Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 17

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 06 and Nov 06.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 18. Thank you. --Saswann 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

message: The article states:
Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian. For example, individualist anarchists Kevin Carson and Ken Knudson argue that capitalism cannot occur without state power being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer. (emphasis added)
However, the article Kevin Carson states: 
Carson has written sympathetically about several anarcho-capitalists, arguing that they use the word "capitalism" in a different sense than he does and that they represent a legitimate strain of anarchism.
--85.25.111.108 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. There is no contradiction there. Carson defines capitalism like this: "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist." Anarcho-capitalists are also opposed to state coercion. Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary trade. They both advocate market economies, but Carson thinks there would be no profit because he is still holding on to the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists think there would still be profit and that Carson is a terrible economist. DTC 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I guess it should be removed. Carson doesn't claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at that section "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" that section should probably be removed. It doesn't really make sense. If it's a criticism of anarchism capitalism arguing that it's not a form of anarchism then it should be in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism" section. Don't you think? DTC 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay. Question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is quite important for some people and deserves its own section. -- Vision Thing -- 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about calling the section "Claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism" then? "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" is very vague. DTC 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Kropotkin was a blooming idiot. Disquietude 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism 

message: I was looking for a wikipage on Ancap, Uruguay's state-owned petroleum company, and I ended up here. Beats me, never had really heard of ancap to describe anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, I think we should take some steps aiming at disambiguating this issue. Regards, Lomibz 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I just made a disambiguation page for Ancap. Hogeye 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate 

message: The last paragraph of the lead ignores the controversy surrounding anarcho-capitalism's classification as anarchist (not all definitions demonstrate that ancap is anarchist).  It also tries to devalue anarchists' opposition to anarcho-capitalism, saying that it's merely because of a "sectarian bias", instead of explaining why they actually oppose it.  It also cites Wikipedia, which is unacceptable.  Overall, the lead sounds very tendentious, and it could be indicative of the bias throughout the rest of the article (I'll do a more thorough analysis later). A Featured Article Review is surely in order. -- WGee 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's easy to fix. Just take out the claim that the reason is because of sectarian bias.Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hogeye 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concerns have not been properly addressed.  The last paragraph still says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism "by definition"—but by who's definition?  And, you can't ignore the view of those publications that do not regard anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism.  The former lead properly addressed the controversy in a neutral and effective way.  So until that former lead is restored, I will continue to dispute the article's neutrality.  There are also some other parts of the article whose neutrality I question.  In the future, please don't hastily remove the POV tag without first consulting the one who raised the complaint. -- WGee 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason there is a section entitled "Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism".  However, the purpose of this article is not to demonsrate that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism: it's not an essay.  More importantly, though, the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section has been deleted—another attempt to hide the viewpoints of non-anarcho-capitalists. -- WGee 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's claimed that anarcho-capitalism is commonly considered a form of anarchism then it needs sources. One or two sources isn't going to back up a claim like that. Since the anti-capitalists try to take out claims that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then those sources are necessary. They try to push their minority viewpoint on the article. DTC 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the lead states that "It is considered a type of individualist anarchism."  Yet there are many people (anti-capitalists in particular) who deny this statement.  (By the way, in a Featured Article, weasel words should not be used). -- WGee 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that it's considered a type of individualist anarchism. THat's the view of scholars. The sources are at the bottom of the article but you want to remove them. Of course some anarcho-communists are going to say it's not real anarchism, because they're communists. DTC 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, there are plenty of sources at the bottom that seem to support the claim. I thusly removed the NPOV tag, since no sources are presented by you claiming otherwise. Intangible 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is necessary to say who, exactly, made the statement, and then to provide sources.  I have no problem with you saying that "so-and-so says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism."  But you cannot use weasel words to suggest that the whole world believes that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.  And if you refuse to rectify this problem and others in thier entirety, this article will have to be stripped of its FA status. -- WGee 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? The sources are right there. Those sources at bottom section of the article all say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. DTC 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even bother to read my last few posts?  I don't care how many sources you procure: that fact remains that anti-capitalists do not believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and that viewpoint is being hidden.  Also, why did either you or Intangible insert a contraction into the lead?  FAs are supposed to have "brilliant prose", not to mention that encyclopedic articles must never use contractions. -- WGee 00:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be disruptive here, this last edit by yours  was really uncalled for. Intangible 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was perfectly called for, because you are on probation for tendentious editing. -- WGee 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted a lot of progress this article has made.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Although I appreciate your good intentions, I feel that the article has degraded in quality since I last worked on it.  An article doesn't always get better with time; sometimes it gets worse (see Nikodemos' user page for more information). -- WGee 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you justify what you're doing? Tell us each sentence you have a problem with and we'll look at them one at a time. It seems to be that you're just being careless.Anarcho-capitalism 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: ===Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism===
====As a form of individualist anarchism====
* Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
* Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21 & pp. 13-14, 2002
* Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, p.21 1991.
* Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1991, , p. 11 
* Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
* Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) , p. 135
* Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 , p. 91
* Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
* Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications 
* Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
* Brooks, Frank H. (ed) (1994) The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908), Transaction Publishers, Preface p. xi
* Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
* Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
* Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004, pp. 118-119
* Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004
* Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
* Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4
* Foldvary, Fred E. What Aren't You an Anarchist?, Progress Report, reprinted in The Free Liberal, Feb. 14, 2006
* Levy, Carl. Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006  MS Encarta (UK).
* Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
====As a form of anarchism in general====
* Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
* Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7 
* DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, John Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117 & 123
* Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The * Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99
* Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336 
* Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11
* Sanders, John T.; Narveson, For and Against the State, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1996,  
* Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137
----
I say that these sources are unnecessary because the purpose of this article is not to discuss whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism; that is not an important theme.  I say that it violates WP:NPOV because it argues that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism while excluding the opposing view.  Even if the opposing view was included, this whole section is unnecessary, as I said: the ancap/anarchism controversy is already well documented without it. -- WGee 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim is made that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Don't you understand that?Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think it follows from the definition of anarchism. It needs no source. But... that stuff should go into the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article if it's not there already. Hogeye 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is crap. I think that's what they call a "POV fork."Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section entitled Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, the one that you keep trying to delete without reason.  Read that section and its corresponding article before you make ridiculous accusations. -- WGee 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting information out of that section for good reason. It's bad information. It's false. For example it gives a source of Barbara Goodwin as saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism but she doesn't say that. She says it is a form of anarchism. That whole little section there is pretty nonsensical.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only Barbara Goodwin who interjects her opinion, but several other people, as well.  You cannot delete all the other sources because you disagree with this one.  Saying that the section is "pretty nonsensical" is no reason at all. -- WGee 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other opinions are misrepresented as well. Kevin Carson, for example, doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That shouldnt have its own section anyway, because it's a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, so why not just delete that section and say what needs to be said in the Criticism section?Anarcho-capitalism 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you reverting it back? It's full of false information. Look at what Goodwin actually says: ""Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs."  Please stop putting bad information back into Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove that specific source, or re-word it.  Don't delete the whole section and dramatically alter the lead to say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.  That's a highly contentious claim, not a fact; and in order to comply with NPOV policy, the opposing views must be included in a neutral manner.  The way it's set up now is fine: several scholars classify ancap as a form of anarchism, but anti-capitalist anarchists believe that capitalism is authoritarian and thus incompatible with anarchism.  Don't try to hide the viewpoint of anarchists, which is well documented. -- WGee 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also keep inserting the section Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, even though this article is not intended to be a persuasive essay.  You keep deleting my extensive copy-editing, as well—which is necessary if you want this article to remain featured. -- WGee 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care whether it's "featured" or not. I care about whether it's correct or not. You're putting bad information into the article. That section is nonsense. It serves no purpose and it distorts what the source are saying. If someone is going to claim anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Nothing else in that section makes any sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would this sentence not belong in the Criticism section: "Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian." Why are there what amounts to two Criticism sections?Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been my belief all along. