Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 16

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Jul 06 and Aug 06.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 17. Thank you. --Rosicrucian 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud.
:Laissez-faire capitalism is arguably the most important aspect of anarcho-capitalism (hence the existence of the term capitalism in the name), so why is there no mention of laissez-faire capitalism in this defining sentence?  Why do I have to wait until the middle of the paragraph to see a mention of capitalism?  Moreover, I would like someone to tell me the specific source(s) from which this definition is dervied (in particular, the clause about "initiatory coercion and fraud"); otherwise, there is no way for me to verify it and I will have no other choice but to consider it original research. -- WGee 02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary exchange...a free market. Some people define capitalism in other ways. I agree it needs a more definitional type intro sentence. Here is one from a source: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and national defense. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a system of private property based on individual rights is the only moral system - a system that implies a free market, or total voluntarism, in all transactions. (Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99. (Article is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an anarcho-capitalist.)) TheIndividualist 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about the lead 

message: I read the introductory paragraph three times, and I am still rather confused at the exact definition of anarcho-capitalism. There needs to be a solid definition, not the bs™ that's there now - "Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud." - well it's interesting it's based on that, but what is it? "Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals." - That doesn't help define anarcho-capitalism either, and some individuals may encounter difficulty even comprehending that sentence at all. In fact, this entire article should be cut down and simplified a bit, and could someone insert a solid definition into the first 2 sentences? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I put a first sentence definition in there. "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism that proposes that all goods and services, including defense of liberty and property, should be supplied in a free market rather than by the state." TheIndividualist 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a highly contentious claim. I removed it. --AaronS 15:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, looking like if you call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, you get folks coming out of the woodwork. Wild stuff, and this seems to be one of those topics that engenders a lot of strong opinions.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The sentence that is there now sounds about right - Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the coordinatation of all functions of society, including justice and national defence, by the free market.. It's a definition, at the least. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph 

message: While I can certainly see a case made for either, isn't two sidebars a bit much? Unless we can move one of them down so they both occupy the same space on the right, it really clutters up the article layout. Personally I'd say Anarcho-capitalism has more in common with the articles in the Anarchism series (particularly Anarcho-syndicalism) than with articles in the Libertarianism series.--Rosicrucian 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and I just visited Template talk:Anarchism and figured out what a can of worms I just opened. Wow. Guess this will have to wait until the template debate is over (if ever).--Rosicrucian 15:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that two sidebars is too much, but I haven't removed either for the very reason you listed.  They could at least be put one after the other rather than side-by-side.  I will try that, hopefully it won't ignite passions.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Layout looks much improved as a result. I suppose we could have some contention over which one to put first, but I do hope we can all agree that the new layout makes the overall article more readable.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly does, and I dearly hope we don't start arguing about which comes first. That would be quite silly. =) --AaronS 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the research is proving bewildering. Every time I delve further and come closer to saying "okay, this is closer to anarchism" or "okay, this is closer to libertarianism" I find another passage that swings me the other way. Certainly Rothbard believed this to be an anarchist philosophy, but so many of the ideals involved are libertarian in nature, and it certainly doesn't clear things up to find that the man also practically codified what we now identify as libertarianism in the modern sense. Until I can wrap my head around this better any edits and suggestions I make will be procedural and layout oriented rather than content-oriented.--Rosicrucian 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. One of the difficulties with these articles is that it does require a lot of background knowledge. I admit that my own understanding of all of the different anarchist philosophies is elementary at best. --AaronS 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism or Libertarianism? 

message: The introductory section of the article is rather dense with information, perhaps needlessly so. If one can't see the ToC without scrolling at 1024x768, I think things may have gone somewhat awry. I'd favor coming up with a more concise introductory paragraph, with any other information moved to the appropriate section of the article as needed. It fits Wikipedia:Lead section better that way.--Rosicrucian 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No thoughts on this? Surely we can be more concise than what's up there right now.--Rosicrucian 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your relevant and uncontroversial point might have been lost in the bickering. ;-) --AaronS 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further inspection, it does look like VisionThing tidied it up a good deal, and I just missed it. Kudos, VisionThing, that's definitely looking like a step in the right direction. I'll give it another look in 1024x768 once I get back from work, as I don't have local admin rights to adjust my workstation's resolution.--Rosicrucian 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topheavy 

