once below. It can still have an historical narrative without such a section. RJII 05:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the schools in History would need to be repeated, since they were already covered.  I do see your logic. What if "Contemporary" were changed to "Newer Schools," "Recent Conceptions of Anarchism" or some such? I think you're opening up a whole can of worms by significantly changing the structure of the article, and wrecking the historical order, without consensus among the other editors.  And that's from me, who as you know is anything but shy about making changes!  I fear you're pretty much guaranteeing a new edit war.  Think about it. Hogeye 05:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When is there not an edit war in this article? No matter what one does there is an edit war. Anyway, what is the cutoff time period for a "newer school." And, would anarcho-capitalism be there? I wouldn't agree that that's a "newer school." I'm not sure of the point of such a dilineation. RJII 05:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post WWII? I would say that, even though there were earlier isolated individuals like Molinari and Herbert, that the anarcho-capitalist school started with Rothbard's writings. Hogeye 06:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine if you have some kind of time frame in mind. But isn't that going to cause edit warring too? I thought most of the anti-AC people wanted anarcho-capitalism under the individualist anarchism section. RJII 06:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But, I would say it's more historical the other way. Anarcho-capitalism developed in parallel with labor-value individualist anarchism. It's not like it all of a sudden spontaneously arose from nothing. RJII 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know that's highly disputed. I have left AC in but moved it forward in time. And incorporated yr 'liberal anarchism' into ancapism section - these liberals are only claimed to be anarchist forebears by the ancaps, so putting them in as their own section in the 19th century is very POV. I personally am fine with taking out the historical/contemporary divide - we can then just have one timeline for the whole thing. But, as was discussed ad infinitum before, I'm certainly not the only editor who's very much against splitting it into individualism vs collectivism meta-schools.Bengalski 13:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, cool - you convinced me. Actually, the article is looking pretty good now. Hogeye 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical vs Schools structure 

message: Frankly, I don't consider Stirner to be an anarchist, strictly speaking.  He's kind of like Godwin - a very influential precursor. Two points:
* Stirner did not consider himself an anarchist. He considered himself an egoist.
* Stirner offered no anarchist theory. To him, the State was just one mental "spook" example out of many.
I suggest we put Stirner in the Precursor/Origins section. Hogeye 06:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's plenty of sources that say he is an individualist anarchist. Also, how about the European Stirnerite individualist anarchists? That's individualist anarchism too --it's just not the American form of individualist anarchism. RJII 06:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect we have an American individualist section due to the much more social nature of non-US individualisms.  See Japan where Egoism and Syndicalism were considered compatible by leaders of the day (Bowen Raddeker, Hecate, 2005).  Australian individualism was much more social than US individualism, it was effectively a form of social anarchism which focused its activist efforts on rationalism, humanism and militant atheism.  My deeper suspicion is that these currently lie within US anarchism too, and we're seeing a retconning of US individualism into Rothbard's catagories: a solipsistic error.Fifelfoo 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Stirner - Egoist or Anarchist? 

message: Although it's perhaps a symptom of growing up in a very environmental area (and a half hour from Zerzan), but green and primitivist anarchism seem extremely minimized in the new arrangement. I'd consider it worth at least as much space as anarcho-capitalism is getting, being one of the most active trends in anarchism today. Anarchism without adjectives seems severely underplayed as well, because as far as I can tell that's how most anarchists identify today. Many are even unaware of the existence of factions. Of course that relates more to anarchists than anarchist theory, but it's hardly something to overlook. Sarge Baldy 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your experience is geographically limited.  Look at the CGT (Spain) stats, their 70 year historical record as anarchists, versus their volume of coverage of their subject.  As far as the an-caps go, the only way to seek redress is to demand satisfaction of them, examine their edit history and conclude if you have the ability to be awake often enough to out-edit them.  Examine the article history for their habits. The entire article is about 50k (down from the 90s).  The aim should be to achieve something in the 30s or 40s.Fifelfoo 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd agree exact weighting is pretty impossible, and anarcho-syndicalism does seem to get a lot of weight as the article is. I think putting the green and primitivist sub-sections together (as they are pretty related) and giving them a moderate amount of space in the main body would not be unfair. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree - Green/Eco anarchism, like anarcho-capitalism, is one of the newer forms of anarchism, which shouldn't be denigrated by the traditionalists.  I think it should have a section, say, just before "Religious Anarchism" in this version of the article.  It should cover Green-a, Eco-a, and Primitivist-a. I invite you to organize it that way. Hogeye 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think the best spot is probably below "Anarchism and feminism" in the current version. And actually, I think the article is working out pretty well. Sarge Baldy 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weighting 

message: This is a good example of an appeal to authority fallacy. Particularly when you consider there is no good reason to see a dictionary as a viable authority at defining a philosophy they undoubtably are not interested in. Citing definitions by early anarchists is equally problematic, particularly when you ignore constant remarks that anarchism is a form of socialism. The best source comes from secondary sources, including modern anarchists and political scientists who have made it a point to map these philosophies out. I'm willing to agree to disagree on the point, but the current notice is pushing a contested POV. Sarge Baldy 08:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dictionary is an extraordinarily good source for a definition. The reason is that the definitions they present are the result of a lot of research on how the term is used by educated people, including "modern anarchists and political scientists." So instead of us having to conduct a huge amount of research compiling hundreds of usages and finding a commonality (which would be something akin to "original research"), the researchers have already done this for us. The dictionary IS exactly the secondary source that you want for this kind of dispute. The dictionary definitions of anarchism present what the word is most often understood to mean among educated people --and that's exactly the kind of definition we should have to head the article. It's the most NPOV way to do it. (Look at the definitions of anarchism that head the anarchism article on other contemporary encyclopedias --they could have come straight out of any of the various dictionaries out there).RJII 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dictionary" note 

message: Begalski, do you have a source for this assertion: "it should be noted that in later works Proudhon modified his ideas on property" ?  As far as I can tell, his positions on property did not change in any important way. Do you have a secondary source that says they did actually change? RJII 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proudhon