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is POV and it directs the reader to a POV fork. Any criticism of anarcho-capitalism should go in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section." DTC 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is also WP:OR, synthesizing the idea that "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" based on statement "capitalism cannot occur without state power being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer." Intangible 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it sources Kevin Carson. Carson defines capitalism as "It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market." He's talking about capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism. Not to mention that he has a perverse definition of capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would be a little bit conservative to just linking to website. I've not looked into Kevin Carson, but unless he has previously published on anarchism in scholarly journals etc., it is best to avoid the use of these kind of sources. Intangible 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also it had Chomsky as a source that it is not anarchism, but Chomsky in "Chomsky on Anarchism" says it is "a strain of anarchism." He even says it is the only anarchist movement that has survived and the "left anarchism" has been killed off.Anarcho-capitalism 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: but there's a box in the first section with all of the different names. -- WGee 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then something in the first sentence needs to be pointed to that box, because not everybody knows it as "anarcho-capitalism." I think at least "free market anarchism" needs to be mentioned because that it a very popular name for it. Antistate.com which is an anarcho-capitalist site doesn't call it anarcho-capitalism, but "market anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Market anarchism" is too vague a name because markets can exist outside of capitalism.  Anyway, anyone will know that they've found the right page after reading the lead; if they're too lazy to do that, that's too bad for them. -- WGee 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. The point is that it is a synonym. When anyone talks of "free market anarchism" they're talking about what is otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And "individualist anarchism" is the same way. Most people who call themselves individualist anarchists are what you would call anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so, but this is where the ancap/anarchism controversy comes into play: most anarchists reject any conflation of anarchism and capitalism.  As I've said before, this controversy needs to be documented in detail, and it was documented in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism section, until you deleted it. -- WGee 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, take out the sources if they're not what they claim to be; don't delete the entire section, thereby deleting the social anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that section is about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then that's what I did. I took out the sources that have nothing to do with that.Anarcho-capitalism 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you said in your edit summary, several of the sources that you deleted do argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.  All of the sources that I have restored in my last edit either say explictly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism or they say that anarcho-capitalism (or capitalism itself) is authoritarian and, therefore, not anarchist.  Also, please note that the section is not only devoted to the labelling controversy, but also to describing the differences between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchist thought. -- WGee 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your notion is WP:OR. I can easily provide (see Talk:Anarchism archive) for a scholarly article that says that anti-authoritarianism is not central to anarchism. You are synthesizing all kinds of ideas here, based on your POV. Intangible 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple deductive reasoning is not original research.  Anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian; therefore, an authoritarian economic system cannot be anarchist.  Which do you disagree with: the premise or the conclusion? -- WGee 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voluntary trade is the antithesis of authoritarianism. What are you talking about?Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the cited anarchists believe that capitalism is inherently authoritarian, they must also believe that anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian.  They are not necessarily talking about trade, but about the corporate structure. -- WGee 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. A criticism of capitalism is not necessarily a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. The Kevin Carson source that is in there is criticism state intervention in the economy, which anarcho-capitalists also criticize. He's not criticizing anarcho-capitalism at all. Anyway, I correct his position in the article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ancap/anarchism section should remain until the fate of the main article is decided.  Also, I removed Carson's opinions, which aren't directed towards anarcho-capitalism, as you pointed out through your edits (btw, don't edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.) -- WGee 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the criticism section and the ancap/anarchism section need to be expanded. -- WGee 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary, POV section 

message: ====As a form of individualist anarchism====
* Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
* Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21 & pp. 13-14, 2002
* Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, p.21 1991.
* Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1991, , p. 11 
* Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
* Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) , p. 135
* Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 , p. 91
* Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
* Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications 
* Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
* Brooks, Frank H. (ed) (1994) The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908), Transaction Publishers, Preface p. xi
* Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
* Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
* Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004, pp. 118-119
* Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004
* Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
* Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4
* Foldvary, Fred E. What Aren't You an Anarchist?, Progress Report, reprinted in The Free Liberal, Feb. 14, 2006
* Levy, Carl. Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006  MS Encarta (UK).
* Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
====As a form of anarchism in general====
* Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
* Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7 
* DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, John Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117 & 123
* Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The * Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99
* Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336 
* Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11
* Sanders, John T.; Narveson, For and Against the State, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1996,  
* Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137
----
I say that these sources are unnecessary because the purpose of this article is not to discuss whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism; that is not an important theme.  I say that it violates WP:NPOV because it argues that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism while excluding the opposing view.  Even if the opposing view was included, this whole section is unnecessary, as I said: the ancap/anarchism controversy is already well documented without it. -- WGee 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim is made that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Don't you understand that?Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think it follows from the definition of anarchism. It needs no source. But... that stuff should go into the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article if it's not there already. Hogeye 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is crap. I think that's what they call a "POV fork."Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section entitled Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, the one that you keep trying to delete without reason.  Read that section and its corresponding article before you make ridiculous accusations. -- WGee 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting information out of that section for good reason. It's bad information. It's false. For example it gives a source of Barbara Goodwin as saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism but she doesn't say that. She says it is a form of anarchism. That whole little section there is pretty nonsensical.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only Barbara Goodwin who interjects her opinion, but several other people, as well.  You cannot delete all the other sources because you disagree with this one.  Saying that the section is "pretty nonsensical" is no reason at all. -- WGee 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other opinions are misrepresented as well. Kevin Carson, for example, doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That shouldnt have its own section anyway, because it's a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, so why not just delete that section and say what needs to be said in the Criticism section?Anarcho-capitalism 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you reverting it back? It's full of false information. Look at what Goodwin actually says: ""Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs."  Please stop putting bad information back into Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove that specific source, or re-word it.  Don't delete the whole section and dramatically alter the lead to say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.  That's a highly contentious claim, not a fact; and in order to comply with NPOV policy, the opposing views must be included in a neutral manner.  The way it's set up now is fine: several scholars classify ancap as a form of anarchism, but anti-capitalist anarchists believe that capitalism is authoritarian and thus incompatible with anarchism.  Don't try to hide the viewpoint of anarchists, which is well documented. -- WGee 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also keep inserting the section Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, even though this article is not intended to be a persuasive essay.  You keep deleting my extensive copy-editing, as well—which is necessary if you want this article to remain featured. -- WGee 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care whether it's "featured" or not. I care about whether it's correct or not. You're putting bad information into the article. That section is nonsense. It serves no purpose and it distorts what the source are saying. If someone is going to claim anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Nothing else in that section makes any sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would this sentence not belong in the Criticism section: "Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian." Why are there what amounts to two Criticism sections?Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been my belief all along. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is POV and it directs the reader to a POV fork. Any criticism of anarcho-capitalism should go in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section." DTC 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is also WP:OR, synthesizing the idea that "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" based on statement "capitalism cannot occur without state power being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer." Intangible 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it sources Kevin Carson. Carson defines capitalism as "It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market." He's talking about capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism. Not to mention that he has a perverse definition of capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would be a little bit conservative to just linking to website. I've not looked into Kevin Carson, but unless he has previously published on anarchism in scholarly journals etc., it is best to avoid the use of these kind of sources. Intangible 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also it had Chomsky as a source that it is not anarchism, but Chomsky in "Chomsky on Anarchism" says it is "a strain of anarchism." He even says it is the only anarchist movement that has survived and the "left anarchism" has been killed off.Anarcho-capitalism 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: but there's a box in the first section with all of the different names. -- WGee 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then something in the first sentence needs to be pointed to that box, because not everybody knows it as "anarcho-capitalism." I think at least "free market anarchism" needs to be mentioned because that it a very popular name for it. Antistate.com which is an anarcho-capitalist site doesn't call it anarcho-capitalism, but "market anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Market anarchism" is too vague a name because markets can exist outside of capitalism.  