message: What's the NPOV tag about? The sources seem to be ok. Intangible 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight, as explained above. --AaronS 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  medieval iceland 

message: Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Here is the lead paragraph as it stands now:
:Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state, and the provision of all goods and services—including essential services such as jurisdiction, policing and defence—by the free market. Central to the philosophy is the idea of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud, including state-imposed restrictions on commerce. Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists, property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject "the state" as an unjustified, monopolist thief and systematic aggressor that should be eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual "has the right to own the product that he has made."[1] and that profit is a natural occuring and non-coercive part of trade. This embrace of capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the state.
I tried to incorporate the concerns of Argyriou and others into the paragraph without making use of anarcho-capitalist terminology, which can be confusing and off-putting to the uninitiated.  For example, what exactly is the "monopoly of force of the state"?  What are "legitimate services" in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists?  What does "the rejection of initiatory coercion and fraud" entail in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists (I've tried to explain in laymen terms that it entails an opposition to all restrictions on commerce imposed by the state, which seems correct from what I've read in the rest of the article). These vague terms and phrases should not be utilized in the lead, although they may be acceptable in the main body, where they can be explained in detail.
Some constructive input on my edits, and on the lead in general, would be appreciated, as I hope to reach a consensus on the lead sometime soon.  But please keep in mind my primary concern while offering a critique: that we should avoid vague terminology in the lead and simply "tell it like it is".
-- WGee 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: Earlier, we'd moved the Libertarianism sidebar down because having it right beside the anarchism one squishes the layout terribly. The discussion is above. I don't mind moving the Libertarianism sidebar up a bit, but I do think we can't have them right next to each other. It's just messy. Perhaps put Libertarianism on top, and anarchism below?--Rosicrucian 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... I didn't realize someone else had already talked about this, anyways, I have more comments below. --Two-Bit Sprite 20:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my original goal: to have libertarianism on top and anarchism below.  I just didn't know how to effect that change and ended up inadvertently placing the templates side-by-side. -- WGee 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebars 

message: While I agree that both libertarianism and anarchism play a very large role in anarcho-capitalists theories, I have to object with both templates being at the top for asthetic reasons. I think we need to pick one, and move the other down. In 1024x768, having both templates at the top squeezes the intro such that it doesn't all fit in the first screenful. I feel the intro is perfectly sized as it stands, and could withstand any reduction, so I say the only option is to move one of the templates... Thoughts? --Two-Bit Sprite 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Uiofvnondc has gotta be yanking our chains. How else can he claim, on the same day, that anarcho-capitalism is anti-political, not non-political, but non-political, not anti-political? His sense of indignation is growing inauthentic. I say we cap this discussion soon and move on to more important things. This isn't serious. --AaronS 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SIC. But your are serious?! Laughable. --Uiofvnondc 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we stop joking around? 

message: I see that Anarcho-capitalism is listed as needing a mediator.  I am willing to mediate this case, as I have familiarity with (I think) all political and economic systems, including the variants of anarchist philosophy.  Please leave a note if this is acceptable or not.  Thanks. - MSTCrow 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your talk archives indicate you have recently been removed from the Mediation Cabal. Is it really appropriate to offer this?--Rosicrucian 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you notice, you don't actually have to be part of the Cabal to mediate.  Not going to stop working simply because of politics. The users decide who mediates.  So whether it's "appropriate" or not is rather subjective, policy-wise, it's fully appropiate. - MSTCrow 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that the trollish sockpuppets are gone, do we really need mediation? -- WGee 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one might actually be back. See DTC's contribution history. He arrived over the weekend and began a flurry of familiar edits. I may be jumping the gun, but there's nothing wrong with some extra caution, considering the history of these articles. --AaronS 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this is a different person, the writing style is much different, and a bit better. Also, the focus on labor in some of thier comments is a bit different. Although the user is still a bit suspicious in being a new user that seems so familiar with wikipedia and has a single directed goal. Two-Bit Sprite 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your temporary leave of absence is well warranted. I, too, have grown annoyed by the fanatical polemicism of the sockpuppets, which is why I've decided to stop editing this article for a while.  Unfortunately, articles related to political science attract the most die-hard and ardent editors, who detract from the liesure of editing. -- WGee 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a break 

message: I think that the list of thirteen sources one after another in the Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism section is a little ugly... Maybe this could be fixed up to look better? Supersheep 20:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistics