Talk:Anarchism/Archive 29

message: This discussion was not initially a vote, but I thought that it would be useful to see where people's opinions lie. If anybody disagrees with how I'm counting the votes, please feel free to make changes, as long as you discuss why you made them.
Should the section on anarcho-capitalism be merged out of the article?
Yes:
*Liftarn
*AaronS
*The Ungovernable Force
*Chris Acheson
*albamuth
*Bengalski
*Nihila
*Neoclassic
*Jae Muzzin
Unconvinced, Unsettled, and Unsatisfied:
*talonxpool
No:
*RJII
*Hogeye
*MrVoluntarist
--AaronS 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: take out 71.143.13.189 as a yes vote and add The Ungovernable Force. I just started an account, so the ip address is not the best way to count me. The Ungovernable Force 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Two reasons: 
1. We are trying to reach a consensus if possible (but that probably isn't).
2. It was out, but hogeye started an edit war which led to protection on hogeye's version. RJII and Mr.Voluntarist at least left it out for the time being while we discussed, (kudos to you two on that one). The Ungovernable Force 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote summary 

message: === Proposed changes ===
Since a good majority of users want the section on anarcho-capitalism to be merged out of the article, I will in due time begin to make the following proposed changes to the article:
*Remove the section on anarcho-capitalism
*Place key elements of the section on anarcho-capitalism in the final part of the section on individualist anarchism, giving anarcho-capitalism its own paragraph
*Revert edits attempting to reinsert a section on anarcho-capitalism
If you disagree with any of these proposed changes, please voice your disapproval. I want to make sure that everybody's views and opinions are treated fairly. The most important thing for us to do is to make this article accurate, fair, and neutral, so that it can continue on its progress to becoming FAC.
Please note that changes in this article will reflect changes in the anarchism template. The same users who have been fighting against the removal of a prominent section on anarcho-capitalism in this article have been engaged in a revert war with regard to the template.
I think that we've come some way, and I think that the progress is good. And I think that the discussion has been (mostly) civil, and I thank you all for that. Not long ago, some people were attempting to place anarcho-capitalism in a preeminent role in this article. I'm glad that we're finally addressing this inaccuracy and bias in a manner that, hopefully, everybody can agree is judicious. --AaronS 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A majority of users? LOL!  This is not democracy. This is anarchy. You can remove the anarcho-capitalism section if you wish. I and others will just put it back in. Welcome to Wikipedia. RJII 20:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and we'll take it back out. I think the proposed idea is a good one. Take out A-C's paragraph and mention it in the indiv anarchism section. Sounds like a good compromise. The Ungovernable Force 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My POV is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. And there are sources that agree with me. Therefore, I am correct to put anarcho-capitalism in the article. RJII 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes they are fit for an encyclopedia article. I gave you legitimate historians, and I gave you published contemporary labor-value individualist anarchist Joe Peacott. RJII 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raico is an anarcho-capitalist? I don't think so. And, if he was I don't think that's relevant. He's a respect history professor. It's POV to dismiss him just because of his personal philosophy. The Encarta article includes anarcho-capitalism. That's a very mainstream source. Sure they only say one sentence about it, but that doesn't mean we can't go into more depth on it here in Wikipedia -and we should. Also, note that Rothbard, the most famous proponent of anarcho-capitalism considers it a form of anarchism --that certainly counts for something. 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if Encarta only mentions one sentence about it? Wikipedia is supposed to be a more comprehensive encyclopedia, so it should be at least a paragraph or two in this article. We don't have to mimic other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is a cutting-edge encyclopedia and can go into more detail than the mainstream encyclopedias out there. Mark my words --all mainstream encyclopedias will follow suit and will have a section on anarcho-capitalism in a few years; and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And, you've ignored the article by Joe Peacott --a published individualist anarchist (that opposes capitalism). RJII 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't think it deserves discussion then don't discuss it. Let the anarcho-capitalists have their little paragraph or two and let it be. What does it matter how large the section is? It should be as large as it takes to give a quick understanding of it. I do not understand that mentality of thinking that the size of a section or sentence matters ..at all ..about anything on Wikipedia  --whether it's a minority view or not. What does it matter? RJII 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be POV if you said it was just "influenced" by anarchism. All anarcho- philosophies must be discussed. Let the reader decide for himself if it is "true anarchism." RJII 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it gives the impression that it's merely influenced by individualist anarchism but is not actually anarchism, then it's POV (not the mention that it IS individualist anarchism). I'm perfectly content with a brief discussion of anarcho-capitalism, just like all the other forms of anarchism. You're too hung up on the brevity issue. What does it matter how many sentences it takes to explain any particular philosophy? It should take as many sentences as is necessary to give a overview. You seem to think that if one section is two paragraphs and another is one that it indicates that the former is more important. I don't see it that way at all. I think that's a bit immature actually. RJII 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting "anarcho-capitalism" explicitly as an anarchist philosophy would be just as POV as stating that it is not.  State that it exists, note the controversy, and leave the rest of it to the article that already exists on the subject. Chris Acheson 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposed changes -- please address edits and reverts here 