Anyway, anyone will know that they've found the right page after reading the lead; if they're too lazy to do that, that's too bad for them. -- WGee 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. The point is that it is a synonym. When anyone talks of "free market anarchism" they're talking about what is otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And "individualist anarchism" is the same way. Most people who call themselves individualist anarchists are what you would call anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so, but this is where the ancap/anarchism controversy comes into play: most anarchists reject any conflation of anarchism and capitalism.  As I've said before, this controversy needs to be documented in detail, and it was documented in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism section, until you deleted it. -- WGee 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, take out the sources if they're not what they claim to be; don't delete the entire section, thereby deleting the social anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that section is about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then that's what I did. I took out the sources that have nothing to do with that.Anarcho-capitalism 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you said in your edit summary, several of the sources that you deleted do argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.  All of the sources that I have restored in my last edit either say explictly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism or they say that anarcho-capitalism (or capitalism itself) is authoritarian and, therefore, not anarchist.  Also, please note that the section is not only devoted to the labelling controversy, but also to describing the differences between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchist thought. -- WGee 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your notion is WP:OR. I can easily provide (see Talk:Anarchism archive) for a scholarly article that says that anti-authoritarianism is not central to anarchism. You are synthesizing all kinds of ideas here, based on your POV. Intangible 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple deductive reasoning is not original research.  Anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian; therefore, an authoritarian economic system cannot be anarchist.  Which do you disagree with: the premise or the conclusion? -- WGee 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voluntary trade is the antithesis of authoritarianism. What are you talking about?Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the cited anarchists believe that capitalism is inherently authoritarian, they must also believe that anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian.  They are not necessarily talking about trade, but about the corporate structure. -- WGee 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. A criticism of capitalism is not necessarily a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. The Kevin Carson source that is in there is criticism state intervention in the economy, which anarcho-capitalists also criticize. He's not criticizing anarcho-capitalism at all. Anyway, I correct his position in the article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ancap/anarchism section should remain until the fate of the main article is decided.  Also, I removed Carson's opinions, which aren't directed towards anarcho-capitalism, as you pointed out through your edits (btw, don't edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.) -- WGee 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the criticism section and the ancap/anarchism section need to be expanded. -- WGee 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism

message: * Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
* Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7 
* DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, John Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117 & 123
* Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The * Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99
* Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336 
* Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11
* Sanders, John T.; Narveson, For and Against the State, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1996,  
* Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137
----
I say that these sources are unnecessary because the purpose of this article is not to discuss whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism; that is not an important theme.  I say that it violates WP:NPOV because it argues that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism while excluding the opposing view.  Even if the opposing view was included, this whole section is unnecessary, as I said: the ancap/anarchism controversy is already well documented without it. -- WGee 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the claim is made that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Don't you understand that?Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think it follows from the definition of anarchism. It needs no source. But... that stuff should go into the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article if it's not there already. Hogeye 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is crap. I think that's what they call a "POV fork."Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section entitled Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, the one that you keep trying to delete without reason.  Read that section and its corresponding article before you make ridiculous accusations. -- WGee 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting information out of that section for good reason. It's bad information. It's false. For example it gives a source of Barbara Goodwin as saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism but she doesn't say that. She says it is a form of anarchism. That whole little section there is pretty nonsensical.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only Barbara Goodwin who interjects her opinion, but several other people, as well.  You cannot delete all the other sources because you disagree with this one.  Saying that the section is "pretty nonsensical" is no reason at all. -- WGee 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other opinions are misrepresented as well. Kevin Carson, for example, doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That shouldnt have its own section anyway, because it's a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, so why not just delete that section and say what needs to be said in the Criticism section?Anarcho-capitalism 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you reverting it back? It's full of false information. Look at what Goodwin actually says: ""Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs."  Please stop putting bad information back into Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove that specific source, or re-word it.  Don't delete the whole section and dramatically alter the lead to say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism.  That's a highly contentious claim, not a fact; and in order to comply with NPOV policy, the opposing views must be included in a neutral manner.  The way it's set up now is fine: several scholars classify ancap as a form of anarchism, but anti-capitalist anarchists believe that capitalism is authoritarian and thus incompatible with anarchism.  