Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 15

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Dec 05 and Jul 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 16. Thank you.--Rosicrucian 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

message: There is nothing useful in this article, just some anarchists trying to out do each other.  Good job guys.
:When you supply some constructive criticism, I'll non-sarcastically thank you for it. --Golbez 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean PPP. Bad comparison  ..deleted it. RJII 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP in Somalia 

message: "Another branch of individualism was found in the United States and was far less radical. The American Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) believed that maximum individual liberty would be assured where the free market was not hindered or controlled by the State and monopolies. The affairs of society would be governed by myriad voluntary societies and cooperatives, by, as he aptly put it, “un-terrified” Jeffersonian democrats, who believed in the least government possible. Since World War II this tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." This is in the UK version of the Encyclopedia.  RJII 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism mentioned in MS Encarta Encyclopedia article on Anarchism

message: Everyone should look at this proposal on the anarchism page and discuss it on both this talk page and the anarchism one. I support this proposal because we need to end this argument/edit war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchism#Two_Anarchisms 71.143.13.189 22:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Anarchisms

message: I added a very small subsection on anarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism. I think that it should be fair to both sides. --AaronS 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly, it completely duplicated the point made in Anarchisim and Anarcho-Capitalism (in fact, it is the point of having this section.)  I moved the header so more people realize this Saswann 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism

message: I added an interesting link about anarcho-capitalism in the old Wild West in the U.S.: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West RJII 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarcho-capitalism in the old Wild West

message: When making a list of anarchist links, I noticed that there was no anarcho-capitalist FAQ.  Sure, there's a wonderful Anarchist Theory FAQ by Bryan Caplan, but that's about anarchism in general.  So, drawing upon my Wikipedia experience, I created one.  Please make comments or suggestions on my Talk page. Behold! I give you ...
The Anarcho-capitalist FAQ
Hogeye 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The An-cap FAQ 

message: Infinity, stop deleting sourced information for anarcho-capitalism being individualist anarchism. I gave 4 sources. You need to realize that "individualist anarchism" is not one kind of anarchism. It's a broad category. If someone says they're an individaulist anarchist, they could be an anarcho-capitalist, a mutualist, a voluntaryist, etc. Some anarcho-capitalists don't refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but simply individualist anarchists --for example, Wendy McElroy. Don't force me to add more than 4 sources. This is ridiculous. RJII 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is POV. I could find thousands of sources saying anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism. It is only a minority that supports what you are trying to add. So, by default, you do not add it. -- infinity0 20:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not POV. All it says is that it's another term used for anarcho-capitalism. That is not POV. It's TRUE. RJII 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: None of the names listed are "commonly used" except for "free market anarchism." I'll just make it clear in the sentence presenting the list that these terms are "sometimes" used. I'm not going to put "disputed" in there unless you can find a source disputing that it's sometimes called individualist anarchism, which you'll never find. RJII 21:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're wrong. It's not POV. And, it is synonymous with it as well. Some of the sources I provide use the term interchangeably. There is nothing POV about it. There is no shortage of sources. 4 is enough. Here is another --maybe no a citable source, but just to let you see that "individualist anarchism" is a broad term that includes all individualist philosophies that oppose the State. The Individualist Anarchist Society at UC Berkeley) RJII 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I can argue that it is synomous with it. Some people that you would call anarcho-caitalists don't use the term for themselves. I gave you the example of Wendy McElroy --she calls herself an individualist anarchist.  Also, you gave that useless rag "Anarchist FAQ" as a source for disputing that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism. I don't see them making that claim in there. Nevertheless, it needs to be noted that the FAQ was written by communists that reject individualist anarchism --a useless source. I noted that in the article. RJII 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm considering taking out your Anarchist FAQ source and dispute. Those communists are saying that the labor-value individualists, like Benjamin Tucker are not capitalist. They're not saying there they they think that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of individualist anarchism. I think you need to find a source that disputes that anarcho-capitalism is a kind of individualist anarchism. RJII 22:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, you deleted it again. The next step is dispute resolution to keep you from censoring this. RJII 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Capitalism and socialism don't have the same definitions that they used to have. Tucker supported private ownership of the means of production and a market economy. Capitalism used to be defined as concentration of capital in a few hands. Socialism had another definition before it meant collective ownership of the means of production --how it was defined is not altogether clear. Webster's" dictionary that was around in 1887 defined it as "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Tucker had his own idiosyncratic definition --"labor in possession of its own" --that individuals have a right to own the full product of their labor. RJII 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "By 'capitalism' most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by 'capitalism' is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term 'capitalism' as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business. And similar considerations apply to the term 'socialism.' Most people don't mean by 'socialism' anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like 'the opposite of capitalism.' Then if 'capitalism' is a package-deal term, so is 'socialism' — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same."—Roderick Long. (Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infinity deleting sourced information

