Talk:Anarchism/Archive 43

message: How do people feel about unprotecting the page? --Woohookitty(meow) 06:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I requested it, so I support it. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Donnacha 08:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any opinion, AaronS? --Woohookitty(meow) 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, Woohookitty, so long as you or some other administrator who feels that they can ethically intervene when necessary sticks around. --AaronS 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the recent suspect appearence of an editor named InformationJihad, which smacks of RJ Intelligence Initiative to me, and who seems to be reinitiating the same theoretical discussions and circular arguments as said blocked user, I am dubious as to unprotection but if you stick around as Aarons suggests I think we are golden. Blockader 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Anyways, I'm gone til at least the 30th. Off to New Hampshire to study for the GRE and play Dartmouth pong. --AaronS 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection? 

message: Fowler about the 19th century anarchist tradition: 
:"Traditional anarchist thinking seems to sweep across so long a spectrum that unities are understandably hard to uncover. Stirner's consuming egoism, Herzen's elegant ambiguities, and Kropotkin's breathless positivism apperently lie far apart. It would not be a facile conclusion to suggest that there was no single anarchist tradition in the last century." 
Then:
:"Most commentators, however, have agreed that there was a lowest common denominator in the anti-state impulse of classical anarchism...There is, in fact, no question that anarchists did share a general antipathy to what they termed "government," but it is not clear what they meant with that crucial concept."
Later: 
:"First, it is sometimes argued that the distinguishing feature of anarchism was an intense distaste for any form of authority. This may describe the general style of both contemporary and past anarchists; but the actual views of the major anarchist theoreticians do not provide evidence for this claim, even apart from arguments about the potentially authoritarian nature of some anarchist ideas about community. The fact is that anarchist thinkers were not against all authority so much as they were against the authority of the state, or political authority. Authority as defined as that to which one owes moral obedience, was never rejected in principle, even when political obligation was...The classical anarchist ideal, then, did not banish authority. While anarchists undertook to destroy political authority of men over other men, ordinarily they were anxious to establish natural authority. "
Fowler has some nice points about the similarities between laissez-faire liberalism and anarchism. I can post if you want. Intangible 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need, Godwin took the social aspects of laissez-faire liberalism to its extreme, this is well-known and accepted. The economic aspects vary, with some advocating laissez faire capitalism, others advocating socialism - anarchists coming from the latter thread. Donnacha 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's true. I actually saw an encyclopedia of philosophy at a bookstore recently that said the various forms of anarchism have "nothing in common" whatseover. I'll have to bring that in as a source.Anarcho-capitalism 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then mission accomplished for those I suspect of adopting the term "anarcho"-capitalist simply to wreck the historical concept of anarchism. Donnacha 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anarchist tradition 

message: "An examination of nineteenth-century anarchist thought on the subject of coercion reveals more complexity. Some anarchists were genuinely opposed to all forms of coercion, defined as forcing people to act in ways that were not self-willed...But this constituted a minority impulse. Many anarchists...were revolutionaries, and some were distinctly violent revolutionaries...Bakunin was the most aggresively revolutionary, and he clearly accepted the coercion of violence...Max Stirner was prepared to employ coercion whenever his vision was violated, no matter how perfect the society." Intangible 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. I actually saw an encyclopedia of philosophy at a bookstore recently that said the various forms of anarchism have "nothing in common" whatseover. I'll have to bring that in as a source.Anarcho-capitalism 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then mission accomplished for those I suspect of adopting the term "anarcho"-capitalist simply to wreck the historical concept of anarchism. Donnacha 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On coercion

message: I just read most of this page and the debate that has been going on between the anarcho-capitalists and the ones who say that anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism. The anarcho-capitalists hardly seem like a minority here. They are out numbering the anti-anarcho-capitalists. Disquietude 08:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of sock-puppetry here, so what appears to be a number of people is actually one or two people under different names. Also, the arguments go round and round and round in circles on a topic most anarchists have no interest in arguing. Donnacha 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do they keep arguing? Disquietude 09:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the sock puppets keep trying to push their POV on the article. Donnacha 14:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My ass they outnumber the socials here. me, aarons, donnacha, goodintentions/marinus, ungovernable force, libertatia, 69.164.74.68, supersheep, sarge baldy, ebonytotem, on this current page. with dtc, intangible, hot, dant, visionthing, and now "anarcho-capitalist" and informationjihad (a likely sock of a banned user) being pro-cap. whiskey was the sock of a banned user and hogeye is also consistently blocked. that is hardly being outnumbered is it? i probaly forgot some so i apologize in advance. in addition, many socials have been run off by the flagrant POV pushing, incivility, and revisionism of the ancap socks who are often here (though we seem mostly free at the moment). To argue that ancaps outnumber social anarchists is ignoring reality. unless you count members of the "libertarian" party, than you might have a case. Blockader 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find Sarge Baldy on this page. I went to 69.164.74.68 and he has some weird ip lookup on his talk page. Looks like the socialists are monkeying around here themselves. Disquietude 17:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The POV is coming from both sides. The important thing is that POV is kept out of the article. Disquietude 17:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew i would screw that up somehow and have it pointed out to me :]. I did some of it from memory and sarge baldy has been around somewhat but maybe not in the last week, again sorry. the socials are not POV pushing in the article, where it counts. read my post above under "puppetry" for  explanation if you want. Blockader 17:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarge is one of the people who has been staying away from the page due to all the crap that goes on here. I don't blame him. FrancisTyers (an admin, along with sarge) used to be involved a bit as well. Also, I do feel I need to say that the anon you mentioned Blockader is probably Aaron (the anon admits to being a non-active user). Still, most of the people historically who have been here advocating an-cap are now banned users or their socks, (btw, you seem pretty new to wikipedia , how did you find this page so fast? Funny). Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: sorry for the blanket statement y'all, i thought my meaning was evident. also, not trying to excomunicate anyone, just attempting to preserve balance. Blockader 21:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: minority view?