Don't try to hide the viewpoint of anarchists, which is well documented. -- WGee 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also keep inserting the section Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, even though this article is not intended to be a persuasive essay.  You keep deleting my extensive copy-editing, as well—which is necessary if you want this article to remain featured. -- WGee 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care whether it's "featured" or not. I care about whether it's correct or not. You're putting bad information into the article. That section is nonsense. It serves no purpose and it distorts what the source are saying. If someone is going to claim anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Nothing else in that section makes any sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would this sentence not belong in the Criticism section: "Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian." Why are there what amounts to two Criticism sections?Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been my belief all along. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is POV and it directs the reader to a POV fork. Any criticism of anarcho-capitalism should go in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section." DTC 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is also WP:OR, synthesizing the idea that "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" based on statement "capitalism cannot occur without state power being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer." Intangible 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it sources Kevin Carson. Carson defines capitalism as "It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market." He's talking about capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism. Not to mention that he has a perverse definition of capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would be a little bit conservative to just linking to website. I've not looked into Kevin Carson, but unless he has previously published on anarchism in scholarly journals etc., it is best to avoid the use of these kind of sources. Intangible 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also it had Chomsky as a source that it is not anarchism, but Chomsky in "Chomsky on Anarchism" says it is "a strain of anarchism." He even says it is the only anarchist movement that has survived and the "left anarchism" has been killed off.Anarcho-capitalism 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: but there's a box in the first section with all of the different names. -- WGee 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then something in the first sentence needs to be pointed to that box, because not everybody knows it as "anarcho-capitalism." I think at least "free market anarchism" needs to be mentioned because that it a very popular name for it. Antistate.com which is an anarcho-capitalist site doesn't call it anarcho-capitalism, but "market anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Market anarchism" is too vague a name because markets can exist outside of capitalism.  Anyway, anyone will know that they've found the right page after reading the lead; if they're too lazy to do that, that's too bad for them. -- WGee 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point. The point is that it is a synonym. When anyone talks of "free market anarchism" they're talking about what is otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And "individualist anarchism" is the same way. Most people who call themselves individualist anarchists are what you would call anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so, but this is where the ancap/anarchism controversy comes into play: most anarchists reject any conflation of anarchism and capitalism.  As I've said before, this controversy needs to be documented in detail, and it was documented in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism section, until you deleted it. -- WGee 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, take out the sources if they're not what they claim to be; don't delete the entire section, thereby deleting the social anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that section is about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then that's what I did. I took out the sources that have nothing to do with that.Anarcho-capitalism 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what you said in your edit summary, several of the sources that you deleted do argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.  All of the sources that I have restored in my last edit either say explictly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism or they say that anarcho-capitalism (or capitalism itself) is authoritarian and, therefore, not anarchist.  Also, please note that the section is not only devoted to the labelling controversy, but also to describing the differences between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchist thought. -- WGee 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your notion is WP:OR. I can easily provide (see Talk:Anarchism archive) for a scholarly article that says that anti-authoritarianism is not central to anarchism. You are synthesizing all kinds of ideas here, based on your POV. Intangible 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple deductive reasoning is not original research.  Anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian; therefore, an authoritarian economic system cannot be anarchist.  Which do you disagree with: the premise or the conclusion? -- WGee 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voluntary trade is the antithesis of authoritarianism. What are you talking about?Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the cited anarchists believe that capitalism is inherently authoritarian, they must also believe that anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian.  They are not necessarily talking about trade, but about the corporate structure. -- WGee 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. A criticism of capitalism is not necessarily a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. The Kevin Carson source that is in there is criticism state intervention in the economy, which anarcho-capitalists also criticize. He's not criticizing anarcho-capitalism at all. Anyway, I correct his position in the article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ancap/anarchism section should remain until the fate of the main article is decided.  Also, I removed Carson's opinions, which aren't directed towards anarcho-capitalism, as you pointed out through your edits (btw, don't edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.) -- WGee 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the criticism section and the ancap/anarchism section need to be expanded. -- WGee 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As a form of anarchism in general

message: Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Since there is no portal or to-do list for anarcho-capitalists, I'll make this brief mention. The article on Market failure needs some work, so for those looking to do some cleanup, you might visit there. --RayBirks 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market "failure" 