message: Picture looks horrible, is POV, is uninformative to the reader, is uncited original research. -- infinity0 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to :Image:Ac_chart.png? Then I agree. // Liftarn
I put it up for deletion a few days ago: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion#March_9 -- infinity0 17:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I'm working on an anarchocapitalist project called The Wikitopian Manifesto which I believe may be of interest to anarchocapitalist wiki-enthusiasts.  The manifesto itself is a wiki book that I am writing.  I have a rough outline and some of it filled in, but I need all the help I can get. --Wikitopian 20:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikitopian project

message: I tried to remove the less notable ones, such as a geocities website and a freewebs websites, and blogs and podcasts. Why are they being reinserted? -- infinity0 11:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn’t remove personal pages from Criticisms section, so I would say that you weren’t trying to be fair in purging and that you had other motives. If anybody else doesn’t think that some personal pages should be removed, they stay as they are. -- Vision Thing -- 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks to me like you're deleting some links that would be valuable for people who wish to get more information about anarcho-capitalism. RJII 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many links 

message: "There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them: individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms, mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social anarchisms, and now econ-anarchisms...major bifurcation between European anarchisms, which tend to be socially-oriented, and American anarchisms, which are typically highly individualistic....Those with stronger individualistic component will tend to rely not merely upon market or allied exchange arrangements, but upon capitalisitic organization; thus anarcho-capitalism..." (-Richard Sylvan, Anarchism in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy) From my research, I'm gathering it's just the communist or "social" anarchists that dispute that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. Actual scholars, and certainly independent ones, don't make that case --they just take it for granted that anarcho-capitalism is an anarchism. RJII 01:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another mainstream source of anarcho-capitalism being anarchism

message: : Objectivists oppose the total abolition of state in anarcho-capitalism on the grounds that it must logically lead to collectivism- in a society without a police force to protect against the initiation of violence and breach of contracts, civil disagreements that lead to violence can be perpetuated by the formation of gangs, creating a fragmented tribal environment of civil wars. This stands in direct opposition to individualist philosophy they use to justify their system. The Anarcho-Capitalist Philosophy rejects an organized government without paying notice to the possibility of a Constitutionally Limited Government, such as is required in an ideal capitalist society.
Does this strike anyone else as sloppy?
* It's far from obvious to me what's collectivist about a Hobbesian "war of all against all", unless collectivism is the all-purpose smear-word for Objectivists as fascism is for comedy leftists (like Rick in The Young Ones).
* ACs reject "the possibility of a constitutionally limited government" (now there is a collectivist concept) not out of negligence but on the empirical grounds that no government has long remained within its constitutional limits, and there are both theoretical reasons (public choice economics) and empirical reasons (analogy with various private institutions) for supposing that stateless institutions could keep the peace with significantly less risk of encouraging rent-seeking lawlessness.
* The claim that a "constitutionally limited government ... is required in an ideal capitalist society" is either irrelevant (is it a defining feature of the ideal? then ACs have a different ideal) or a circular restatement of the thesis.
I'm not saying anyone should be converted by these points, but there must be at least a few Objectivists who have enough understanding of AC to address them better.  —Tamfang 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good luck finding an Objectivist that even understands Objectivism. RJII 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  surely the Objectivists can do better than this 

message: : However, some disagree with this assessment, arguing [...] that when a free market finally did arise, that it was the cause of the end of the republic - "During the 12th century, wealth and power began to accumulate in the hands of a few chiefs, and by 1220, six prominent families ruled the entire country. It was the internecine power struggle among these families, shrewdly exploited by King Haakon IV of Norway, that finally brought the old republic to an end."
I want to quarrel with that but don't quite know how to put it.  Roderick Long argues that the fatal flaw was a monopolistic element: a tax in support of churches, which was imposed territorially – one couldn't escape it as easily as changing one's gođi – and collected by church owners, thus concentrating wealth.  Also there was a rigid limit on the number of gođar, which is not a feature of a free market.  —Tamfang 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland 