message: Hey I know you'll all be pleased that someone's finally made everything far less POV by including some opening remarks about what ctitics of anarchims say - particularly the Petit bourgeois one which Marxists like so much.Harrypotter 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty POV to rework half the introductory paragraph to work in criticism. Also, many of these points of criticism actually come from anarchists: the thesis of L. Susan Brown's best known work is that anarchist communism is essentially individualist and built out of liberalism; Saul Newman's best know work is almost strictly a critique of anarchism, showing it both as an extension of liberalism and also agreeing strongly with Stirner that revolution enevitably results in a new state (points which all have my complete agreement). Sarge Baldy 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all against discussing criticisms of anarchism in the article - actually I think it's only right, as no one can deny anarchism is much abused and criticised from many sides. I'm not sure the way this has been done is very informative however - if I was coming to this ignorant of the subject Harrypotter's comments would make little sense to me - 'petit bourgeois' - what does that mean? (need to at least mention this comes from marxism, and point to sources); 'socially maladjusted' just sounds like a slander - who said this, and why? See Sterner - where, what , why? And I would think actually the most common criticisms of anarchists is that they are smelly judeo/slavic bomb-throwing terrorists (19th-early 20th century) or macdonalds-window-smashing middle class yobs with silly haircuts (contemporary). Should we stick some of that in? If so, how do we make this a serious part of the introduction that actually informs and points to useful information and debate? And does it actually belong in the intro? Or perhaps just a brief pointer to discussion of criticisms further down the page? Should there maybe be a special section on criticism of anarchism, or should we just try to be more balanced in presentation of existing sections, if they're not at present?Bengalski 21:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I think it needs to be sourced information (who is criticizing?) and probably placed in a special section rather than in the introduction. It's actually kind of embarassing not to have a "criticism" section on one of the most controversial political philosophies in existence. Sarge Baldy 21:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly looking at pages on other major political ideologies (eg. socialism, liberalism, conservatism) that seems to be the most common wikipedia approach. (Not that this means it's necessarily the right one or that we should follow it.) I.e., the intro section presents some kind of summary of the self-professed 'philosophy' or ideals of the movement, and maybe some key history; there are dedicated sections on critique later on. Even the fascism article doesn't open with criticisms, though the intro discusses the common use of the term as a pejorative.Bengalski 21:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, since it's hard to criticize something before you've adequately explained it. I would think the best place is near the bottom, or possibly above "cultural phenomena". Sarge Baldy 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've done just that - the criticisms need sourcing, though. Or I'm thinking maybe to avoid making the page massive again we could direct to a page just for details of criticisms and counters. Perhaps Harrypotter will help. AaronS I guess this is why you've put up the NPOV tags - good if you could put a note on the talk page when you do so. If you feel strongly that we shouldn't discuss the criticisms until they're sourced then I won't object if you take them down for now. But I don't think you can argue it is POV to mention that people criticise anarchism. They certainly do, and we need to deal with it not ignore it.Bengalski 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the "tacit authoritarianism" point. Post-anarchists, at least, have critiqued rather than criticized anarchism, not as an attempt to reject it but so as to refine fundamental faults. I don't know about the Situationists. I'm also not sure how widespread the Marxist criticisms mentioned are. It might be nice to get into the historical criticisms posited by Marx, Lenin, et. al towards anarchism (such as that you need to give the weak power to reshape society before you can abandon government). Sarge Baldy 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: critics of anarchism

message: The section name has always bugged me.  It looks like it's trying to be "clever" by making a pun on "at work" (which can mean "in the workplace" or "in practice").  It just seems unprofessional in an encyclopedia. MrVoluntarist 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always felt the same way, good edit. The Ungovernable Force 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-titled "anarchism at work" section 

message: In order to reclaim featured article status there's a number of projects which we need to do
=== Notes and citations ===
A few reminders here.  Remember that we're not searching out for minority view-points in order to cook the article.  The Taoism stuff is only notable because of a) Its a non-western claim b) Its so damn early c) Its made by leftists and rightists.  With mainline citations we need to make sure they come from
#Primary sources: the authors themselves, or newspapers / diaries of the day etc.
#Credible commentators: this means someone with a Research Doctorate or Masters in a social science or history.  It could also be from a monograph published from an academic press (OUP) or a credible peer reviewed journal specialising in social science or history
Secondly, as regards notes, the   system is a bit clunky.  We'll have to watch note ordering as new and old notes come and go. Fifelfoo 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add, I think it was a great idea to go through and put a marker where someone needs to put a citation.  That should speed up the process, and everyone should put one of these markers in if they think something needs citation, but can't currently find one. MrVoluntarist 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to say that Fifelfoo is doing a pretty good job --he seems dedicated to NPOV. RJII 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic qualifications don't make credibility. The publication requirements are a better indicator.Bengalski 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree that the ordering is a bit clunky, my apologies. My preference would be to have them in the form of , where author and date are obvious and a-z is for if there are two from the same author in the same year. Obviously this isn't always possible as some sources come without an author. There are also a number of dead links in the Reference section, I didn't remove them, but they are likely to need to be removed or replaced. You can tell them because they don't have a description, only a number. - FrancisTyers 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving towards Featurable status 

message: A few reminders here.  Remember that we're not searching out for minority view-points in order to cook the article.  The Taoism stuff is only notable because of a) Its a non-western claim b) Its so damn early c) Its made by leftists and rightists.  With mainline citations we need to make sure they come from
#Primary sources: the authors themselves, or newspapers / diaries of the day etc.
#Credible commentators: this means someone with a Research Doctorate or Masters in a social science or history.  It could also be from a monograph published from an academic press (OUP) or a credible peer reviewed journal specialising in social science or history
Secondly, as regards notes, the   system is a bit clunky.  We'll have to watch note ordering as new and old notes come and go. Fifelfoo 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add, I think it was a great idea to go through and put a marker where someone needs to put a citation.  That should speed up the process, and everyone should put one of these markers in if they think something needs citation, but can't currently find one. MrVoluntarist 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to say that Fifelfoo is doing a pretty good job --he seems dedicated to NPOV. RJII 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic qualifications don't make credibility. The publication requirements are a better indicator.Bengalski 11:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree that the ordering is a bit clunky, my apologies. My preference would be to have them in the form of , where author and date are obvious and a-z is for if there are two from the same author in the same year. Obviously this isn't always possible as some sources come without an author. There are also a number of dead links in the Reference section, I didn't remove them, but they are likely to need to be removed or replaced. You can tell them because they don't have a description, only a number. - FrancisTyers 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and citations 