message: I think your edits today show that you have a commanding knowledge of ancap and you seem to be fair and unbiased. congratulations. i would also like to point out the article anarcho-capitalism where more detail on the theory belongs. i still think you should change your name though, it makes shit confusing here. also, i went to the Mises institute page and could not find a single mention of anarchism. i used "find in this page" on many pages and only came up with "anarchism" in a reference title. anyhow, i have a friend at grad school at Auburn and will send him to reconoiter (sic). thanks, Blockader
:Well I try to be neutral, in writing articles at least. I kind of like my name but I'll think about changing it. About www.mises.org, I put "anarchism" in the little search window and it gets 1320 hits.Anarcho-capitalism 20:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems to be more dedicated to classical liberalism. are the folks there suggesting classical liberalism and ancap are synonomous? Blockader 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All individualist anarchism is classical liberalism taken to the extreme. It starts with the classical liberal belief that government should simply wait off to the sidelines of society until someone tries to deprive someone else of liberty or property, and then step in to prevent that. Beyond that, it should not do much else. Classical liberals believe society can organize itself without an authority forcefully intervening. Anarcho-capitalists just take it a step further by realizing that the state is funding protection of freedom through forced taxation, so the state itself is a violater. So they think protection of liberty should be voluntary and voluntarily funded as well.Anarcho-capitalism 21:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find that virtually all forms of anarchism are based on that principle, however, "anarcho"-capitalism, as opposed to individualist anarchism, breaks the economic principles of equality that also came from classical liberalism and were further developed (in a number of directions) by anarchists. Donnacha 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical liberals aren't for economic equality, if you mean equal wealth distribution by that. They're for equality under the law, only.Anarcho-capitalism 02:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with An-cap here. Classical liberalism was basically just american style libertarianism from what I can tell. It's for free markets and definitely isn't about economic equality. And I agree with the interpretation that individualist anarchism (an an-cap in particular) are basically classic liberalism on steroids. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhh, that's very contentious. Classic liberalism is from a particular time and set of conditions that don't translate properly to the modern era. Liberal philosophers argued for markets at a time when they didn't really exist - largely as an attempt to end the serious inequalities of the aristocracy. Their libertarian descendents, to a large degree, advocate free markets as a defence against any moves towards socialism and support economic egalitarianism. That's very different. Donnacha 12:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken, Donnacha. The 19th century had plenty of markets - markets certainly existed. And classical liberals from Bastiat to Spencer argued early and often against (statist) socialism and govt intervention in the market. Hogeye 15:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, shouldn't have been so sweeping - of course they had markets, but not a real systemic market economy. This doesn't change the fact that they advocated markets as being more egalitarian than aristocracy or domination by the Church. As for them opposing "statist" socialism, so what? So did Bakunin and he definitely advocated egalitarianism. Libertarians have adopted the arguments of liberalism, but not the reasons behind those arguments. Donnacha 15:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could give me an example from Bastiat's "The Law" or Spencer's "Social Statics" where they argued on the basis of "ending the serious inequalities of the aristocracy" or "markets as being more egalitarian than aristocracy or domination by the Church." It seems to me they argue quite similarly to today's libertarians, about the dangers of govt intervention because it entails injustice and retards "natural" society and/or progress. Hogeye 17:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-Capitalism (the editor not the idea) 

message: Is it generally agreed that there are two basic concepts of anarchism being argued here, anarchism-is-anti-statism as opposed to anarchism-is-a-branch-of-the-socialist-movement?  Is it apparent that there is no consensus for a disambiguation page between them?  Is it obvious that both these positions are superficially reasonable and easy to support with endless amounts of documentation, and yet completely incompatible with each other, or there wouldn't be 40 pages of archives reiterating the same argument?
At some point, does a basic question like this go to arbitration? EbonyTotem 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think the distinction helps. We've spilled zillions of pixels on these talk pages on both topics: the relation of anarchism to socialism and the question of anti-statism vs. anti-authoritarianism. The simplest approach might just be to specify, where there is a question, what individual schools or authors meant by anarchism. If this main page gave a brief overview of schools and introduced the multiple meanings of the term, that would be a lot of good work done. Libertatia 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right at the top of this page is a proposal that, I think, would do just that. Donnacha 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went over the A proposed guideline to capitalism and an-cap in Anarchism article. I find it extrememly insulting and narrow-minded. I wouldn't accept that proposal at all. There appears to me, still, to be just as many, if not more, anarcho-capitalists in this debate than those opposing it. I find it hard to believe, also, that all these commenters are the same one or two users, as they seem quite different in their ideas and in their speech. Disquietude 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked that out. What a condescending "proposed guideline."Anarcho-capitalism 02:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really is. Like they're doing the individualists and anarcho-capitalists a big favor and being so generous with allowing a small bit in the article for these ideologies. Disquietude 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The "guideline" gives to much to the -caps. The fringe already takes up too much space. - FrancisTyers · 02:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like heavy pushing of a biased point of view. Disquietude 02:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I really have to quote the NPOV guidelines again? "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).WP:NPOV#Undue weight" Donnacha 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And breathe.... - FrancisTyers · 02:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Disquietude 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't "generally agreed." If you want to claim that there are two concepts of anarchism, I think you would have to find a reliable source distinguishing between the two, or, at the very least, a reasonable number of sources each of which deals only with one of your supposed two concepts. That is to say, if we're going to make a distinction in Wikipedia, we need to show that the distinction is widely used by knowledgeable people. I don't think that's true of the distinction you pose. VoluntarySlave 23:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, what I meant was, "is it generally agreed that there are two basic concepts of anarchism being argued here," -- on this talk page, by us -- one by some editors and the other by other editors.  No reliable source needs to document this conflict, since I am not suggesting making such a distinction in the article. (That's Hogeye.) Nor am I suggesting that the "endless amounts of documentation" on each side is of uniform quality or symmetrical import, merely that it might be "obvious" that copious quantities have been presented. EbonyTotem 05:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Arbitration might "help" inasmuch as it might unambiguously identify the "losing side" as disruptors if they continued edit warring, admins might presumably enforce the decision, and editors who don't just have to get their own way might be able to move on to the next issue.  Whatever.  Maybe people like the way things are now.  Maybe I'm playing into the hands of "the wrong side" by even asking about it. EbonyTotem 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forty more pages of this? 