message: What is the difference between a political theory and a poltical philosophy? The category pages don't explain their criteria. -Will Beback 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the terms are interchangable in some contexts, in general a political philosophy can consist of various theories, but not vice versa.  I was looking for a category that would identify only political philosophies, and not be cluttered with all kinds of relatively minor theories.  --Serge 01:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that Anarcho-capitalism is both? I don't understand the meaning of a "Yes" vote in this context. It seems to me that you are suggesting a hierarchy, and if so any one article should appear in only one of the two. -Will Beback 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction as it stands between :Category:Political philosophies and :Category:Political theories seems to be that ...theories contains lots of articles about political ideas, some of which are fairly specific and single-issue-oriented, while ...philosophies is only for broad-based systems of thought. By that definition, anarcho-capitalism is movement and a philosophy, not just a theory in the broader sense. However ... we have a policy against supercategorising, that is, putting an article in two categories when one is a subcategory of the other. This article is already in :Category:Libertarianism, which is itself a movement and a philosophy. So, maybe that's all we need. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you revert? Can you explain the political feature? See google by typing in "anarcho-capitalism is a political" and explain me the mingy result. --Irgendwer 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try typing in "anarcho-capitalism is not a political" and see if you get any results. Anyway, this has been discussed ad nauseum, mostly on Talk:Libertarianism. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you have reverted to no empirical manifestation except for your disgusting trolling. --Irgendwer 07:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to guess what that statement might mean, so I will unfortunately be unable to answer it. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ah, yeah, a zombie. --Irgendwer 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: What about including the Categories with a disclaimer that some people dispute the label "political"?  Better that than suppressing information.  —Tamfang 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but only if there is a credible source disputing the label "political." If a Wikipedia editor is the disputant, that doesn't count. RJII 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the other way round. At first I want to see anarcho-capitalism within political sciences or at least as own labeling of Rothbard. --Irgendwer 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does "as own labeling" mean?  —Tamfang 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: At first you should provide an evidence to determine a point of view of an information at all. --Irgendwer 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rothbard says his philosophy is a "political philosophy of liberty" (The Task of Political Philosophy, Rothbard) And, "In particular as I have noted earlier, libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government." Six Myths About Libertarianism, Rothbard) RJII 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Evidence that a-c is generally considered a political theory/philosophy/movement has already been provided.  Not much (other than common sense), but more than zero, which is what Irgendwer has provided to the contrary.  —Tamfang 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  (Irgendwer added a spurious colon to my comment, creating the illusion that it was a response to RJII rather than to Irgendwer.  I have removed it, and likewise removed one colon from each reply. Tamfang 02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have well founded objections. But tomorrow. --Irgendwer 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I check it. I can already say, that Rothbards "philosophy of liberty" can not be an anarcho-capitalisic theory, because he makes an approach starting from the state. Rothbard: "Specifically, let us seek to establish the political philosophy of liberty and of the proper sphere of law, property rights, and the State." It is actually not more than the title says. A political theory of liberty, or a natural law theory, or what you want. Everyone to his taste. --Irgendwer 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you arguing that Rothbard is not an anarcho-capitalist? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rothbard's alliances shifted enough that it may be better to specify a date when asking such a question!  —Tamfang 02:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  To "start from the state" would be to take the state's existence and necessity as an axiom; clearly Rothbard is not doing that in the sentence quoted.  —Tamfang 19:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not aware of anyone seeking to "peg all as political philosophy".  For example, my watchlist includes many mathematical articles, and I haven't seen anyone bring up politics in any of those.  —Tamfang 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise? 