message: I didn't think this was going to be necessary, but do we really need a huge list of books in this article? It is long enough already, I took care to produce a list from the major schools in the article and then moved the rest out to list of anarchist books. It seems someone has readded many and split them into specious "anarcho-socialist" (isn't this a neologism?) and "anarcho-capitalist" sections. I have reverted back to my version for the time being, I would welcome constructive discussion here. - FrancisTyers 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Hogeye added them. Your list is more concise, I think it's better, tho you could start a separate article with them all on. Infinity0 talk 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at list of anarchist books ;) - FrancisTyers 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhhhh... :D Infinity0 talk 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay.  I changed the Rothbard book to a relevant one about anarcho-capitalism, rather than the economic treatise. Hogeye 18:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a very short list as well (mostly because it helps to ensure a safe weighting). But perhaps we should mention The Dispossessed or The Monkey Wrench Gang as a representation of anarchism in literature? Sarge Baldy 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be reasonable to add a couple of fictional books relating to Anarchism, it might also be worth mentioning a couple of the most popular books that are histories or overviews of the subject. I think Woodcock and Marshall are pretty popular, but you can probably find the most popular ones on Amazon or something. - FrancisTyers 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I think it's important not to limit ourselves to the works of the philosophers and theorists themselves. Clearly there's other important books related to the topic that should be touched on. Sarge Baldy 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: RJII added competition to the list of things anarchists want a society built upon. I know I am not alone in not considering competition to be a major part of my ideal future society, and to add competition without qualifications as to which anarchists support that is a bad idea, especially since it also said we wanted cooperation, which is contradictory and will confuse most people unfamiliar with anarachism (and some who are familiar). As such I removed both until we can work this out. The Ungovernable Force 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Individualist anarchists tend to be big on competition. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre: "Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it. I make my war upon privilege and authority, whereby the right of property, the true right in that which is proper to the individual, is annihilated. She believes that co-operation would entirely supplant competition; I hold that competition in one form or another will always exist, and that it is highly desirable it should." Benjamin Tucker was also a firm proponent of competition. He believe competition was what could reduce profit to make prices accord with labor-value. RJII 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So say that some individualists support it, because not all anarchists do (and I can cite that if you want) The Ungovernable Force 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I know that collectivist anarchists don't like competition. Apparently, the only thing all anarchists agree on is opposition to the State. RJII 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was pretty sure that a variety of individualists agreed that cooperation was valuable, the mutual meeting of like-minded individuals for the purposes of mutual benefit etc.  Similarly there is a strain within anarchism which says that competition is a good and natural impulse (for an example, Le Guin is big on friendly competition in Dispossessed).  I'm not hep up about including "competition" in the list at all.  Its not nearly as important as other issues.  Like getting the article size down to 40kb, having copyright acceptable images for the major points, and having apposite and appropriate citation. Fifelfoo 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What is liberal anarchism? Personally, I don't know what competition/cooperation have to do with anarchism at all. Both are a part of life in general. --AaronS 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberal anarchism is anarchism combined with liberalism, i.e. American individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That is to say, anarchism that believes in the freedom of individuals to use others to serve an ends, as opposed to anarchism that believes in the freedom of individuals from other individuals. I don't know why you consider it of no importance to anarchism. In fact, a large amount of anarchist theory is specifically about the cooperation and competition. For instance, the basic thesis of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is that humans (and other species) are naturally cooperative, and must be to survive. Bakunin and Bookchin have argued similarly. L. Susan Brown disagrees, insisting human nature does not exist, but argues that a belief in competition contradicts any belief in individual freedom. Liberal anarchists, by contrast, see people as naturally competitive, etc. Liberal anarchists tend to be more accepting of capitalism because they aren't opposed to competition or using others to serve an ends, whereas other anarchists see this as a massive contradiction. Sarge Baldy 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's wrong. - FrancisTyers 23:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooperation vs Competition

message: Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this?
sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. In fact, I've come across a book in my library on exactly this topic. It's Anarchist thought in India by Adi Hormusji Doctor. Sarge Baldy 22:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism in India