message: in the anarcho-capitalism section. If it's necessary to make these comments please put them somewhere else in a separate section. Disquietude 19:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should be removing those sources. Without sources that is just going to cause more argument over whether anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say the statements and the sources should not be there at all. What I am saying is that they are inappropriately placed. We should make a separate section for such statements. That is a section on anarcho-capitalism, not on what other anarchists may or may not deem it. Disquietude 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a section on "anarcho"-capitalism within an article on anarchism. It's a disputed concept within anarchism, rejected by most anarchists who regard it as an oxymoron. It's a compromise to accept such a fringe view in the article at all, it's a breach of the NPOV to allow it without proper reference to its widespread rejection by anarchists worldwide. It's not possible to find that many references to people rejecting it because most anarchists don't even consider it. Despite being an anarchist for years in Ireland and the UK, I had never heard of the term - I first encountered it on the web. 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Donnacha. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many here, and in the world, I'll wager, that dispute that communist anarchism is anarchism. (Read what Vision Thing says about this exact issue.) In reality, the npov concern is the other way around. It's pushing an opinion to not only state, but repeatedly state that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. We could do the reversal just as easily. Furthermore, this opinion pushing should not be ocurring in the section on anarcho-capitalism. It does not belong there. Period. Also, whether you heard of it, or not, before is irrelevant. Disquietude 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaking an internal argument: communists vs. individualists where both side argue the other isn't real anarchism, but overall there is acceptance that they are both trends within historical anarchism, with a fundamental objection to what the vast majority of anarchists, communist, socialist or individualist, regard as a contradiction in terms. Anarchism is known, worldwide, as being anti-capitalist. "Anarcho"-capitalism is not only oxymoronic, many regard it as a reputational risk - to accept it undermines one of the fundamental elements of anarchism. It's disputed, any mention of it in an article on anarchism should point that out. It's also an extreme minority position, and need I point out WP:NPOV#Undue weight again? Donnacha 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, anarcho-communism is accepted by every encyclopedia article on anarchism I've seen, and I've seen at least 3 or 4. None of those articles have given as much attention to an-cap, in fact, most don't even mention it. Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions an-cap, but only in the article on libertarianism (telling, isn't it?). UK Encarta gives one sentence to it in a several page article, and it's not too clear if they are trying to say whether it properly fits or not ("Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism"). Many of the encyclopedias say anarchism is anti-capitalist. So the reversal really can't be done just as easily. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As a libertarian in the United States, it was years before I encountered any sort of anarchism that wasn't anarcho-capitalist, aside from historical references to early-20th-century bomb-throwers and assassins. *Dan T.* 23:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that make an-caps closer to libertarians and not anarchists? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Point well made, DanT. Oh, come on, Donnacha. Pointing to WP:NPOV#Undue weight is ridiculously exaggerated and really doesn't fit in this instance at all. And if ever there was an oxymoron it's communist anarchism. From the article on Communism Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future  classless,  stateless  social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property. Private property is a basic right of freedom. The only thing that can be taken away after that is freedom of speech, etc, and the right of the individual to claim the basic ownership of him or herself. If you don't have freedom, you surely don't have anarchism. So where is the oxymoron now? Disquietude 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, except an-cap is given virtually no weight (and in many cases, not even virtually) in other encyclopedia articles on anarchism. It simply isn't as notable. We have way more info on an-cap in the one small section on this page than encarta and brittanica have in their entire encyclopedias combined. And I'm not going to get into the theoretical debate, but if your idea of freedom is for me to have to whore my time out to employers to survive, than I'd rather be "enslaved". Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I came up with the basics of anarcho-capitalism on my own when I was a little kid, maybe around 12 years old. I just thought, well, if businesses make their money from customers, then why doesn't government? Why are they taxing? The product must not be something people want that bad if they have to force people pay for it. Government should be run like a business. I thought that I was coming up with something original. It wasn't until I was older and got on the internet that I found out that there's an actual philosophy based on that idea. It's really hard for me to believe claims that anarcho-capitalism is some obscure unpopular philosophy. I know there are probably no source for this, but I suspect it's very popular and more popular than anarcho-communism, simply because it's such common sense. If stealing is wrong, then taxation is wrong, therefore, protection of liberty should be voluntarily financed. Duh!Anarcho-capitalism 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I came up with the basics of anarcho-communism in Junior High. Your point being? And I don't really see how you can say you're opposed to governments when you have no problem paying someone to do the same things a government does. That doesn't seem like common sense to me. Your opposition isn't to governments per se, you just want to pay for the one you like the best. The best way to defend liberty is to do it yourself, not to contract it out to the person with the lowest price. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it absolutely astounding that there are people so ignorant of anarchism yet insist on calling themselves by that name. You're like little Green Day fans who like to call themselves punks. You've clearly not read Proudhon, nor Kropotkin, nor Goldman, nor Berkman. Personal property, that which you own and use, is a basic right. Private property, AKA capital, that which you own and charge others for the use of, is exploitation, which anarchism opposes. If someone owns all the land, like Brazilian landowners, then they deny liberty to the vast majority of Brazilians. It is the MST who are fighting for liberty and it is those who defend the right to private property who deny liberty to all but the rich. Brazil today, in fact, presents a perfect example of what "anarcho"-capitalism would bring - rich landowners, with murderous private security, maintaining what is basically a form of modern bonded slavery with little or not interference from the government (which isn't strong enough to challenge them). Viva the MST, Ya Basta! Donnacha 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read those writers, alright. But apparently you haven't read Rothbard. He says much of the land in private hands today is actually stolen land. He does not defend all the private holdings that exist today. Much of the land has been stolen, by or with the aid of the state, from original people who worked it. His position is that for land to become property someone has to use it. If you come upon unowned land, you can't just take it and claim it's yours, according to anarcho-capitalism. This is the confusion people have when they first encounter anarcho-capitalism. They have a different definition of capitalism than anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing anarcho-capitalism with geo-libertarism (or some other related philosophy). There is no requirement in anarcho-capitalism for land to be worked or used in order to be owned. In fact, thats almost LTOV. - FrancisTyers · 00:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists say that nothing can become property until someone has occupied or transformed that land through their labor. You can't just come in and claim land that you haven't used. Read the Anarcho-capitalism article. Rothbard is quoted: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." Rothbard says much of land in private holdings today was stolen from those who were working it.Anarcho-capitalism 02:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, and there are people who say that a man shouldn't starve while in a room full of food that he doesn't own. They also call it "common sense" :D - FrancisTyers · 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also common sense that if you want some of that food, you go to work and make some money so you can buy it.Anarcho-capitalism 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't appear to be common sense to me. - FrancisTyers · 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you steal it. That seems like common sense to me. When some people have everything they need and then some while others are starving, yet refuse to give it to those starving people, I think the sensible thing to do is take it by force, not to "voluntarily" enslave yourself to the piece of shit who would rather let you starve than give you his extra food that will probably end up rotting anyways. And common sense relies heavily on the type of society you grow up in. Don't tell me that "you have to work and make some money so you can buy [food]" is common sense to a hunter-gatherer. Capitalism makes food a source of profit, not a source of nutrition. And now their trying to sell us WATER! WTF?! Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you are in the dark, because you weren't aware that the drive for profit is responsible for the abundance of food we have in the world today. No "hunter-gatherer" is going to be able to mass-produce food and set up a worldwide distribution system. Countries where a lot of people are starving are those where there is not capitalism. If you advocate a society where stealing is legal then you're going to have a very chaotic society indeed. It would be "anarchy" alright, but only in the sense of chaos and violence. Yes you are sold water. Why should water be sent to your faucet for free?Anarcho-capitalism 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, agriculture is responsible for the abundance of food we have today. And btw, hunter-gatherers usually had enough food to feed themselves, so there was no need to create a surplus through agriculture. More people (percentage wise) starve now in our "modern" time of abundance than when people were foraging for food. And as Donnacha points out below, the reason people are starving is due to the after-effects of profit driven colonialism (and nowadays, neoliberalism). The reason capitalist countries have it is because they stole it from the poorer countries. And there is nothing wrong with stealing it back. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. I don't advocate a society based on stealing. But in this current society which is already based on theft I think it's perfectly acceptable to steal from your oppressors to survive. Also, even here in America there are people who are under nourished, even while others die from clogged arteries and too much food. It's ridiculous. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, this is hilarious. Modern capitalism grew out of mercantilism, which was based on massive theft in the colonial era. Most countries where people are starving today are the countries that were victims of unbelievable theft during the colonial era and, unsurprisingly, those that are rich today are those that carried out the theft most efficiently. In a society where private property is abolished (using the Proudhon distinction between personal and private property), crime and violence would most likely lessen as they are most often based on inequality of access to resources. What you advocate would bring about massive levels of social conflict and violence - exactly the sort of thing that led to the foundation of the modern state. You do realise that the modern state was founded by bourgeois capitalists to defend their interests from the masses, don't you? Progressive concessions from the state towards the people are rarely done out of any humanitarian wish, they are done to fend off social unrest. The ultimate irony of "anarcho"-capitalism is that it argues against the very thing capitalism requires to survive - the state that props it up and keeps the masses from rising up. Donnacha 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not defending the state, as the state. The state does some good things, in some countries. It protects private property and protects people from each other who wish to aggress against each other but they finance it through theft. Anarcho-capitalists want to privatize those functions. Those functions are necessary to protect private property from those, who like Ungovernable, think stealing is fine. If you want to find massive poverty, go to a country where private property and profit is not protected, because of a lack of the rule of law or because the state confiscates most of the profits. The ability to profit with the least taxation as possible is what brings abundance of goods and services.Anarcho-capitalism 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, you've managed to completely miss my point. The centralisation of the services of the state was one of the primary accomplisments of early bourgeois capitalists. It used to be private, they used to have their own police, etc. until they realised that economies of scale made centralised services more efficient. Most true capitalists would laugh at the idea that you abolish their servant, the state, except in those few countries where authorities oppose capitalism. Who'd go to war on behalf of oil interests if not for puppet states? Who'll go to war in the predicted water wars if not the puppet states? States spend taxpayers money to fight wars and then give contracts to business to profit from them. Also, the real driving force behind abundance of goods has rarely been simple profit, but conflict. State-funded research in conflict times generally yields far greater innovations than any private business. Technological advancement during the Cold War far outstrips that since. On the flip, some of the most important new technological advancements are open source - the exact opposite of profit motivation. Donnacha 16:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know what you're point is then. I'm not a state capitalist but an anarcho-capitalist. Are you trying to defend the state? You couldnt be more wrong that state-funded research yields more innovations than privately funded. It is true that if the state steals money from the private sector it can invest in things that have benefit, but at the same time it is taking resources away from the private sector that would be invested in things that the private sector actually wants. So, what you have is things being produced that are less valuable than the things that would be produced if investment was left to private individual decision. People don't need a central authority telling them what they have to invest in. Open source has profit motivation as well. Profit is just the value you receive over the cost you pay for something. It is the same with business. You don't sell something unless you value what you get in return over what you're selling. That's profit. You don't contribute to open source unless you're going to get something out of it more valuable to you than the amount of work that you put into it. If you didn't you wouldn't put any effort into it. As long as your rational, that is. There are always going to be irrational people who will put more effort into something than the value they receive back.Anarcho-capitalism 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like Marx's fairytales still aren't obsolete in some circles. Just two points: 1) Today all the people in the world have on average 10 time more wealth then before discovery of Americas and beginning of colonization. 2) Countries like Ireland, Finland or South Korea are amongst today's most developed nations and they haven't had any colonies, in fact they were under the rule of foreign imperial powers. Maybe the difference is that some countries accepted Marx's ideas and others Smith's.  -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't make this into a US vs. World thing. - FrancisTyers · 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. That actually would be logical fallacy called "argumentum ad antiquitatem" (appeal to tradition).Anarcho-capitalism 00:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is far and away a minority position among anarchists. Anarcho-syndicalism is probably the form of anarchism most subscribed to, followed by other forms of anarchist communists (such as squatters, etc) and then the various post-left/individualists (not counting "anarcho"-communists) influenced by Robert Anton Wilson/Hakim Bey, etc. Anarchism is a term that has historical meaning, based on historical writings and movements, both equally valid within the description. Your attempt at postmodern rewriting is ridiculous. Anarchism is what it has always been, the introduction of a contradictory definition does not change that. If a car is defined as a motorised vehicle with four wheels, and possibly three, the person who says his two-wheel motorised vehicle is a car is wrong. He can call his bicycle what he wants, but it's still a bicycle. "Anarcho"-syndicalism is not only missing a wheel or two, it's got "this is a bicycle" written along the side. Call it libertarianism and leave the rest of us alone with our living, breathing tradition. Donnacha 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We covered this somewhere between archive 25 and archive 34. Hogeye is (lamentebly) stuck in the 13th Century. We hope he'll catch up soon! - FrancisTyers · 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hogeye and Anarcho-capitalism are right. To FrancisTyers, Did you read this page? That has already happened. Only it was more the world vs US. Read it, for real. And communist-anarchism is as oxymoronic as you can get. Don't attack Hogeye FrancisTyers.  Disquietude 00:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been involved in the page for a number of months. Longer than yourself. Surprisingly there have been pretty much no novel arguments in that time. Remember Groundhog day ? Hoping a person learns something isn't an attack. :) - FrancisTyers · 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why come up with a "novel argument" when that one works? "Appeal to tradition" is a logical fallacy. It's fallacious to say someone is not an anarchist because he doesn't go along with tradition. Anarchism isn't defined as being traditional. If you want the state to cease to exist, you're an anarchist. Any anarchist is free to start his own "tradition"  by attaching any supplementary positions to his anarchism that he wishes.Anarcho-capitalism 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny (some might venture ironic) that you would accuse myself of using a logical fallacy while using one yourself. And lo, doubly ironic that it should be the classic "appeal to authority". I won't bore you with the latin. - FrancisTyers · 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To FrancisTyers, I don't see it that Hogeye is back in the 13th century. I agree with him and DanT and Anarcho-capitalism. Believing you're right and having no tolerance for another point of view, while accusing somebody of something that is only in your mind is an attack. Disquietude 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you didn't get the joke, Hogeye does. FrancisTyers · 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Sorry. I didn't know it was a joke. Disquietude 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'll explain later. - FrancisTyers · 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you talking about me? Disquietude 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the other Disquietude. I wouldn't say your wolfstar. You could be RJII. Too early to tell. We'll find out soon enough though. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed inappropriately placed comments