message: Since a good majority of users want the section on anarcho-capitalism to be merged out of the article, I will in due time begin to make the following proposed changes to the article:
*Remove the section on anarcho-capitalism
*Place key elements of the section on anarcho-capitalism in the final part of the section on individualist anarchism, giving anarcho-capitalism its own paragraph
*Revert edits attempting to reinsert a section on anarcho-capitalism
If you disagree with any of these proposed changes, please voice your disapproval. I want to make sure that everybody's views and opinions are treated fairly. The most important thing for us to do is to make this article accurate, fair, and neutral, so that it can continue on its progress to becoming FAC.
Please note that changes in this article will reflect changes in the anarchism template. The same users who have been fighting against the removal of a prominent section on anarcho-capitalism in this article have been engaged in a revert war with regard to the template.
I think that we've come some way, and I think that the progress is good. And I think that the discussion has been (mostly) civil, and I thank you all for that. Not long ago, some people were attempting to place anarcho-capitalism in a preeminent role in this article. I'm glad that we're finally addressing this inaccuracy and bias in a manner that, hopefully, everybody can agree is judicious. --AaronS 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: :A majority of users? LOL!  This is not democracy. This is anarchy. You can remove the anarcho-capitalism section if you wish. I and others will just put it back in. Welcome to Wikipedia. RJII 20:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and we'll take it back out. I think the proposed idea is a good one. Take out A-C's paragraph and mention it in the indiv anarchism section. Sounds like a good compromise. The Ungovernable Force 23:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My POV is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. And there are sources that agree with me. Therefore, I am correct to put anarcho-capitalism in the article. RJII 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes they are fit for an encyclopedia article. I gave you legitimate historians, and I gave you published contemporary labor-value individualist anarchist Joe Peacott. RJII 21:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raico is an anarcho-capitalist? I don't think so. And, if he was I don't think that's relevant. He's a respect history professor. It's POV to dismiss him just because of his personal philosophy. The Encarta article includes anarcho-capitalism. That's a very mainstream source. Sure they only say one sentence about it, but that doesn't mean we can't go into more depth on it here in Wikipedia -and we should. Also, note that Rothbard, the most famous proponent of anarcho-capitalism considers it a form of anarchism --that certainly counts for something. 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if Encarta only mentions one sentence about it? Wikipedia is supposed to be a more comprehensive encyclopedia, so it should be at least a paragraph or two in this article. We don't have to mimic other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is a cutting-edge encyclopedia and can go into more detail than the mainstream encyclopedias out there. Mark my words --all mainstream encyclopedias will follow suit and will have a section on anarcho-capitalism in a few years; and there's nothing you can do to stop it. And, you've ignored the article by Joe Peacott --a published individualist anarchist (that opposes capitalism). RJII 21:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't think it deserves discussion then don't discuss it. Let the anarcho-capitalists have their little paragraph or two and let it be. What does it matter how large the section is? It should be as large as it takes to give a quick understanding of it. I do not understand that mentality of thinking that the size of a section or sentence matters ..at all ..about anything on Wikipedia  --whether it's a minority view or not. What does it matter? RJII 01:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be POV if you said it was just "influenced" by anarchism. All anarcho- philosophies must be discussed. Let the reader decide for himself if it is "true anarchism." RJII 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it gives the impression that it's merely influenced by individualist anarchism but is not actually anarchism, then it's POV (not the mention that it IS individualist anarchism). I'm perfectly content with a brief discussion of anarcho-capitalism, just like all the other forms of anarchism. You're too hung up on the brevity issue. What does it matter how many sentences it takes to explain any particular philosophy? It should take as many sentences as is necessary to give a overview. You seem to think that if one section is two paragraphs and another is one that it indicates that the former is more important. I don't see it that way at all. I think that's a bit immature actually. RJII 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting "anarcho-capitalism" explicitly as an anarchist philosophy would be just as POV as stating that it is not.  State that it exists, note the controversy, and leave the rest of it to the article that already exists on the subject. Chris Acheson 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion of proposed changes 