message: What's the TAG for? The article doesn't seem to be POV. Just putting a POV tag to a FA without explanation on the talk page is bordering on vandalism. Intangible 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. WGee is threatening to report any of us who dare to remove the tag to the administrators. Yet he won't say what his specific objections are. Doctors without suspenders 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed and explained my objections, as both of you know:Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted several instances of the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby violating WP:NPOV: , , , , .  Also, most of your edits are either verbose; redundant; written in an unencyclopedic, informal tone; and syntactically incorrect and awkward.  I will, therefore, insert a "cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop being disruptive, especially you, Intangible.  You're very close to being reported for violating the terms of your probation. -- WGee 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it seems that those sources where from highly partisan writers. There are enough credible neutral sources saying that individual anarchist are in favor of free markets. Somehow Ward takes the marginal view that somehow this not the case. The only POV comes from Ward being used as reference here, for saying individualist anarchists don't believe in free markets. Please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Intangible 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to his objections but he hasn't responded back. As he said above, he refuses to. He'd rather just put a POV banner on the article. Again, the reason I removed the Ward source is because there was no page number to verify it. I have the book and I don't see him saying anywhere that capitalism isn't a free market. Why would he? Capitalism is defined as being a free market.Anarcho-capitalism 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should have just removed that one clause rather than the whole thing.  But it seems that you will use any excuse to delete the anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the rest of the sentence was wrong too. Not all of the 19th century individualists were mutualists. Secondly, because there was no page number. I would think a featured article should be of high quality, which would include the sources having page numbers. I don't know what you're talking by saying I'm deleting an anarchist viewpoint.Anarcho-capitalism 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what he means by deleting an anarchist viewpoint either. I'm an anarchist and I don't have that viewpoint. WGee is not an anarchist and yet he claims to know what anarchist viewpoints are.  Doctors  without suspenders 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But do you have a source, anarcho-capitalism, saying that individualist anarchists did not "mistrust capitalism"?  If so, that would still not be a legitimate reason to delete the source; you should merely juxtapose the two.  Moreover, that there is no page number does not make the reference invalid or nonexistent.  The proper solution, rather than deletion, would be to ask the editor who originally inserted the reference to reveal the page number. -- WGee 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "mistrust capitalism" mean? I don't know what it means, and I doubt anyone else does either. All in all it was a meaningless sentence. Again, I have that book and there are only a few pages devoted to anarcho-capitalistm, what that sentence said is just not in there. As I said, it's already explained what the difference is between 19th century form and the anarcho-capitalist form of individualist anarchism. I actually rewrote much of that section in order to clarify what the difference is. You know, I find it really strange that you're condemning me from removing a sentence that was incoherent and was not sourced properly, but then you deleted my well-cited edits in your massive reversion. So, let me ask you, why did you delete, for example, this sentence: "The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants." (Razeen, Sally. Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History, Routledge (UK) , 1998, p. 17)??? Any other reason besides I didn't get your permission first to put it in the article? Anarcho-capitalism 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Whatever happened to the opening image with the dollar/yin-yang?  The top part of the article looks extremely dry and would benefit from the image's return. -- WillMagic  10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Image 

message: I've removed the "anarchist symbol." Although the intro might seem dull like that, I don't this one was particularly neutral or even much used among ancaps. I like the amagi symbol instead, but its use is too prominently linked to Liberty Fund, alas. Intangible 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it either. I think it's ridiculous to associate anarcho-capitalism with the ying yang.Anarcho-capitalism 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Said symbol always seemed anti-anarcho-capitalist, as it includes the symbol for the dollar, which is a state-sponsored fiat currency. Silver or gold maybe, but never the dollar. -- RayBirks 16:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anarchist symbol 

message: A  conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment all you want, but you're not going to be able to get me kicked off Wikipedia because I haven't committed any of the crimes you and your anti-capitalist cohorts have claimed.Anarcho-capitalism 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO this is ridiculous.  He's a solid editor of this page, and it seems like WGee et al. have something of a vendetta against him. --WillMagic 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC has been raised against {{User|Anarcho-capitalism}} 

message: "...they believe the only just way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud." in the introductory section, may not be NPOV. Anarcho-capitalism advocates acquisition of property only through the free market in the ways listed; this sentence makes all other ways of acquiring property that may not fall under this definition seem synonomous with "aggression" or "fraud". Since this is controversial, are any users willing to comment on or dispute this before changing it? The NPOV tag should not be necessary. --Sgutkind 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are trying to say... But Anarcho-capitalists see no moral justified way to aquire property but through volountary means or homesteading. The whole idea is built on property which stems from self-ownership. Any initiation of force which includes of course such natural aggresions such as tresspassing, stealing or damageing someone else's property is wrong and a obvious violation of property rights and hence self-defense against such agression is justified. I don't see any NPOV sign and I have a hard time remembering it ever being a controversy. Lord Metroid 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issue?