message: By request, and due to consensus among those who know the definition of anarchism and are ready to respond to the socialist faction tit-for-tat, I'm putting up the "nocommie" version. It is well documented that communism is incompatable with anarchism. Benjamin Tucker said so. Hogeye 01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you have a lot of agreement here. Disquietude 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to put up something such as this, I would recommend doing it in your userspace, not here. Otherwise, with the large amount of text you removed, the antivandal bot is triggered. And. I wouldn't recommend it anyway without discussion first. You are many many times blocked user. Tread carefully. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like you have a lot of agreement here. Disquietude 01:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tit-for-tat may shake us out of the continual edit wars, and get us onto a Schelling point such as the Neutral Disambiguation Page. Hogeye 01:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, will you be showing your tits, or your tats? *Dan T.* 02:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So, basically you're trying to instigate an edit war. Smart one Hogeye. No wonder you're perpetually blocked. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit warring is not a good way to go. Maybe arbitration is only real solution? -- Vision Thing -- 10:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypocrit. You say edit warring is not a good way to go, yet remove perfectly valid sources on globalisation. Yes, I wrote some of them, but the site is that of a national broadcaster in Ireland. There's nothing invalid about any of them, they're news pieces perfectly relevant to the topic. Donnacha 11:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think they are reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards, but I could be wrong. Woohookitty, do you think these were reliable sources? -- Vision Thing -- 11:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely nothing in there implies that articles from a mainstream broadcaster's news website are unacceptable, quite the contrary. And, as the other sources were largely from left-wingers writing directly about left-wing actions, they're absolutely acceptable. Donnacha 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nocommie version 