message: Aaron I don't think you were right to remove Godwin - or at least, I think you should to discuss first before cutting a whole section. Would you like to give your reasons here?
I don't have a strong opinion personally on whether he should be in as the 'first philosophical anarchist', though he certainly should be in as something. Many respected anarchist writers have given him a prominent place - including Kropotkin in the EB article you quote from above. (It was Godwin, in his Enquiry concerning Political Justice (2 vols., 1793), who was the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism, even though he did not give that name to the ideas developed in his remarkable work.) And as I remember the first book I ever read about anarchism long ago, Woodcock's 'Anarchism', also had him as the first modern anarchist.
You could argue we should start with Proudhon as the first to call himself an anarchist - but then, as I think you're seeing with the ancaps, calling yourself an anarchist and being one are two different things.Bengalski 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it was a bit rash to remove the section completely. I'm fine with including discussion of it, as long as the discussion is fair and neutral.--AaronS 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it because Godwin was a liberal? RJII 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is because it is innaccurate to call Godwin the founder of philosophical anarchism.--AaronS 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Godwin

message: Hogeye, good move on making a liberal anarchism section. But American labor-value individualism should be in that as well. RJII 17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for two sections on anarcho-capitalism when we can't even agree on one. --AaronS 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me know if the change that I made clarifies anything. In the meantime, I'll take a look at that article. Thanks for the reference. --AaronS 04:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal anarchism

message: Hogeye, please refrain from blanket reverts in the future, and discuss the problems that you have with particular changes on the talk page. --AaronS 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've discussed anarchist books, the clarification of the definition of anarchism, and the first anarchist essay many times.  Do you have something to add? Hogeye 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanket reverting, or how to to start an unnecessary edit war

message: Let's start with what should be an easy one: "There is a significant anarchist element to the environmental movement, ..."  Proof?  What unbiased author claims this?  What is the estimate of the percentage?  On what is it based?  I'll have more but let's start with this for now. MrVoluntarist 05:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that claim should be removed. The Earth Liberation Front is said to be anarchist, and I am sure that there are many anarchist environmental organizations, but I'm not sure if that makes it a "significant" part of what most people view as the environmental movement.--AaronS 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I didn't expect that response.  It is a bit odd that your POV-detector missed that one though. MrVoluntarist 16:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A less pov statement would be "many anarchists participate in the environmental movement" b/c it emphasises our participation rather than our influence (and I think it is obvious that a large percentage, and probably the vast majority, of anarchists are environmentalists). The Ungovernable Force 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have time to focus on every aspect of the article, especially when I already have one dispute taking up all of my time.--AaronS 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe either of those two are anarchists, but Zinn has said he is partly inspired by anarchism, and LeGuin has written books w/anarchist themes.The Ungovernable Force 10:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some claims I want a citation for 

message: Max, you have a habit if deleting sourced info. You deleted a quote from Arthur Lehning (a historian who happens to be an anarcho-syndicalist) that "Arthur Lenning notes this native American anarchism "was not influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence."   The reason you stated is that it was "original research." A quote is not original research. RJII 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with RJII, here, Max. If your going to be removing anything, please discuss the reason why you want to remove it on this page first. Then we can all think about it in the context of everybody's wishes and the good of the article as a whole. Your actions may or may not be justified, but none of us know until you inform us of your impetus. I don't think that the edit summary suffices for such a removal. --AaronS 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Max_rspct removing sourced info

message: Nice chart. But is there a flow chart in Wikipedia so that anyone can edit it?  I know tables can be made. If not, someone needs to program one. RJII 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, that chart was rather POV. Without even getting into the dubious make-up of the tree, putting it under the historical section of the article made it seem as if individualist anarchism evolved into anarcho-capitalism, i.e. that anarcho-capitalism is modern individualist anarchism. That is not true. --AaronS 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism has taken many forms. Subjective value individualist anarchism (anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, etc) actually existed before labor-value individualist anarchism.  Benjamin Tucker even said Auberon Herbert as an anarchist (Auberon Herbert was was is now called an anarcho-capitalist --an individualist anarchist who doesn't see profit as exploitative). There are several individualist anarchists that didn't subscribe to the labor theory of value. They just haven't been called anarcho-capitalists. Would you deny that Emile Armand was an individualist anarchist? Nobody else has denied it, even though he thought value was totally contingent upon subjective valuations. But, as soon as you tag the word "capitalism" on something, those who cling to obsolete definitions of capitalism get all confused, such as yourself. RJII 00:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No. You're ignoring what I am writing, and reading what you want to read. My problem was that the chart made it appear as if individualist anarchism evolved into anarcho-capitalism. There are still old-school individualist anarchists today. Anarcho-capitalism might draw many things from individualist anarchism, but the notion of capitalist private property (which, I might had, has not changed) is rejected by socialist and individualist anarchists alike. No matter how much you try to belittle those who disagree with you and claim that they are stupid or ignorant, the fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with misunderstandings regarding the definition of capitalism, and everything to do with anarchist rejections of capitalist private property. --AaronS 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart of influences

message: This section has long been a problem, but now it's become positively misleading.
Lots of people have been labelled anarchists by their critics when they have no connection with anarchism. This is not a reason to include them on this page. There are relations between liberalism and anarchism for sure, but they are two different things, and this first paragraph confuses.
The reason for trying to conflate generalised 'early 1800s liberals', and Bastiat and Molinari in particular, with anarchism is to provide a pedigree for ancapism. This is misleading and deliberate POV pushing. Bengalski 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there were indeed liberal anarchists who were anarcho-capitalists. Even Benjamin Tucker said that Auberon Herbert was an anarchist (he called himself a Voluntaryist which is capitalist anarchism). ""Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!.." -Tucker Also, political historian Ralph Raico said that these guys, including Molinari "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." RJII 21:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Liberalism just essentially means an individualist in person and property. It you take that to the extreme by not bringing government into the picture, you're a liberal/individualist anarchist. RJII 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a difference between the two. Raico is a professor of history, and Kropotkin was not. I don't think you can rightfully dismiss a source just because of the historian's personal philosophy. Every historian has a personal philosophy --does that mean we dismiss everybody? Now, Kropotkin we can more easily dismiss because he has has no degree in history. For example, what if we find out that Carl Levy, a political historian, and author of the MS Encrta article is a capitalist? Are we then supposed to dismiss it? Of course not. RJII 22:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, the issue is not whether or not we should dismiss Raico as a historian; rather, the issue is whether or not we should dismiss Raico as a neutral historian of anarchism. Just as I would balance Howard Zinn's People's History against a more nationalistic reading of U.S. history, I think that Raico's perspective needs to be balanced, as well. The issue, then, is finding middle ground -- something that I have been promoting since the very beginning, immediately after you began providing me with sources for your claims. --AaronS 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberalism/Individualism section - disputed