message: This clearly violate's Wikipedia's policy regarding original research, and is also disupted. I don't think I'm the only one who sees it simply an attempt to legitimize anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism. Sarge Baldy 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism's place within anarchism is already legitimized. All the chart does is show what influenced what. Everybody who has researched it knows that Tucker and Spooner influenced Rothbard. RJII 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you don't see yourself as POV? Clearly it is not a settled matter, as evidenced by it's clearly contentious relation to anarchism. Too often you exhibit symptoms of an MPOV, which is worrisome. Sarge Baldy 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "settled" but it's legitimized. It's not settled that individualist anarchism is true anarchism. It's not settled that anarcho-communism is true anarchism. Whether it's settled or not is beside the point. If some notable historians and political scientists say something is anarchism, then it needs to be in the article. That's all it takes to "legitimize" something as anarchism. RJII 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you take any arrow pair in the article and say "X influenced Y", it is well-documented and well-sourced on Wikipedia.  The article puts these Wikipedia-acceptable facts into graph form.  That's it.  If it was claiming which philosophy grew out of which other one, then you'd have a case. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, because you keep re-constraining the request to the point where you couldn't do the same for socialist forms of anarchism. MrVoluntarist 00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Give sources to Aaron at your own risk. He finds some twisted way to dismiss every one. Or, if he does find one acceptable, he demands another to back it up, ad infinitum. It's fruitless and ridulcous. RJII 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did assume good faith with you. It's just that I'm convinced now that you're not acting in good faith. You won't accept sources no matter how credible they are. It appears to me that you have no genuine interest in bringing information to light, but rather, the reverse. RJII 03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that when you make an unsourced positive claim, the burden of proof is on you, not anybody else. --AaronS 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly is the claim that you'd like sourced? Hogeye 15:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The (main) issue isn't whether Hogeye's right or wrong, or well sourced, on any particular connection eg. that Nietzsche influenced Rothbard. The issue is one of whether this link is relevant to anarchism, or more generally whether its relevance is strong enough that it fits with NPOV 'weighting'. If we were to put in every accurate chain of influence that applies to any notable anarchist thinker we would have a monkey puzzle tree of a million names. You would also have many non-anarchists as prominent nodes, Marx just one of them. To get something manageable we have to trim down to a few names, and it is the selection of these names and links that is controversial original research. Hogeye's choice is plainly POV. But in fact I think it is so inherently controversial that even without the ancapism issue we would probably never find consensus on a tree of ten or even a hundred names from the editors of this page. Things are just more complicated than that, and I don't see that such a tree serves any useful purpose.Bengalski 09:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love how when people are shown to be wrong, they switch arguments and claiming that that was their argument all along.  First it was "the tree is OR!".  Now it's "the tree is irrelevant"!  Let's pick a story and go with it. MrVoluntarist 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The chart is clearly relevant to anarchism.  You write, "To get something manageable we have to trim down to a few names, and it is the selection of these names and links that is controversial original research.," but that could be said of the whole article or any given section. Yet we all know who most of the big names are, and/or the representative opinions anyway.   You're going to have to come up with a better excuse than the lame "original research" charge.  Hogeye 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea as I understand it is on the whole article or any given section we try to achieve a) 'NPOV'; b) hopefully some consensus. Your chart is very far from either.Bengalski 18:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I have with the chart is that we can't modify it. I basically agree with the content but there are some things I would change. If a flow-chart function were available in Wikipedia so we call all modify it that would be great. As it stands now, it has to be taken down and modified for each editor's input and Hogeye is apparently the only one with the authority to do that. I appreciate his efforts and I like the chart, but I can't see it working out in the long run for these reasons. But, I could be wrong. RJII 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand where you'd like Rocker moved.  Are you suggesting omitting his name? Are you suggesting that there is another derivation  of anarcho-communism that derives from standard Kropotkinian ancomm? Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A-com exists apart from A-synd. Infinity0 talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But Ricardo was Marx's main source for his exploitation theory. The exploitation theory, of course, is crucial to anarcho-commie ideology. Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he was the LTOV-exploitation theory. It's not a crucial aspect of it. Infinity0 talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But Nietzsche influenced Rand, who influenced Rothbard. (And Nietzsche was warmed-over Stirnerism.) Hogeye 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hegel influenced Marx but he shouldn't be there. Infinity0 talk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Image:AnarchismTree04.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 
To re-iterate my comments on Hogeye's talk page, my primary complaints are; 1. the use of the word "Socialist Anarchism" in '03 and 2. the undue weight given to anarcho-capitalism. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Hogeye, I agree with FrancisTyers. Gustave de Molinari is a very minor thinker and shouldn't be in that huge box. Infinity0 talk 18:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The current chart doesn't use the term "anarcho-socialism."   I can't say much about weight - that is totally subjective. Judging by something objective, like google hits, anarcho-capitalism is more significant than e.g. anarcho-syndicalism.  Certainly both should be included in the chart. Molinari was very influential, and should be included as an influence on Rothbard. Hogeye 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Google hits is a horrible indicator of notability. Or are you really trying to say that the O RLY owl  is more notable than say trade unionism in India ? - FrancisTyers 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's POV. Leftists think capitalism is very UN-individualist. Infinity0 talk 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Communism is in opposition to individualism --the complaint about capitalism is exactly that it is individualistic  --individual property, self-interest, etc. RJII 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the complaint about capitalism is that it exploits workers - many people making profit for a few - ie. NOT individual but elitist. Infinity0 talk 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason they can make a profit is because property is individualized --in other words, private (individual) property exists. Communists don't want private property. They want collective property. What communist is going to claim capitalism is not individualist? Of course it's individualist. It's economic individualism to the extreme. RJII 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, RJII. Capitalism is individualist for the few owners, and oppressive for the non-owners. It's economic individualism to the extreme, for an extreme few. Infinity0 talk 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me just state for the record I'm against the very idea of tree. It was so nice we had a break from edit warring for a day or two.Bengalski 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am, too. The very idea is specious, especially considering the biases of the editors, here. It's also overly simplistic. --AaronS 16:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As am I. The idea of a tree makes things not only very black and white, but very rigid. No matter how a tree was designed, I would fight its inclusion here. Sarge Baldy 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: An administrator has blocked this anonymous user. - FrancisTyers 11:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Image:AnarchismTree02.jpg has been deleted, :Image:AnarchismTree03.jpg is still under consideration. :Image:AnarchismTree04.jpg was speedily deleted, but User:Hogeye has re-uploaded it. - FrancisTyers 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist "tree" 

message: Is there any record of anarchist activity in India?Can anyone of the contributors enlighten me on this?
sumal 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, seems to have been an anarcho-primitivist gathering in India not long ago . - N1h1l 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I read something about an anarcho-primitivist gathering in South Asia that occured about 30,000 year ago. I think they called themselves "neanderthals." RJII 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism in India

message: Hogeye, it appears that you have violated Wikipedia policy in breaking the WP:3RR. I know that, in the past, you and RJII have stated that you have no problem with edit wars, and will happily create them; however, we try to avoid them as much as possible, and they certainly go against what Wikipedia is about. I am simply going to caution you this time, and ask that you please review the three revert rule policy. One more revert, and I'm going to request that an administrator review what is going on, here. I hate to be harsh, but you're being very disruptive, in my opinion. Thanks. --AaronS 15:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little ironic for an "anarchism" article  --calling in the police (authority). RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It's not anarchy. There are no "true anarchists" who would bring in authority. You know, people say the same thing about nations, such as "You agree to abide by the rules if you live here. If you don't like it you can leave." Is that something a "true anarchist" would say? I doubt it. RJII 15:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I have heard ancaps use that exact reasoning, but then it was something "If you don't like your boss you can get another job". // Liftarn
What does that have to do with anything? --AaronS 15:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're lying about me again. When have I said that I'm happy to create edit wars? RJII 15:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cite it then. When have I ever said I'm happy to create edit war? Your sleazy dishonest tactics are reprehensible. RJII 15:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I'm responding to your dishonesty. Lying about another editor is "incendiary" and "uncivil." You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you? RJII 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There was an RFA against me based on a claim that I didn't source something I said in Talk (not something I posted in an article). It was absurd and full of lies, so of course the administrators closed the case. RJII 15:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No I don't have the link. Go find it yourself. RJII 15:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that the one with User:Slrubenstein? Infinity0 talk 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's do wait then. In the meantime don't initiate any assaults on me than you can't back up. Your continual attempts to start fights with me is "uncivil." And, the use of dishonesty in doing it is downright sleazy. I remind of the policy: be civil. RJII 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, that RfA was not rejected by the administrators, and the case was only closed because it seemed as if the problem had been resolved. Apparently it hasn't: RJII v. Firebug. --AaronS 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. You lied. I did not say I enjoyed starting edit wars. I said that there is nothing wrong with eternal edit warring --it's preferable than stability (which assumes infallibility). And, sure, battling is enjoyable. But, I have never said that I enjoy starting edit wars or intentionally start edit wars. That's patently false. You owe me an apology (as if your apoligies are worth anything anymore). RJII 16:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's do. It's a great example of hypocrisy. RJII 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hogeye and 3RR 