message: I'm trying to keep up but I do have a life. :) I still feel like this article is a prime arbitration candidate. It's almost impossible to police. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If any article is impossible to police, I guess "Anarchism" would be the one.Anarcho-capitalism 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Word. Disquietude 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. It should be policable even if it is something like anarchism. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My role here 

message: Hello. I just have to chime in. What the hell is anarcho-capitalism doing in this ariticle? All this "Individualist anarchism in the United States" bastardization of anarchism should be excised. Take out the whole lot. Revolution Guy 02:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh. Not too much personal view pushing, anti-U.S.-ism and polarization here, folks. Disquietude 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ignorant statements like that which necessitate the tit-for-tat thing. If someone doesn't even know that anarchism means fundamental opposition to the state regardless of economic system, they have no business editing here. They should go play in the sandbox or something.  Experienced editors sooner or later figure out that the definitional issue is unsolvable and edit wars are unwinnable, thus the Neutral Disambiguation Page starts looking good. Revolution Guy must be new and/or a true believer in his sect. Too many people read Infoshop's disinformation page ("Anarchist FAQ") and think they have a clue. Hogeye 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about what you're saying regarding the FAQ. I still think it's a relatively good intro, but it does miss a lot. And yes, Revolution Guy clearly is new, and probably needs to learn to compromise more. But you need to compromise quite a bit yourself. I find your comment "If someone doesn't even know that anarchism means fundamental opposition to the state regardless of economic system, they have no business editing here" to be incredibly patronizing (not to mention ignorant). It's not clear-cut like that. If we were writing a dictionary I could understand, but as I've said way more times than I would like, this is an encyclopedia, and most encyclopedias seem to think anarchism is anti-capitalist. I agree that there is a lot of room for different economic systems within anarchist philosophy, but free market capitalism is not one of them. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, Revolution Guy. Some folks around here call that vandalism. Disquietude 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Hogeye's suggestion of splitting this article is looking more and more sensible. Disquietude 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is more to anarchism than anarcho-communism.Anarcho-capitalism 03:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get that, Revolution Guy? That sounds like socialism or communism. Communism and anarchism are incompatible and their existence even impossible together. Disquietude 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of you have a clue (but if I had to choose, I'd say Revolution Guy has slightly more of one). At least he has some basis for thinking what he does, and an encycledia would back him up more than you. But Revolution Guy, you are being a bit close minded and are only looking at one form of anarchism (although it's closer to the form I support). Individualist anarchism is a form of anarchism, it's just not nearly as notable (especially not now), and IMO isn't quite as good of an idea. And I take back what I said above disquietude, you are wolfstar. Please leave. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: All authentic anarchism is anarcho-communist or similar. There is no such thing as a market-based anarchist society. That is a corruption of what anarchism is all about. In an anarchist society people share all the goods that have been produced and all resources of the earth. There is no money and no need for money. Look at the definition in M-Webster . Even a simple dictionary definition points out that it is based in "cooperation". So-called individualist "anarchism" is based in competition and buying and selling. In an anarchist society there is no markets, no money, and no greed. "Individualist anarchism" is a bastardization of what anarchism is all about. It's no surprise that it comes from the U.S.A. which is the capital of greed. Revolution Guy 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MW dictionary definition verifies that anarchism can be capitalist, since capitalism consists of voluntary cooperation of buyers and sellers, and people cooperating to produce. The fact that there are competitive aspects does not cancel the vast cooperation involved in a free market. A market is the quintessential example of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. 72.204.5.50 04:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to be able to say something here and not see it turned into an argument. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. Disquietude 04:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have been. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Anarchism <> socialism. Look at the intro of the article. And greed can be traced back not only to the beginning of civilization, it can be traced to tribal times, at least some of them. Greed is a human shortcoming, unfortunately. It certainly was not invented by the United States. And where do you suppose the settlers of the US came from? They didn't just suddenly appear into thin air and find themselves on American soil. So stop looking at the US and start looking at reality. It starts with the individual human being. And so does good. Disquietude 04:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, how can Individualist anarchism be a "bastardization of anarchism". It was the first, or one of the first, forms of anarchism. Look at the dates. Disquietude 04:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you taken an anthropology class, or do you just assume that tribal societies were greedy? I would really like to know. They are the most egalitarian societies in human history, based on cooperation and mutual aid, not on competition and greed. If one person was starving, it was because everyone was starving. And if one person had wealth it was because the entire group had wealth. And if you think greed is a shortcoming, why would you want an economic system that encourages (and even idolizes) it? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction. What matters is "sourced" opinion. Sources from communist anarchists do say that individualist market anarchism...whether it's of the anarcho-capitalist type or not, is false anarchism. PlayersPlace 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am not a "sock puppet". Revolution Guy 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Festival of Puppetry II 

message: I protected the page before half the people involved violated the 3RR. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Isn't this article a circus? --AaronS 20:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Send in the clowns! *Dan T.* 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sad to say it but it's pretty typical for a controversial article. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the anarchist clowns! Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected...again 

message: Anarchism is derived from the  Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)").  Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the philosophy or belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished.
Anarchism may mean:
*Anarchism (anti-state) - the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished. This takes anarchism to mean pure anti-statism.
*Anarchism (socialist) - philosophies, movements, and ideologies that advocate the abolition of capitalist exploitation and all other forms of authority. This takes anarchism to mean pure anti-statism plus anti-capitalism.
----
I propose that we use the "Neutral Disambiguation Page" above as the main anarchism article, and perhaps even semi-permanently protect it. It has been tweaked from an earlier version by inserting the word "pure", as some people were worried that Marxism would qualify. Note that this is not about the individualist-collectivist split - it is about a broad-tent vs. anti-capitalist-only definitional split.
Pros:
#By giving each faction its own article, it should prevent the recurring factional edit wars.
#There are in fact two definitions, totally incompatable, favored by editors. Both have reasonable rationales.
#It lets readers choose which meaning they are interested in; they can always read both.
Cons:
#It condones the other faction's false definition.
#My faction has more people and/or is more persistent, so we can win the edit war.
#It may confuse or mislead readers.
Q: Do you support using the Neutral Disambiguation Page?
*Yes Hogeye 00:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand your objections to the proposed solution. - MSTCrow 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False dichotomy. That which is not capitalist need not be socialist. - FrancisTyers · 12:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. We already have an article on anti-statism. A more neutral approach would be to focus on anarchism as used by most self-identified anarchists on this page, and put an other uses message on the top of the page saying "For the term anarchism as it is defined by anarcho-capitalists, see anti-statism." Not that I'm sure about that approach, either. Owen 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-statism is much broader than anarchism. Anarchism is pure anti-statism. Read the article. Hogeye 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Neutral approach would be to focus on anarchism as defined by most scholars. This should be encyclopedia based on sources, and not on opinion of the people from the street. -- Vision Thing -- 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Disambiguation Page - Poll 