message: Will someone get around to listing this article on FAC removal candidates? This article is unbelievably POV and idiosyncratic, especially with respect to the Somalia section. 172 | Talk 03:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can neither remove this article's FAC status nor can we improve the article's defects until someone puts forward substantive and specific criticisms. I looked at the section on Somalia and I can't say it's terribly well written—some statements are redundant and repetitive—but I didn't see anything badly wrong with it. I took out one sentence which I felt expressed an anarcho-capitalist POV in a way that was unreferenced and unnecessary. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's any glaring POV problem. What do you mean by "idiosyncratic."? RJII 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, that's not a surprise. It's your POV. That's not a problem necessarily. Sometimes we all can all overlook our own biases. 172 | Talk 08:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My POV?! I didn't write this most of this article. I guess we can safely assume you didn't have a real point to make. RJII 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For one the Somalia section is totally unencyclopedic. The section is essayistic, written from the standpoint of addressing the question of the degree to which contemporary Somalia is a case of "anarcho-capitalism." While it includes citations, the section falls into the original research realm: The question is why are we even looking at Somalia-- one of over two hundred countries on earth? The answer, I hope, is that at least one "anarcho-capitalist" activist has written an article about Somalia. If so, the identity of that writer should be made clear. If not, then the section is totally idiosyncratic original research POV. In addition to that section, there are many other portions of the article implicitly written from the "anarcho-capitalist" POV, which I will expound on later. 172 | Talk 08:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a subject which gets batted around by libertarians now and then. As far as articles about it go, the one that springs to mind is this by Yumi Kim, published by the Mises Institute. There's also a whole website (granted, mostly just a message board) about Somalia qua libertarian paradise at http://www.somalianarchy.com/ . I'm not quite sure if these are sufficient for what you're looking for, since the normal course on Wikipedia is to cite sources for facts not for the decision to broach a particular topic. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty funny: "For Olad, there are benefits. "Sometimes it's difficult without a government and sometimes it's a plus," he says. "Corruption is not a problem, because there is no government." -Owner of Daallo Airlines operating in Somalia.  RJII 05:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, here is the link to an article by an Austrian economist on the topic: "Stateless in Somalia and Loving it." Dick Clark 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And here's another from Mises.org: "But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?" Dick Clark 22:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC removal candidate

message: *edit* Removed misleading, NPOV, and unsourced info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.22.170 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 June 2006.
: What's misleading or non-neutral about it?  —Tamfang 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any particular part of that you need a source for? RJII 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I added sources for it being part of classical liberalism and for the Spooner and Tucker influence. So, I think that should take care of it. RJII 21:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 67.141.22.170

message: What's all this about calling Peikoff "Rand's self-proclaimed heir"?  Isn't Her Infallible Eminence on record on this point?  —Tamfang 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? If you have a source that says otherwise, please correct the article and cite the source. Two-Bit Sprite 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peikoff 

message: This article does not currently, and has not in the past, met the requirements to be a featured article.  It has only maintained this status due to the continued lobbying by a handful of editors sympathetic to the ideology.  
*The somalia section is really only one part of the problem, and the only defense of that section "I looked at the section on Somalia and I can't say it's terribly well written—some statements are redundant and repetitive—but I didn't see anything badly wrong with it." by Nat Krause basically admits that the article fails at least the criteria of being " (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant"
::If I recall correctly, the Somalia section is a recent addition, and is of course going to take some time to improve. Two-Bit Sprite 01:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact that Tucker supports the right to inequality is referenced, are you asking that a reference be given to the fact that Marshal over looked, or at least omited mention of this? Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just nit picking. The sentence would have too much of an authorative tone without the "probably", and being as which quote is the best example of the similarity between anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism is yet to be known, we are left with (extremely minor) speculation on a subjective matter. Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, nit picking. We do not have positive emperical evidence that the term was not previously used, thus "probably". Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to cite specific examples? I see one example explicitly pointing out Rothbard's link to individualist anarchism, and a minor foreshadowing of this in the introduction. Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could help wikipedia by correcting these when you see them, instead of complaining about it. I'm getting the impression that you just have a vendetta against Anarcho-capitalism for some unexplained (though guessable) reason. Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, some examples, or even some motivation on your part to provide references or corrections, would be helpful. Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do agree that the article is very long and probably needs to be broken up. Again, you are always invited to help. Two-Bit Sprite 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed it down by creating separate article "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism". "Modern Somalia" section could be also moved to/merged with "Anarchy in Somalia", as previously suggested. -- Vision Thing -- 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with these sentiments. Any comments from those who disagree? --AaronS 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with most of those sentiments for reasons explained by Twobitsprite. -- Vision Thing -- 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like just a bunch of nit-picking to me --Todd 20:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Removal 