message: There is currently a request for arbitration open for a main editor of this article, RJII. I encourage anybody who believes that RJII has violated Wikipedia policy to speak up; or, conversely, speak on his behalf if you believe that this RfA is unjust. I know that many editors of this article have had problems with RJII, and that a few support him, so I think that it is important that we all know about this.
*Here is the proposed decision (with votes): 
*Here is where you can add your own evidence (for or against): 
Just providing information. --AaronS 17:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck. I doubt very few here are petty and vindictive enough to be interested. RJII 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be pretty pissed off if you went through 3 versions of that bitter one-liner over the span of 20 minutes. That's why we have Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Take a look at it.--AaronS 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a perfectionist with my wording. I always revise. Every sentence is tailored for maximum effect. RJII 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were true, how could you possibly attach your name to statements like "You've started the fire, but you don't want to burn it do you?" I think that that line is stolen from this. ;) --AaronS 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should say "burn in it". And, it was a play on your statement about "incendiary" remarks. But, no, I never saw that movie. It figures that that's your idea of cinema. It tells me a lot about what I'm dealing with. Now, run along. I'm done dealing with you. RJII 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The model anarchist you are aren't you? Trying to get someone banned from Wikipedia by goading him on with insults and lies so that he can attack you back so you can accuse him of being "uncivil," all for the purpose of censoring his edits. Great job, man. How about if we start an arbitration case against you? RJII 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Come on. We all know why you advertised that. Don't insult our intelligence. You're hoping to help foment a mob attack on RJII to get him banned. Good luck! RJII 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Most people who come here are civil. I can't say the same for you. There are many who I have disagreements with here who I respect very much. They treat me civily and I reciprocate. Why can't you be more civilized? RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't play that "you're the only problem" game with me. It seems that you just turn everybody's concerns about you into a conspiracy and then accuse them of the same things. That's false. If you can find any occasion where I have treated you uncivilly in the recent past (or in the not-so-recent past that I haven't apologized for), then, by all means, show me. Or do you just accuse others of lying and sleaze? --AaronS 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only problem in this article. Everyone else is pretty civil and honest (actually there is one other person that's not, but I'm not going to name names). As evidence of your uncivility and dishonesty one only need to consult the record of how many times you've apoligized. But, I'm telling you now that there have been one too many apologies. I'm not accepting them anymore. They're insincere. As soon as you apologize for one thing, you proceed with another attack. I don't trust you, and I don't respect you. RJII 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to name names, we all know who you're talking about--me! I for one am honored to be considered uncivil and dishonest by you, because it shows I must be doing something right. You can keep up this poor innocent victim role all you want, but no one buys it. The Ungovernable Force 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never heard of an apology as being uncivil. That's a bizarre perspective, in my opinion. Now, do you actually have any evidence of bad faith on my part, or are you just blowing smoke? --AaronS 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's about you and your harrassment of me. You've apoligized three or four times yes. But, no more. It's not sincere because you continue to attack me. I'm not accepting any more apologies. I'm not going to apoligize to you for anything. I'll I'm doing is calling you out on what you're doing. Stop your attacks and you won't have to apologize anymore. RJII 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: One, and it was dropped because it was nonsense. This is the second. It will also be dropped. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Both cases have been initiated because they want to censor RJII --to keep him from editing Wikipedia because the sourced information he's providing conflicts with their POV --the "uncivility" claims and other such nonsense are just a convenient tool to help accomplish that. By the way, the RFC is nothing but a forum for the accusers and nitpickers to make fools of themselves. RJII 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my responsibility to bring in conflicting sources. It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period. If you think there are conflicting sources to be found, then you find them, and add them to the articles. That's how Wikipedia works. RJII 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but when you edit Wikipedia, you're supposed to present a neutral point of view. You're writing an encyclopaedia article. You need conflicting sources, especially when requested. --AaronS 18:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "It's not my responsibility to edit Wikipedia, period." In other words, I can pack up and fly back to New York if I wish. I don't have to be here. I don't have a responsibility to write anything in the articles whatsoever. I add sources that I find. If I haven't found sources that are conflicting, oh well. I can't add sources that I don't know exist. If you know of conflicting sources, then add them in. It's not my responsibility. RJII 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I always do. There's nothing I respect more than the NPOV policy. RJII 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfAr of a main editor of this article

message: I thought RJII would find this interesting, as he tends to give the opinion that most anarchists support a labor theory of value. This is a passage from Alexander Berkman, describing anarchist communism, in his work ABC of Anarchism:
:"But why not give each according to the value of his work?" you ask.
:Because there is no way by which value can be measured. That is the difference between value and price. Value is what a thing is worth, while price is what it can be sold or bought for in the market. What a thing is worth no one really can tell. Political economists generally claim that the value of a commodity is the amount of labour required to produce it, of "socially necessary labour," as Marx says. But evidently it is not a just standard of measurement. Suppose the carpenter worked three hours to make a kitchen chair, while the surgeon took only half an hour to perform an operation that saved your life. If the amount of labour used determines value, then the chair is worth more than your life. Obvious nonsense, of course. Even if you should count in the years of study and practice the surgeon needed to make him capable of performing the operation, how are you going to decide what "an hour of operating" is worth? The carpenter and mason also had to be trained before they could do their work properly, but you don't figure in those years of apprenticeship when you contract for some work with them. Besides, there is also to be considered the particular ability and aptitude that every worker, writer, artist or physician must exercise in his labours. That is a purely individual, personal factor. How are you going to estimate its value?
:That is why value cannot be determined. The same thing may be worth a lot to one person while it is worth nothing or very little to another. It may be worth much or little even to the same person, at different times. A diamond, a painting, or a book may be worth a great deal to one man and very little to another. A loaf of bread will be worth a great deal to you when you are hungry, and much less when you are not. Therefore the real value of a thing cannot be ascertained; it is an unknown quantity.
:But the price is easily found out. If there are five loaves of bread to be had and ten persons want to get a loaf each, the price of bread will rise. If there are ten loaves and only five buyers, then it will fall. Price depends on supply and demand.
:The exchange of commodities by means of prices leads to profit making, to taking advantage and exploitation; in short, to some form of capitalism. If you do away with profits, you cannot have any price system, nor any system of wages or payment. That means that exchange must be according to value. But as value is uncertain or not ascertainable, exchange must consequently be free, without "equal" value, since such does not exist. In other words, labour and its products must be exchanged without price, without profit, freely, according to necessity. This logically leads to ownership in common and to joint use. Which is a sensible, just, and equitable system, and is known as Communism.
Sarge Baldy 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't say that most anarchists support the labor theory of value. I say the American individualist anarchists are into the labor theory of value. The communists want to abolish exchange value altogether. The labor theory of value is irrelevant for the communists since property, trade, and money is abolished. RJII 02:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you made yourself a little confusing with comments such as "Simply because anarchists in the past have adhered to the labor theory of value doesn't mean you have to do so to be an anarchist."  Sarge Baldy 02:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, understood. RJII 03:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchist communism and Labor Theory of Value 