message: *Anarcho-capitalism being given its place in "Schools of Anarchist Thought". It will be given a mention on par with that of the American individualist anarchists - I think this is immensely generous but the an-cap community is well-represented here on WP and I think it's justified. However, the contentious nature of an-cap's place as "anarchist" school must be mentioned, as well as how it markedly stands distinct from the rest of the tradition, being only linked with the American individualists, who are removed from the individualists (Stirner, Proudhon, Godwin, etc, all fervent anti-capitalists). It is because these things are facts and any other representation is a misrepresentation and a distortion of POV.
*That mention being the only one of anarcho-capitalism in the article. That is where the individual particular schools are mentioned and the interested reader guided towards more fuller explanations of the theory. AnCap claims to be one of those schools, it obviously has some influence on WP so it must be humoured, but its influence on the majority trend in anarchism approaches zero - its marginal views will not be repeated. If all these differences must be crammed into their "Schools of Anarchist Thought" entry, making that section a bit larger than might be fair, so be it.
*Both "communism" and "capitalism" be addresses in "Issues in anarchism" - the anarcho-capitalists are not the only people in the broader anarchist tradition to distrust communism. However, because of the overwhelming view amongst anarchists, rejection of capitalism must clearly be shown as the more popular view in anarchism.
What is attempted through this scheme is to give anarcho-capitalism a fair representation in the Anarchism article, allowing those who might be interersted in it to view the extensive and well-written anarcho-capitalism article, but not to let an-cap hijack the article as it has continuously since the very beginning. I am not as naїve as to believe that Anarchism will suddenly become a stable article, but we need a more-or-less consensual agreement - a peace-treaty of sorts - to allow this article and this section of Wikipedia to function.
Sincerely yours, --GoodIntentionstalk 03:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Q: Do you support the Guideline to Capitalism and An-Cap?
*Uh, I'm not sure. But as long as we're taking polls, here it is. EbonyTotem 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your objection. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: By giving it an explicit mention alongside other schools? Go away and stop bothering me. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This was written when the discussion on an-cap's place had a somewhat different tone to what we have at the moment. My proposal was the first of the current round of endless, infuriating debate to offer, from a socialist standpoint, ancap a place as a school. And I disagree with your formulation of the scholarship, and am not particularily impressed by your tone. Such righteous indignation isn't a healthy way to react to a good faith attempt at compromise. Of course, the most comment dismissal of this proposal has been to attack my good faith, which is somewhat infuriating. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: *Support. I hope that we can at least agree on about this. -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Several editors have opined that the proposed guidelines would give undue weight to anarcho-capitalism. I'm curious what these editors would consider due weight. It's easy to count the words in an article, so we have a rough gauge of "weight." Here's a question for Ungovernable Force, Donnacha, Blockader, FrancisTyers, and anyone else who is concerned about undue weight for anarcho-capitalism and cares to answer: What is the maximum percent of words in the article that you think anarcho-capitalism is due? Hogeye 05:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making a word percent limit is ridiculous. Basically, having any mentions of it beyond the section for anarcho-capitalism and possibly (and strong stress on the "possibly" part) one sentence in the intro is undue weight IMO. Most other encyclopedias don't mention it or give it one sentence. We are way more generous than that. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, exactly, put you in the position of being generous? It wouldn't be you would it? Andromeda466 09:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure about that? I'm finding a lot of encyclopedias that mention anarcho-capitalism. I even just found an "anarco-capitalismo" article in the Italian Encarta, and anarco-captalismo is also mentioned in the Anarchismo article there as l'anarchismo individualista. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mention anarcho-capitalism in the Anarchism article, but the author of that article is George Woodcock, an anarcho-communist so no wonder!Anarcho-capitalism 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that you do realize that publications like the Encyclopaedia Britannica have a thorough editorial review process... --AaronS 16:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm looking at English sources since I can't read Italian. American Encarta doesn't mention it, UK gives it a sentence (in a several page article, which also say anarchism is "basically anticapitalist") and is not clear as to whether it's a form or not. Encyclopedia Brittanica does mention it though--in the libertarinism article! Although you are right, there is no mention in the anarchism article. A little telling, don't you think? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 04:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How thorough can it be if they left out anarcho-capitalism? "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchisms and now eco-anarchisms. These varieties are not particularly well characterized. They are by no means mutually exclusive. So far even a satisfactory classification is lacking. Usually something of a ragbag is offered. Textbooks single out a few varieties for scrutiny, invariably leaving out others that are as important." Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231Anarcho-capitalism 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just circular logic. --AaronS 20:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Journalism 101: How to spot bias in a list -- Who's mentioned first? This is blatantly from the ancap POV, leading with individualist to create the link in peoples' minds. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a mainstream, respected publication. I know which I'd trust most. Donnacha 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what? Richard Sylvan is a social anarchist. And Blackwell Publishing is a respected mainstream publishing company.Anarcho-capitalism 17:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Blackwell is respected, Sylvan is not a "social anarchist." --AaronS 20:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That source you just gave doesn't say he's not a social anarchist. It says he's an anarchist. It just doesn't say what type. He's advocating social anarchism in that article and is saying individualist anarchist is not preferable. I'd say that obviously makes him a social anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the concluding paragraph from the article: "What are also now conspicuously exhibited are extensive movements, making considerable use of direct action techniques, substantial parts of which have heavy (but often under-appreciated) anarchist commitments: notable environmental and peace movements, which are highly compatible with social anarchism. A main contemporary chance for social anarchism lies in mobilizing these movements, activating their latent anarchism. That is the great hope for the future."Anarcho-capitalism 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that your misreading of this source is not representative of your ability to accurately interpret sources. The article says: "[Sylvan] intellectually inspired me although we differed politically. [He] was an anarchist and did not share my pro-socialist sentiments." Are we reading the same article? --129.170.116.194 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be a social anarchist without necessarily being pro-socialist. Saying an anarchist isn't pro-socialist isn't to say they aren't anti-capitalist, either. I don't know a lot about Sylvan, but green anarchists tend to shy away from the term socialism even while professing some of the strongest objections against capitalism. Not that I'm trying to make a point either way, but I think it's important to tread carefully. Owen 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously that's referring to state socialism. The writer there is not an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The important thing is that he's not an individualist anarchist. That's obvious. He thinks individalist anarchism suffers from market failure and he advocates his brand of social anarchism instead. There is no way to claim that he's biased in favor of anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess he's just not so petty as to worry about who is listed first.Anarcho-capitalism 17:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't kidding when I said it was Journalism 101, the order of mentions in a list is one of the key elements of bias in writing. A news article that starts - "Management and unions" has a completely different slant to one that starts "Unions and management". If the piece isn't biased, it's sloppy writing, the only neutral way to write that list would be alphabetically. Donnacha 00:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And look, Wikipedia has articles on both. Richard Sylvan and Blackwell PublishingAnarcho-capitalism 17:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is an additional quote from that same article: "Those with stronger individualist component will tend to rely not merely upon market or allied exchange arrangements, but upon capitalist organization...These types of anarchism...propose several, often ingenious uses of private and market means to substitue for social and state functions (Friedman 1973; Rothbard, 1977). But they provide no satisfactory resolution of ubiquitous market failure, which becomes even more widespread and severe without the state..."Anarcho-capitalism 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Still have claims of bias? If there's bias, it's a bais against anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't Hogeye go first?  That is, presuming he's not being disruptive to prove a point.  If he actually thinks this is a reasonable question, then what's the minimum percentage he himself will accept?  67.168.216.176 12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not making any claims regarding weight, due or undue. Ungovernable Force gave an answer. I appreciate that. Apparently he would allow generic claims in the rest of the article which ignore the ancap view (a position with which I cannot concur), but at least I know where he stands. Actually, the current article is pretty good about specifying which anarchist school believes what. Offhand, the main omission I notice of an ancap view is the deletion from globalization I noted earlier. Hogeye 22:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight for anarcho-capitalism? 