message: Note: No bullet-point means section, bullet-point means subsection, and indented bullet-point means discussion (not further division into sections).
History of anarchism:
*Pre-modern traces
**Stoicism
*Possible early modern anarchists
**Godwin, sans-culottes
*Mutalism
**Anarchism develops as a self-conscious movement
**Proudhon
*Egoism
**Stirner
*Individualist anarchism
**French individualists
**American individualists
**Anarcho-capitalism develops later
*Anarcho-communism
**The International
**Bakunin
**Kropotkin
**Goldman
**Anarcho-syndicalism
*Modern anarchism
**All previously mentioned philosophies, plus (in no particular order)
**Post-left anarchy
**Post-structuralism
**Anarchists w/o adjectives/small "a" anarchism
**Primitivism
**Insurrectionary anarchism
**Platformism
Anarchism in history:
*Propaganda by the deed
*Anarchism at work
*The Russian Revolution
*The Spanish Civil War
Anarchism applied to other ideas
*Religion
*Feminism
--AaronS 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalism doesn't develop "later." It was named later. It existed in parallel with labor-value individualist anarchism. I like that you want to include the French individualist though. Emile Armand is an example of an individualist anarchist that didn't adhere to the labor theory of value ("FULL AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT to determine and change the value or price of any goods, either one's own products or consumer goods, of whatever kind, according to one's own discretion. Likewise untouchable is the right to negotiate in this respect, to use an arbitrator or to do without any determination of values.") RJII 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not true. Labor-value individualists and subjective value individualists (anarcho-capitalists) define property in exactly the same way. Here's Lysander Spooner's definition: "... the principle of individual property... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." Property is the right of absolute dominion over the product of one's labor --exclusive use, against all others. Both, labor-value individualist and anarcho-capitalists advocate private property. They both define it the same way. "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property." -Clarence Swartz, labor-value individualist and associate of Tucker. RJII 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definitions are enough. That's how they define private property. The differences is in what they consider the produce of labor. Many individualist anarchists opposed ownership of land itself, since land itself is not the product of labor. Others don't oppose it, believing that if you work the land then you own it. Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews didn't oppose ownership of the land itself. Spooner thought that natural resources could become private property just taking them, since it takes effort (labor) to acquire it. It's not a clear cut thing where they all believe the same thing. Some of labor-value individualists supported rent, as long as it was just used by the owner to maintain upkeep of the property and pay for insurance, etc. Tucker said he supported the "right of usury" since it was a matter of contract, which was the over-arching law. But, labor-value individualists and anarcho-capitalists have the same definition of property --the right of exclusive use to a thing (and the right to dispose of it as one wishes). RJII 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm pointing out that those thinkers supported private property and defined it the same way as anarcho-capitalists. What makes one individualist anarchists a labor-value individualist and another individualist an anarcho-capitalist is that the former adheres to the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists don't --they think value is subjective so they don't think an economic law is being subverted when profit occurs in trade. The labor-value individualists anarchists allow people to trade for profit, but they think it's exploitative. But, they think that in a laissez-faire situation, profit would be nearly impossible due to the proliferation of competition (they embraced economic competition). The anarcho-capitalists simply think they're bad economists --that the labor theory of value is flawed. RJII 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal by AaronS

message: anarchy literally means, "no rule," not just "no government."  Any system that supports the rule of private tyrannies cannot be anarchist, so please remove all this nonsense about "anarcho-capitalism."
:What's a "private tyranny"? RJII 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists are against the initiation of force.  We are against tyranny, both government and private. Your confusion about anarcho-capitalism probably stems from the socialist assumption that voluntary interactions like employment, rent, and interest are tyrannical.  But we anarcho-capitalists don't buy your flat-earth labor theory of value or your exploitation theory.  What is deemed to be aggression depends on one's theory of property. Hogeye 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That can only be the case if natural resources are a priori owned by everyone. Not everyone believes that is the case; individualist certainly don't. If natural resources are originally unowned, then taking a natural resource and transforming it into something of value, and  then keeping it to oneself cannot be the initiation of force against anyone. You can't steal what is not yet owned. Individualist anarchists (including anarcho-capitalists) think applying labor to a natural resources creates ownership. THEN, if someone tries to take that away from you it's iniitiation of force, because individual ownership (private property) has been established. RJII 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of anarchy

message: Just as a side issue to the discussion going on above, I have just discovered that an anti-anarchist law was passed in the U.S. in 1902 to allow the government to arrest or deport any person or persons that promote anarchism.  Does anyone know any more about this?  I cannot find any reference in Wikipedia. Do we need an article on this law, or for that matter an article covering every anti-anarchy law made by any government (I believe France has several).  I believe the law only effects those who promote violent anarchy, but it made me stop and think, given what is going on under the current U.S. Patriot Act.  --nirvana2013 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. Here's Theodore Roosevelt: "When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he is an anarchist; and no paper published here or abroad should be permitted circulation in this country if it propagates anarchist opinions." Here he is condemning anarchists in a State of the Union address:  in 1901. RJII 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That was the begining of use word libertarian to define anarchist around the world.
Taht was because libertarian was a synonimuos of anarchism until 60s.
Libertarians (capitalists) stold that name, now they want to still the other (anarchism)--Nihilo 01 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Anarchy Act 1902 