message: I just noticed Murray Bookchin is strangely absent from this page. Perhaps social ecology should be worked in? Sarge Baldy 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. Also should have something on parecon.Bengalski 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bookchin? 

message: MrVoluntarist, you argue that there should be an explanation on the talk page less than 15 minutes after editing the page. I think that this is a sound policy. You should follow it, too, though. After all, you changed the page, then did not explain your change on the talk page; my revert came roughly 40 minutes later. Your revert came 16 minutes after mine. While I do admit that I greedily exceeded the 15 minute policy by 1 minute, I hope that you show as much generosity as I have in the future. --AaronS 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My change didn't need a talk page component; I said everything that was necessary to explain the reasoning behind the change in the revert note.  It wasn't very complicated.  Now, I agree a fifteen minute rule is arbitrary, but I also feel it's too long to take to justify a change for which the revision note is insufficient.  When you make a change, you should have thought out your justification before making it.  You clearly did not do that.  When I first came back to my computer, I saw you made a change that referenced the talk page.  I checked it.  I waited.  It seemed like you had forgotten about the talk page, so I reverted.  Please try to avoid sending Wikipedia editors on wild goose chases for explanations. MrVoluntarist 01:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, not all of us have superfast computers and Internet connections. The textboxes necessary for editing on Wikipedia are extremely slow on my computer. Please try to have some patience. --AaronS 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd belive you except for your previous griping about your substandard wifi.  You sans-culotte, you!MrVoluntarist 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a USB wireless adapter is a luxury of the bourgeoisie alright. --AaronS 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griping about the "wifi in this area not being good enough" is about as bourgeois as you can get, I'm afraid. MrVoluntarist 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, actually, I did justify my change. And it's not a double-standard. Please, enough with the incendiary language. Do you want to bicker, or do you want to improve the article? --AaronS 01:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had not finished discussing me matter. Wikipedia is about consensus. MrVoluntarist 02:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why you shouldn't delete the work of other editors without discussion... I find it ironic that you are so apt to accuse me of double-standards. --AaronS 15:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also shouldn't add sources that violate your own standards.  Some people would interpret that as POV pushing. MrVoluntarist 15:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 minute revert rule? 

message: Some have accused collectivist anarchists of trying to create a 'monopoly upon all apolitical thought' and the attacks upon anarcho-capitalism are cited as proof of this campaign.
Needs a citation and smacks of weasel words. - FrancisTyers 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed pending citation

message: Where does the "anarcho-capitalist flag" come from? Who says that it is the flag of anarcho-capitalism? I am unaware of any battle of siezing of territory involving anarcho-capitalists; I am also unware of any anarcho-capitalist militias. Flags are typically associated with: When was it decided that this would be the flag of anarcho-capitalism? On Wikipedia? Flags are usually associated with nations, organizations, armies, battles, people, sports teams, etc. --AaronS 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I removed it, since there hasn't been a response, and since I can't find a source for it. It seems like original research or an invention of one or a few people. --AaronS 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't ever seen a version with the "Libertatis Æquilibritas" on it, but I've often seen the flag without it (see Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism). As for flags, anarchists have long used them, although generally people only know the red/black of syndicalism/communism or green/black one of environmental anarchism, since after all, anarcho-capitalists don't engage in protest and have no need for a flag (probably just devising one to "fit in"). Sarge Baldy 20:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is the Anarkokapitalistisk Front --a northern Europoean  "anarcho-capitalist/individualist anarchist" activist organization that uses the flag. RJII 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No disagreement here. I was only for including it as an excuse to get Rothbard's ugly face out. Unfortunately, that mug is much more representative of a/c as a whole. Sarge Baldy 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst any excuse to get rid of the picture of Rothbard is appealing, - and certainly the anarcho-capitalist flag is very amusing, I am afraid I have to agree that it has no place in the article.Harrypotter 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalist flag? 

message: Just as a note, that quote "from each according to his ability..." applies to anarchist communism, but it should be clarified somehow that Marx himself espoused a labor theory of value. Sarge Baldy 05:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx 

message: As this keeps coming up, how about a list of people 
assassinated by anarchists:
Umberto I of Italy killed by Gaetano Bresci; Archbishop Soldevila of Zaragoza, (probably) killed by 'Los Solidarios' (the affinity group of which Buenaventura Durruti was a member)
assassinated by definiite non-anarchists:
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria killed by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist; Alexander II of Russia, killed (on the seventh attempt) by members of Narodnaya Volya
assassinated by people controversially labelled anarchists:
William McKinley (killed by Leon Czolgosz, a registered Republican who admired Emma Goldman)Bengalski 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: assassinations

