Talk:Individualist anarchism/Archive 1

message: I removed the following from the page:
:Modern individualist anarchists tend to tell both libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists to stop arguing and just leave each other be, for in a free society, each and every one would live under the system one prefers, and experience would teach every individual which system he personally prefers to live in. It doesn't matter which system is chosen by the majority, as long as each individual's freedom to choose is respected.
If someone would like to make it read more like something that should be in a 'pedia, and less like someone trying to make a personal statement, I'll gladly let it go back into the article. millerc 01:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern individualist anarchists believe both libertarian socialists and anarcho-capitalists should stop arguing over capitalism and socialism. They believe in a completely free society, each person can live under the system one prefers. It doesn't matter to individualist anarchists which system is chosen by the majority, as long as each individual's freedom to choose is respected.
Q0 09:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sentence 

message: This article was obviously written by the totalitarian so-called "anarchists" as more of a response to true anarchy (anarcho-capitalism, or individualist anarchism). Notice how they try to claim the term 'individualist anarchism' as their own, despite the fact 'individualism' and 'socialism' as used by normal people are diametrically opposed to one another. --Anonymous via Tor
:  Indeed, how could it be that socialists anarchists claim individualism as their own when Tucker called himself a socialist and Spooner denounced capitalism?  You could try learning a little bit about the history of anarchism before you posted comments like this, but what would be the fun in making educated claims?  Kev 16:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a rewrite 

message: I've seen a very very limited group of people, including myself use the following symbol to represent Invidiualist Anarchism, if anyone's interested (i don't think it should be included in the article, really. maybe if it spreads in the future, but i thought i'd at least archive it):
center|
Lockeownzj00 04:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: - - Red1 D Oon 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individualist Anarchist Symbol 

message: "However, most individualists rejected interest and all endorsed a form of private property stemming from Proudhon's conception of personal possession, which is distinct from the private property entitlement advocated by anarcho-capitalists."  There has to be a better way of saying whatever this is trying to say. What is it trying to say exactly?  .."Proudhon's conception of personal possession"? .."property entitlement"?? "rejected interest"? Proudhon doesn't reject interest, he rejects government enforced banking monopoly which he believes keeps rates unnaturally high   The whole sentence is bizarre  ..it doesn't make much sense. RJII 03:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You really haven't ever read Proudhon have you RJ?  Why the hell are you continuing to remove and edit articles about him and his ideas when you don't even have a passing familiarity with them?  Kev 08:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read Proudhon. Why won't you explain the sentence? Either you're a horrible writer or you have no clue what you're saying, or both. Which is it? RJII 13:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   If you don't already know what possession is, and you don't already know that Tucker advocated possession in the tradition of Proudhon, then you have not read Proudhon, or you have not read Tucker, or you have not read either.  I'm guessing the latter.  There is nothing at all bizarre about the sentence, all of the parts you questioned are standard terms for individualists.  If you want to learn more about individualism, I suggest you make the effort to do so.  Kev 18:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. The sentence is long gone. RJII 20:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  please explain this sentence 

message: When is the CIA, User:RJII and cohorts going to stop making POV articles like this one? Inapproriate?! -max rspct 12:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is POV about it? RJII 15:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Other than the fact that it includes NO new information that is not already present in the individualist anarchism, individualism and anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-capitalist article?  How about the fact that it exists merely to put your own personal spin on the information already in all those articles?  Kev 09:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy is too funny. RJII 16:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[American individualist anarchism]] 

message: Kev, why do you insist on deleting this sentence:  "Warren initiated the American tradition, though Proudhon did have influence subsequently." Do you have some information that there was someone before Warren? According to historians, Warren was the first and he was working independently of Proudhon. Let me guess, you think this has something to do with an anarcho-capitalism conspiracy. LOL. RJII 03:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly not attempting to engage in a dialogue.  When you are able to restrain yourself I would be happy to explain why the claim that Warren "initiated" the "American tradition" of individualism is POV.  Kev 09:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let's hear it. Who was the first American individualist anarchist? RJII 14:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kev's nitpicking 

message: I put the worldview tag on the article. I feel it focuses too much on the Americans. Nothing is said of Godwin, little is said of Stirner, and nothing is said of Proudhon. While most of the individualists are Americans, the others are important as well. I'll try to add some stuff. RJII 05:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  worldview