message: Using Google to determine the popularity of terms, etc. is a bit dubious, I admit. But, it is a useful lens, at least to some extent. Here are the number of Google hits for several different terms, ranked in order of most numerous to least numerous (Google explains using the minus sign as such: If your search term has more than one meaning (bass, for example, could refer to fishing or music) you can focus your search by putting a minus sign ("-") in front of words related to the meaning you want to avoid):
Note: all phrases were queried as phrases; thus, anarchist communism was queried as "anarchist communism", quotes included.
*Anarchism: 1,790,000
*Anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 1,690,000
*Anarcho-capitalism: 142,000
*Anarcho-syndicalism: 134,000
*Libertarianism +anarcho-capitalism: 106,000
*Libertarian socialism: 71,400
*Anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 61,000
*Anarchist communism: 56,800
*Anarcho-communism: 27,300
*Individualist anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 24,200
*Individualist anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 12,500
*Individualist anarchism +anticapitalism: 2,490
*Socialist anarchism: 728
*Anarcho-socialism: 613
*Anarchist capitalism: 481
*Liberal anarchism: 354
*American individualist anarchism: 338 (the first two links are the Wikipedia article)
*Individualist anarchism +labor-theory of value: 285
*Labor-theory individualism: 1 (Wikipedia)
*Labor-theory individualists: 1 (Wikipedia)
*Labor-theory individualist: 0
*Labor-theory individualist anarchism: 0
The following facts are apparent:
*The word anarchism is used 94.4% of the time without any connection to anarcho-capitalism
*Anarcho-capitalism is more often discussed in connection with libertarianism than it is in connection with anarchism (nearly twice as often)
*The terms socialist anarchism and anarcho-socialism are very rarely used
*The term liberal anarchism is almost never used
*The term American individualist anarchism is used even less than liberal anarchism
*The term labor-theory individualism and its various forms is nonexistant, except for on Wikipedia
*Individualist anarchism is referenced twice as much without any connection to anarcho-capitalism than it is with a connection to anarcho-capitalism
*Etc.
If you believe that Google is at least somewhat useful in determining the popularity of terms, we can draw some conclusions. First, the term "liberal anarchism" should not be used in this article. Second, the term "American individualist anarchism" is a bit dubious. Third, the term "labor-theory individualism" only exists on Wikipedia, in an article written by RJII (that seems like original research to me). Fourth, anarchism is rarely discussed with a direct reference to anarcho-capitalism -- only 5.6% of the time. Make of it what you will. This is just some more information to help our discussion along. --AaronS 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "American individualist anarchism" is not intended to be "term." Neither is "labor-value individualism" --I'm just distingushing between individualists that ahdere to the labor theory and the ones that don't to facilitate discussion. These are descriptions --not "terms." Instead of "American individualist anarchism" you could say "Individualist anarchism developed by Americans" --"American individualist anarchism" is simply more economical. Get it? RJII 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This doesn't prove what you think it does.  First of all, if someone references "anarcho-capitalism" as just "anarchism" as many do, like those academics I showed you (that got hit by the goal post as you moved it past them), that would show up as a hit for "anarchism" on Google.  So you can't get away with saying that any website without both "anarchism" AND "anarcho-capitalism" uses anarchism "without any connection" to anarcho-capitalism.  The only way to establish that one site uses anarchism a certain way is to ask them.  I could go on, but that was really your central claim.  And a bit smug, if I might add, for a disinterested pursuer of truth. MrVoluntarist 05:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'd check out Google's first result if I were you: . MrVoluntarist 05:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Googology 