message: This pages has been edit a full page of history's worth of edits. An edit war is starting up again. I have protected the article and also removed the disputed tree, which is disuputed. If consensus can be made it should go in. If credible books can be found that directly support the diagram, even if they don't have it in chart form, then it is not Origional Research. Please keep it civil. Until then, it is just OR, which is against policy here. It may have to be modified or might not.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is sad that we can't work this out like reasonable adults, I'm grateful that you're keeping an eye on this. Thanks. --AaronS 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Since each of the claims implied by the tree are claimed to be original research, I thought I'd break it up so we can see what parts of it are justified by the literature and what parts are not.  Feel free to insert whatever relevant source you would like under each section. Sorry, forgot to sign. MrVoluntarist 02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted by User:Enochlau. I'll pretend you didn't suggest that someone here pressed to get it deleted. I wouldn't have put it up for discussion if I just wanted it deleted. I could have just done it myself under the precedent set by trees 02, 03, and 04. Sarge Baldy 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, someone certainly nominated it to be deleted, and someone here *cough cough* could have removed it from being considered for deletion, or at least recommended against it, so that we could discuss it rationally. MrVoluntarist 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't "considered for deletion", apparently FrancisTyers nominated it as a speedy delete yesterday. ALthough FrancisTyers is involved with this article, he is not (afaik) an anarchist, having only been involved in this page earlier through cabal mediation. He's also an administrator, and could have just deleted it. The point being that anyone could have removed the speedy delete tag, and you may as well be pointing your finger at yourself instead of anyone else. Sarge Baldy 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, except, not being an administrator, I'm not familiar with that specific intricacy regarding image speedy deletes.  But that's okay.  Because this won't happen again, right? MrVoluntarist 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just replaced it. Hogeye 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Hogeye, for helping to facilitate rational discussion. MrVoluntarist 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Some asshole deleted the tree again, but I replaced it. It must be some admin, since history was also deleted. Hogeye 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that no one delete the chart, since it's the what we're supposed to be disputing (why the article was locked up). We need to see it to argue over it. RJII 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that suggestion probably won't do much good here. It was deleted by User:Pathoschild. His edit summary notes that the reason he deleted it was because it was deleted before. I'll put a note in the image so it doesn't happen again. Sarge Baldy 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tucker's periodical also served as the main conduit of Stirnerite Egoism, of which Tucker became a proponent. This lead to a split in American Individualism - between the growing number of Egoists and the old guard of Spoonerian "Natural Lawyers".
=== Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner ===
Friedrich Nietzsche, the second great "superseder" of Stirner, was born in the same year (even in the same month) in which Stirner's "Der Einzige" appeared. However, during Nietzsche's youth, the entire Left Hegelian school of thought was generally not taken seriously, instead termed the madness of some Vormaerz outcast lecturers and riotous journalists. Annoyed by the "senility" of his fellow students, the young Nietzsche in contrast, in a letter extolled exactly those same eighteen-forties as being a "time full of intellectual spirit" in which he himself would gladly have been active. Thus, the direct contact with a veteran of Left Hegelian times was also a turning point for the future philosopher.  In October of 1865, Nietzsche had a long and intensive encounter with Eduard Mushacke, who in those days had belonged to the inner circle revolving around Bruno Bauer and had been friends with Stirner. The immediate result was a deep, intellectual crisis and a panicked "decision for philology and for Schopenhauer." - Bernd A. Laska, Max Stirner, a durable dissident
Since around Jan 2006 a rough English translation of Laska's detailed historical study 
"Nietzsche's initial crisis" is available. 
"It has been recently established that Nietzsche did read Stirner, although the signs of Stirner's influence were such that this had been previously presumed without historical evidence."
=== Rand was influenced by Nietzsche ===
"She was introduced to Nietzsche by a cousin, who informed her that "he beat you to all your ideas," and reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, she had found a kindred spirit. Nietzsche revered the heroic in man, he urged men to great purposes for their own happiness, he defended egoism, he condemned altruism, and he opposed the glorification of mediocrity. On the other hand, there was too much emphasis on feeling over reason, she thought, Neitzsche was too preoccupied with condemning the negative, and his praise of power made her uncomfortable...her sense of difference intensified. But, Nietzsche was still for her a poet and philosopher of individualism, and it is possible to trace in her earlier works up though Anthem (1938) occasional literary echoes of his writings, and some Nietzschean elements...Nietzsche articulated and expanded upon ideas she had already formulated and had been presenting to others...Nonetheless, the influence was real." (Allan Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand pp. 14, 18). RJII 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does. That's why there's a box around his name. Hogeye has also claimed that Molinari was an anarchist. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does there being a box around his name imply he's an anarchist?  I don't see a legend that says "box = anarchist".  Nor does it use "anarch-" to describe him.  And it's irrelevant what else Hogeye claims.  This section of the talk page is for documenting the claims of the chart in question, not every claim that Hogeye has ever made. MrVoluntarist 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even looked at the chart? The individuals with boxes are those that Hogeye deemed anarchists, and those without are not. Hogeye intended him to be considered an anarchist, and has said so. Hell, even if you want to continue disagreeing with the person who created the tree, then it's clear that the tree singles out one non-anarchist and effectively pushes a POV towards him. Sarge Baldy 02:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tree is in dispute.  Hogeye's brain is not. Let's focus. MrVoluntarist 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter. There are credible sources that say Monlinari is an anarchist. RJII 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to include that issue in discussion of the tree, here's the place to list your sources.  Not that I disagree with you, I just wanted to be able to keep it in one place. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And undoubtably there are many credible sources that say he wasn't. Therefore, by claiming that he was we're expressing a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Sarge, that's where you're wrong.  There is no source contesting that Molinari was an anarchist, or that he was an anarcho-capitalist.  Wikipedia editors can't even give an original research reason why he wasn't ancap. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, where's your source for that?  We can always modify the chart to account for disputed anarchists. RJII 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a beautiful and amazingly helpful chart that would be! --AaronS 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, to be honest I don't know how many sources say that. It'd be like finding sources to show Marx wasn't an anarchist. People don't bother arguing things that are already commonly accepted. If a few sources do bother to argue something, it's because it isn't commonly accepted. That's why you'll read some people say that Marx was an anarchist  while no one bothers arguing that he wasn't . That hardly concludes anything, except that people are more likely to make arguments against the status quo than defend the status quo against points that hardly receive popular attention. Sarge Baldy 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justifying the tree 

message: "In Boston, Tucker became politically involved with the 1872 presidential campaign of Horace Greeley, and made the acquaintance of the veteran individualist anarchists Josiah Warren and William B. Greene through attending a convention of the New England Labor Reform League in Boston, a veritable hotbed of individualists. Greene, who served as the chairman, made an immediate and deeply favorable impression upon the young M.I.T. student.(10) The introduction to both Greene and Warren had been facilitated by the abolitionist and labor reformer Ezra Heywood. Tucker would later look back upon these initial encounters as the pivotal point in his career as a radical. At the convention, Tucker purchased Greene's book entitled Mutual Banking and Warren's True Civilization, along with some of Heywood's pamphlets.
An ongoing association with Heywood, the publisher of the Princeton labor reform periodical The Word, soon followed.(11) From his involvement in the labor reform movement, Tucker became convinced that economic reform must underlie all other steps toward freedom. From a later admiration of the radical abolitionist Spooner, Tucker's voice acquired a radical anti-political edge as well. To these influences were added the European flavor of Herbert Spencer, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner, and Michael Bakounine." - Wendy McElroy, Benjamin Tucker, "Liberty," and Individualist Anarchism
Tucker was the first to translate into English Proudhon's What is Property?
"Liberty [Tucker's periodical] is...a journal brought into existence almost as a direct consequences of the teachings of Proudhon..." (Benjamin Tucker, Liberty I) RJII 17:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker was influenced by Proudhon 