message: Don’t delete relevant quotes. You can move them from intro to other part of the article but don’t delete them. -- Vision Thing -- 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move them to Wikiquote, then.  That's a more approprate place for them. --Aquillion 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they're already there--happy day!  We can start reducing the oversized intro without losing any information. --Aquillion 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The sentence Whether anarcho-capitalism is a true form of anarchism may depend on the meaning of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism". may not be POV, but it is an awful way to start the section on the dispute. It posits the existence one true form of anarchism as somehow better than untrue forms, it weasels around the issue by saying "may depend", and it implies One True Definition for "anarchism" and "capitalism". The second sentence is a much more clear statement of the dispute. It says there's a dispute, and it very succinctly sums up the primary logic behind the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not truly anarchist. Argyriou 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Dispute over the name "anarchism" 

message: At nearly 70KB, this article is almost twice as long as the anarchism article. Are there any places where trimming or splitting might be possible? --AaronS 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that reducing the size of the intro, in particular, is important.  I've removed several quotes (they can be found on Wikiquote for those who are interested in the subject), but there are many others throughout the text that could be taken out without losing much.  I've also tried to trim the over-bloated first paragraph by removing redundancy; as I read the old version, it seemed to say that they rejected the state something like four times, and repeatedly detailed the fact that they want the free market to handle the defense of individual liberty and property against aggressors. --Aquillion 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I began adding  tags today in order to address the article length. To be frank, as it is, I do not believe that this article merits its status as a featured article. I think that some trimming of the fat, however, will restore it to that status. Most of the things that I tagged with  tags are fluff or speculation. The details of the theory should not be pontificated or speculated about in this article; save that for web sites, discussion forums, and other media. --AaronS 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that you're referring to this edit, but correct me if I am wrong. I'm not in the habit of only removing uncited or uncontroversial claims. Some sentences (or paragraphs) are just fluff, aren't exactly necessary for the article, are redundant, etc. (you'll see this in my edit summary, where I explain that I'm trying to cut the article length). What I cut was a bit redundant, since anarcho-capitalist economics are already explained in detail in the article. But who knows, maybe I'm lying and I don't even know it. --AaronS 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Aaron, you removed the claim that most modern economists adhere to marginalism and the subjective theory of value.  You didn't even wait for a citation of this (extremely uncontroversial) claim.  Why? MrVoluntarist 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you're referring to this edit, but correct me if I am wrong. I'm not in the habit of only removing uncited or uncontroversial claims. Some sentences (or paragraphs) are just fluff, aren't exactly necessary for the article, are redundant, etc. (you'll see this in my edit summary, where I explain that I'm trying to cut the article length). What I cut was a bit redundant, since anarcho-capitalist economics are already explained in detail in the article. But who knows, maybe I'm lying and I don't even know it. --AaronS 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most economists arent subjectivist marginalists? 

message: I cut the article down to 56 KB by moving the second half of this section to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That way, the content is not lost (and can be dealt with there), while this article remains concise and specific. --AaronS 15:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism 

message: Vision Thing, I would appreciate if you explained to me why you reverted some of my changes. The article is quickly approaching 60KB again. I thought that most of my cutting involved non-essential stuff or theoretical speculation. --AaronS 14:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I've noticed that this article is much longer than the article on real anarchism. This is completely disproportionate to the popularity, historical importance and philosophical legitimacy of the two movements. Either someone can write another 1,500 words on anarchism, or as I'd prefer, this article should be severely cut. --Nwe 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The length of anarchism in comparison to the length of this article is of no import. --AaronS 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, of course it is, it implies that "anarcho-capitalism" is more significant than actual anarchism.--Nwe 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you that an-cap is not anarchism, I also agree with AaronS--it is relatively irrelevant. The Ungovernable Force 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, let's leave the comparison with the anarchism article out for a second, the fact remains that the article is far to long and comprehensive considering the low legitimacy and significance of "anarcho-capitalism" as a philosophy.--Nwe 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy on article length being in proportion to significance. If there is relevant information about a subject, it should be included. See ninjas versus pirates. --AaronS 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: I think the last paragraph of the intro is not within the scope of a brief introduction and instead should possibly be moved to a section more pertinant to Rothbard, or should begin a new section about the early origins of a-c, I'm not sure where exactly to put it. 24.211.169.119 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last paragraph of intro 

