Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 10

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 05 and June 05.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive11. Thank you. Saswann 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: I placed the controversial tag here.  It seems appropriate 66.94.94.154 19:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: YMMV- However, I've attempted to boldly edit this article in some sort of shape.  I think the structure is workable now, with Philosophy/History/Criticism sections that should encompass most of the data that can be trown at this.  History is still a little messy-- there seems to be two approaches possible;
# a straight chronology, which the current version almost approaches
# a thematic braid showing converging trends
more things this needs: 
* There should be a section on Austrian School economics in history co-equal with Liberalisim and Individualist Anarchy
* The Philosophy section could do with much more actual citation.
* The Philosophy section has a lot of redundancy.
* Individualist anarchism gets a lot of text, at the expense (I think) of modern sources, which are more germaine to the topic.
* A complete refrence section and appropriate inline citations (which I started, but long way to go.)
Anyway, my 2 cents 66.94.94.154 20:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to Make this More "Encyclopedic" 

message: The non-agression axiom leaves out fraud. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose fraud in transactions. RJII 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no, fraud is a lie for the purpouse of profit, which is theft, which is agression vs. propery.  Just like burgulary or taxation which are patent violations of the axiom 66.94.94.154 21:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much more straightforward to just say that they oppose the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, and fraud that prevents individuals from using their person or property how they wish. RJII 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but it seems clear to me the way the section is currently worded.  (I made a point of including fraud.) In my mind, legnth and redundancy seem (still) to be the major fault of this article, so there's alwaysthe possibility I might over-prune. . . 66.94.94.154 12:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Herbert Spencer used the terms "direct force" and "indirect force" to mean (as we would say) aggression or threat of aggression. By the way, which is more correct?  Non-Aggression Axiom or  Non-Aggression Principle?  Rothbard used the former, but nowadays I always see it called the NAP. See numerous articles on anti-state.com    --Hogeye 02:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW: Axiom is the term I've seen most often with Libertarian writers.  And, since this is an article about a phlosophy that owes a lot (probably even its name) to Rothbard, it seems to be appropriate to use the Axiom variant here. . . Saswann 16:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: non-aggresion axiom

message: Nothing wrong with this, but it no longer fits in the section now headed "The use of force"
::Some anarcho-capitalists are not happy with either violence or soap-boxing as ways to end statism, and instead are trying to found private communities (and thus lead by example) and essentially ignore government until it goes away. Some are attempting to outcompete government by issuing private money (such as anonymous digital cash) in hopes of eventually eroding its ability to tax.
Perhaps there should be a section on how anarcho-capitalists see the transition to an anarcho-capitalist society (Incrementalisim/Succession/Revolution) but I am leery about adding one because the article is borderline too-long as it is.  Saswann 00:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clipped paragraph