message: Using Google to determine the popularity of terms, etc. is a bit dubious, I admit. But, it is a useful lens, at least to some extent. Here are the number of Google hits for several different terms, ranked in order of most numerous to least numerous (Google explains using the minus sign as such: If your search term has more than one meaning (bass, for example, could refer to fishing or music) you can focus your search by putting a minus sign ("-") in front of words related to the meaning you want to avoid):
Note: all phrases were queried as phrases; thus, anarchist communism was queried as "anarchist communism", quotes included.
*Anarchism: 1,790,000
*Anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 1,690,000
*Anarcho-capitalism: 142,000
*Anarcho-syndicalism: 134,000
*Libertarianism +anarcho-capitalism: 106,000
*Libertarian socialism: 71,400
*Anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 61,000
*Anarchist communism: 56,800
*Anarcho-communism: 27,300
*market anarchism: 39,900
*Individualist anarchism -anarcho-capitalism: 24,200
*Individualist anarchism +anarcho-capitalism: 12,500
*Individualist anarchism +anticapitalism: 2,490
*Socialist anarchism: 728
*Anarcho-socialism: 613
*Anarchist capitalism: 481
*Liberal anarchism: 354
*American individualist anarchism: 338 (the first two links are the Wikipedia article)
*Individualist anarchism +labor-theory of value: 285
*Labor-theory individualism: 1 (Wikipedia)
*Labor-theory individualists: 1 (Wikipedia)
*Labor-theory individualist: 0
*Labor-theory individualist anarchism: 0
The following facts are apparent:
*The word anarchism is used 94.4% of the time without any connection to anarcho-capitalism
*Anarcho-capitalism is more often discussed in connection with libertarianism than it is in connection with anarchism (nearly twice as often)
*The terms socialist anarchism and anarcho-socialism are very rarely used
*The term liberal anarchism is almost never used
*The term American individualist anarchism is used even less than liberal anarchism
*The term labor-theory individualism and its various forms is nonexistant, except for on Wikipedia
*Individualist anarchism is referenced twice as much without any connection to anarcho-capitalism than it is with a connection to anarcho-capitalism
*Etc.
If you believe that Google is at least somewhat useful in determining the popularity of terms, we can draw some conclusions. First, the term "liberal anarchism" should not be used in this article. Second, the term "American individualist anarchism" is a bit dubious. Third, the term "labor-theory individualism" only exists on Wikipedia, in an article written by RJII (that seems like original research to me). Fourth, anarchism is rarely discussed with a direct reference to anarcho-capitalism -- only 5.6% of the time. Make of it what you will. This is just some more information to help our discussion along. --AaronS 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "American individualist anarchism" is not intended to be "term." Neither is "labor-value individualism" --I'm just distingushing between individualists that ahdere to the labor theory and the ones that don't to facilitate discussion. These are descriptions --not "terms." Instead of "American individualist anarchism" you could say "Individualist anarchism developed by Americans" --"American individualist anarchism" is simply more economical. Get it? RJII 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This doesn't prove what you think it does.  First of all, if someone references "anarcho-capitalism" as just "anarchism" as many do, like those academics I showed you (that got hit by the goal post as you moved it past them), that would show up as a hit for "anarchism" on Google.  So you can't get away with saying that any website without both "anarchism" AND "anarcho-capitalism" uses anarchism "without any connection" to anarcho-capitalism.  The only way to establish that one site uses anarchism a certain way is to ask them.  I could go on, but that was really your central claim.  And a bit smug, if I might add, for a disinterested pursuer of truth. MrVoluntarist 05:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I'd check out Google's first result if I were you: . MrVoluntarist 05:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, but for 1,790,000 hits on anarchism, only 142,000 talked about A-C. And many of those sites could be criticizing anarcho-cap (infoshop does, as you are no doubt aware). There are many arguments that can be made from the data and that can be spun around in different ways. And you are only adding anarcho-communism and anarchist communism. What about sydaclism, anarcho-socialism, socialist anarchism and libertarian socialism (all of which are strongly anti-capitalist)? Add those in and you get 290,841, versus 183,072 for an-cap, market anarchism, anarchist capitalism, liberal anarchism and american individualist anarchism. Also, there is more of an association between an-cap and libertarianism than an-cap and anarchism (106,000 vs 61,000). Overall, it seems to point in the anti-caps favor. The Ungovernable Force 08:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Googology