message: "To the memory of my old friend and master, Josiah Warren, whose teachings were my first source of light, I gratefully dedicate this volume..." -Benjamin Tucker, dedication in Instead of a Book RJII 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tucker was influenced by Warren 

message: "She was introduced to Nietzsche by a cousin, who informed her that "he beat you to all your ideas," and reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra, she had found a kindred spirit. Nietzsche revered the heroic in man, he urged men to great purposes for their own happiness, he defended egoism, he condemned altruism, and he opposed the glorification of mediocrity. On the other hand, there was too much emphasis on feeling over reason, she thought, Neitzsche was too preoccupied with condemning the negative, and his praise of power made her uncomfortable...her sense of difference intensified. But, Nietzsche was still for her a poet and philosopher of individualism, and it is possible to trace in her earlier works up though Anthem (1938) occasional literary echoes of his writings, and some Nietzschean elements...Nietzsche articulated and expanded upon ideas she had already formulated and had been presenting to others...Nonetheless, the influence was real." (Allan Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand pp. 14, 18). RJII 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rand was influenced by Nietzsche 

message: "For Spooner was the last of the great natural rights theorists among anarchists, classical liberals, or moral theorists generally...Fortunately, we have the immortal Lysander Spooner, in his life and in his works, to guide us along the correct path." (Murray Rothbard, introduction to Lysander Spooner: Libertarian Pietist) RJII 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rothbard was influenced by Spooner 

message: ==== Stirner, Capitalist ====
==== Molinari, Anarchist ====
The tree doesn't say Molinari was an anarchist (nor Nietzsche, nor Rand, nor Marx).  Come to think of it, please don't add claims to this list that the tree doesn't make.  Let's justify it as is (or fail to), then move on to expanding it. MrVoluntarist 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. That's why there's a box around his name. Hogeye has also claimed that Molinari was an anarchist. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does there being a box around his name imply he's an anarchist?  I don't see a legend that says "box = anarchist".  Nor does it use "anarch-" to describe him.  And it's irrelevant what else Hogeye claims.  This section of the talk page is for documenting the claims of the chart in question, not every claim that Hogeye has ever made. MrVoluntarist 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even looked at the chart? The individuals with boxes are those that Hogeye deemed anarchists, and those without are not. Hogeye intended him to be considered an anarchist, and has said so. Hell, even if you want to continue disagreeing with the person who created the tree, then it's clear that the tree singles out one non-anarchist and effectively pushes a POV towards him. Sarge Baldy 02:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tree is in dispute.  Hogeye's brain is not. Let's focus. MrVoluntarist 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter. There are credible sources that say Monlinari is an anarchist. RJII 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to include that issue in discussion of the tree, here's the place to list your sources.  Not that I disagree with you, I just wanted to be able to keep it in one place. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And undoubtably there are many credible sources that say he wasn't. Therefore, by claiming that he was we're expressing a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Sarge, that's where you're wrong.  There is no source contesting that Molinari was an anarchist, or that he was an anarcho-capitalist.  Wikipedia editors can't even give an original research reason why he wasn't ancap. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, where's your source for that?  We can always modify the chart to account for disputed anarchists. RJII 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a beautiful and amazingly helpful chart that would be! --AaronS 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, to be honest I don't know how many sources say that. It'd be like finding sources to show Marx wasn't an anarchist. People don't bother arguing things that are already commonly accepted. If a few sources do bother to argue something, it's because it isn't commonly accepted. That's why you'll read some people say that Marx was an anarchist  while no one bothers arguing that he wasn't . That hardly concludes anything, except that people are more likely to make arguments against the status quo than defend the status quo against points that hardly receive popular attention. Sarge Baldy 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X was a Y 

message: The tree doesn't say Molinari was an anarchist (nor Nietzsche, nor Rand, nor Marx).  Come to think of it, please don't add claims to this list that the tree doesn't make.  Let's justify it as is (or fail to), then move on to expanding it. MrVoluntarist 02:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. That's why there's a box around his name. Hogeye has also claimed that Molinari was an anarchist. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does there being a box around his name imply he's an anarchist?  I don't see a legend that says "box = anarchist".  Nor does it use "anarch-" to describe him.  And it's irrelevant what else Hogeye claims.  This section of the talk page is for documenting the claims of the chart in question, not every claim that Hogeye has ever made. MrVoluntarist 02:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even looked at the chart? The individuals with boxes are those that Hogeye deemed anarchists, and those without are not. Hogeye intended him to be considered an anarchist, and has said so. Hell, even if you want to continue disagreeing with the person who created the tree, then it's clear that the tree singles out one non-anarchist and effectively pushes a POV towards him. Sarge Baldy 02:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tree is in dispute.  Hogeye's brain is not. Let's focus. MrVoluntarist 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter. There are credible sources that say Monlinari is an anarchist. RJII 02:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you want to include that issue in discussion of the tree, here's the place to list your sources.  Not that I disagree with you, I just wanted to be able to keep it in one place. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And undoubtably there are many credible sources that say he wasn't. Therefore, by claiming that he was we're expressing a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Sarge, that's where you're wrong.  There is no source contesting that Molinari was an anarchist, or that he was an anarcho-capitalist.  Wikipedia editors can't even give an original research reason why he wasn't ancap. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, where's your source for that?  We can always modify the chart to account for disputed anarchists. RJII 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a beautiful and amazingly helpful chart that would be! --AaronS 05:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, to be honest I don't know how many sources say that. It'd be like finding sources to show Marx wasn't an anarchist. People don't bother arguing things that are already commonly accepted. If a few sources do bother to argue something, it's because it isn't commonly accepted. That's why you'll read some people say that Marx was an anarchist  while no one bothers arguing that he wasn't . That hardly concludes anything, except that people are more likely to make arguments against the status quo than defend the status quo against points that hardly receive popular attention. Sarge Baldy 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molinari, Anarchist