message: Some of this links are "critical" of anarcho-capitalism. Now there is already a Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article. Criticism should mostly according to WP:V, i.e., attributed to some person, and be cited properly according to whom or what is criticized. Just pointing to an "anarchist faq" written by some unknown person does not do justice to whatever "legit" criticism might be out there. Intangible 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to metion that this "FAQ" has a very perverted view of the facts and seemingly intentionally distorts the views of Rothbard and others. Two-Bit Sprite 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it the Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism article. No point in adding critique in this article, since it would remove all flow. If people want to read about critism of anarcho-capitalism, they have an article to go to. Intangible 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   While you are at it, might as well remove mention of the criticism of anarcho-capitalism article.  Wouldn't want to interupt the flow of your advocacy-er, article.  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's keep it civil, Kev. MrVoluntarist 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly uncivil. It sort of does read that way at the moment. The only people who allow any changes to this article are anarcho-capitalists -- the people who, by no fault of their own, are probably the least objective with regard to the article. The whole "culture" on this page, at least with regard to some editors, is an extreme defensive stance against the Communist bogeymen. --AaronS 05:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wouldn't want to interupt the flow of your advocacy-er, article."  That's uncivil.  And where on this board did I myself say anything about communist boogeymen?  Or are you just overgeneralizing? Or outright lying?  (like in the stuff you said about reading the academic article that you didn't, claiming I believed in only one definition of flat-footed, claiming the UK encarta article said anarchism was always anti-capitalist, etc etc etc.) MrVoluntarist 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't lie about any of those things. You're hilarious. Anytime someone proves you wrong, you try to change the facts by stamping your feet and shouting so loudly that nobody can hear them. It's precious. --AaronS 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any time someone points out one of your breathtaking attempts at deception, you pretend like it didn't happen, insult my mental health, and then claim I was "proven wrong" when nothing of the sort happened.  It's getting old. MrVoluntarist 17:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's getting old, why do you keep obsessing over it? You're the stalker, not me. You're the one who screams LIES!!!!111 at everybody, not me. Chill. --AaronS 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:   How about we do a little give and take.  You stop trying to minimize and hide all criticism of AC in a blatant attempt to push AC pov on this page, and I will stop pointing it out.  Fair?  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite generous. Are you sure that you don't have any evil intentions, Commie? --AaronS 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon now. There's no reason for the us-vs-them ganging up sarcasm. Say it to youself, or e-mail it to a friend, but not here. This whole conversation is detracting from the topic at hand, please don't antagonize. Two-Bit Sprite 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "critical" links 

message: I have moved the sections "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" and "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism" down a bit because I don't know of many articles which set a precident for first attacking the subject matter and then describing it in detail later. Any thoughts? Two-Bit Sprite 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Move 

message: How about just leaving this article alone? You of little faith in the featured status of a Wikipedia aritcle? Shannonduck talk 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A consensus among six editors that this article is worthy of featured article status is not authoritative, nor does it indicate that the article has reached its pinnacle of quality.  Likewise, the suggestion that all editors should stop editing this article is quite ridiculous. -- WGee 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that one of those editors was banned from Wikipedia and openly admitted to inserting his own bias into a myriad of articles... --AaronS 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. You're a corker, Aaron. Shannonduck talk 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WGee:There's something like 5 or 6 unbanned editors that seem to think that this article does deserve it's featured status. Then there's the 2 banned editors that think the same. (Now up to 8.) My personal take on this ban thing with Hogeye and RJll is that they were harassed by another certain group of editors who did not like their ideologies and set out on a harassment campaign to rid Wikipedia of their pesky selves. After all these two infidels had the unmitigated gall to directly and openly oppose the rule of this (God-appointed) group. Who could blame them for their obvious pureness in motivation and for their guarding of the pristineness of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia should, after all, remain a left-leaning encyclopedia! Long live Communism! Love ya, Joey Stalin! And special thanks to that ultimate nitwit, Karl Marx, who gave the world another evil dictatorial totalitarian state to look forward to. Go boys. Go! Shannonduck talk 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, it's especially important that enclyclopedias be left-leaning as this is an established tradition. Neutral, factual articles are out of the question. Ta! Shannonduck talk 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from posting polemical, unconstructive, disruptive messages that are irrelevant to the editing process.  Your posts in this talk page have been analogous to those of a troll.  I remind you that this talk page is not a venue for political debate; its sole purpose is to civilly discuss changes and improvements to the anarcho-capitalism article. -- WGee 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the many reverts to vandalism