message: This discussion page strikes me as the best example of what anarchism is.  Pfly 10:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, in real life, unprotected by anonymity, some of the people here would be ostracized for their actions. --AaronS 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page (Do Not Post to This Trolling Thread)

message: We need something new to argue about. Should we put this diagram into the article if it ever gets unprotected? Why or why not? What improvements do you suggest? Hogeye 00:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been deleted before, you shouldn't have recreated it. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a little nutty.Anarcho-capitalism 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hogeye, we don't need something new to argue about, this is not a game designed to provide entertainment for you. that diagram was rejected out of hand long ago and it is in bad faith to try and reinsert it. It is obvious POV and not even remotely historically or factually grounded. Blockader 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or Emma Goldman's synthesis of individualism and communism, or Hakim Bey or Robert Anton Wilson's new forms of individualism? Donnacha 14:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So Molinari is not an anarchist because he refused the term and anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists and accept the term?  There's something wrong with that kind of reasoning. And why should an anarchist take history into account? If someone wants to be an anarchist they can, without consulting history to make sure they conform. There is no necessity that an anarchist be a conformist.Anarcho-capitalism 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, both Molinari and the "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists because they support capitalism. Molinari had the grace and commonsense to refuse to call himself an anarchist because he was aware it was a socialist theory and movement. If only "anarcho"-capitalists did the same. And why should anarchists take history into account? Simply because anarchist is a political movement and *means something.* We cannot stop people who are not anarchists calling themselves anarchists, that is sure. But calling something the "Democratic People's Republic" does not make a state democratic, republic or run by the people. [BlackFlag] 08:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No one here is refuting anyone's ability or right to call themselves whatever they like, ancap. if we were than the issue we are debating would be the inclusion of ancap in this article. that is not the debate as noone here intends to remove it. rather, the debate is over how much influence your particular POV is going to have in the article and how it should best be presented in order for said article to be fair and well informed. Blockader 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And why do you say Molinari supports a "private state"? Competing providers of defense does not constitute a state. Do you deny that Benjamin Tucker was an anarchist too beause he supported competing providers of defense who charge for their services?Anarcho-capitalism 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong on so many counts. Proudhon's mutualism favours workers ownership of their workplaces and self-management and so is socialist. "Anarcho"-capitalism is *not* consistent with the definitions of anarchism put forward by Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, etc. All indicate that anarchism is a form of socialism and that it opposed capitalist property. I would like to see an "anarcho"-capitalist agree with Kropotkin that anarchism was the "no government theory of socialism" or that anarchists are the extreme left wing of the socialist movement. Dictionary definitions? Sure, dictionaries are very politically sophisicated! And what of those who define anarchy as choas? As for "anarcho"-capitalism being "around since Molinari, who was a contemporary of Proudhon" that shots you in the foot, as Molinari explicitly rejected the term anarchist *because* of Proudhon and its obvious association with socialism. If only "anarcho"-capitalists today would have the grace to do the same! And for "Molinari's buddy and mentor Bastiat debated Proudhon," what is relevent how? Bastiat was not private stater and Proudhon was pretty clear he considered Bastiat and his school as counter-revolutionaries. As for Oppenheimer, according to the introduction to my copy of "The State", he called himself a "liberal socialist." Finally, the use of the word "sectarians" -- that assumes that anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists aim for the same thing, which is not the case. And it would be noted that few anarchists consider "anarcho"-capitalism as form of anarchism. [BlackFlag], 08:33 26 September, 2006 (UTC)
For God's sake, no,no,no,no,no,no, make it go away. Not again. --GoodIntentionstalk 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AnarchismTree07.jpg 

message: There's a link that isn't correctly piped under Issues in Anarchism:Capitalism where Mutualism should be Mutualism, but I can't fix it because the page is protected.  So yeah an admin should go change that. --Anaraug 04:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor fix