Talk:Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism/Archive 1

message: Yeah, that's what Wikipedia really needs... another anarchism-related page for the socialists and capitalists to edit-war over! *Dan* 17:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, but in the end, this was clogging the anarcho-capitalism article.  This distinction seems to be made so often, in so many places, that it needs one place where a sane editor can delete the debris of an edit-war and replace it with "(see: Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism)" 66.94.94.154 17:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

message: On 20 May 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  Despite a clear majority arguing for deletion, the necessary concensus for deletion was not reached and the decision defaulted to "keep" for now.  If this article is not substantially improved in a reasonable period of time, it may be appropriate to re-nominate it for deletion.  
I will further note that the concensus was against the separation of this content as a separate article.  I understand that it was broken out from another article for length reasons.  The participants in this discussion found that argument unpersuasive.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism for a record of the discussion.  Rossami (talk) 01:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying categorically that I'm against incorporating any text from this page in anarcho-capitalism, but I will oppose any attempts to add material to the detriment of that article. One thing a Vote for Deletion is not is a vote on what to put in a different article. - Nat Krause 09:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I am against shoe-horning this back into anarcho-capitalism, if it is merged anywhere, it probably should be injected into Anarchism and capitalism. Saswann 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from VfD 

message: I put a disputed tag on the sentence saying Tucker opposed division between laborer and employer. I demand a source for that. You can't make that kind of a statement without explaining that was he actually opposes is employers not working.  RJII 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: | On Talk:Anarchism you keep saying Tucker supports employers. Am I missing something?? The direct quote is "wiped out". -- infinity0 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take "wiped out" out of context.  He says he wants the distinction between "wage-receiver" and "wage-payer" to be wiped out. In other words, an employer is purchasing the employee's labor just as much as the employee is purchasing the employer's labor. The wages of the employee are coming from the labor of the employer. RJII 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On Talk:Anarchism, I explained why wage-payer == employer. You then replied with something completely irrelevant about "whole labour products". I have been waiting ever since for you to come up with a reason why wage-payer is not the same thing as employer. -- infinity0 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course an employer pays wages. What's your point? Tucker wants the employer to continue paying wages, but the money for those wages should come from the employer's labor. RJII 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL! To be an employer doesn't mean you necessarily don't work. To be an employer means you own a means of production and you're letting someone else use that means of production and pay him for it. What Tucker wants is for the employee's wages to come from the labor of the employer. He wants the employer to have to work. I don't know WHERE you're getting that idea a person who owns a business works, then he's not an employer. RJII 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're not "ordering him to use it." LOL! He's free to borrow cash to purchase his own means of production --and at extremely low interest in an anarchist society. You dont think I should use the word "employers"? What?  I have no idea what the rest of your paragraph says. RJII 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not true. And, you have no source to back that up. So, don't make the claim in the article that opposes employers. RJII 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It says: "Similarly, individualist anarchists also opposed this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers." First of all, "similarly" is very POV of you. Individualist anarchists are not similar to the communists who wrote the Anarchist FAQ. Second, Tucker never says he opposes "a split between the separate classes of labourers and employers." He opposes the idea of some people not working for a living. He wants everyone to have to work to survive. RJII 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, it's not implying that they are similar to the anarchist FAQ writers. It's implying that the opposition to class distinction is similar. How does it imply the former? It directly follows the point that employers and employees are separated. -- infinity0 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And, it says he "was against prohibiting employer-employee relationships altogether." This is extremely misleading. This gives the impression that he had something against employer-employee relationships. He didn't, at all. RJII 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, removed this bit, since that's disputed. -- infinity0 18:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tucker

message: I put an NPOV tag on the article because the whole article comes across as an attack on anarcho-capitalism. The article is not called "Criticism of anarcho-capitalism" but "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." The very first sentence of the article says "Many anarchists strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism." RJII 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pfft... You were the main contributor to the article... Do you have any specific complaints? The first sentence is true, and most of this article is just detailing the differences between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Only thing they have in common is no government, but not much else in the way of similarities. -- infinity0 19:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The article merely documents the relationship between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, including the fact that anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. BTW, I have modified the "first sentence" to which you refer, to be more accurate. Perhaps it will suit you better. 216.23.105.10 08:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV the article

message: I put a disputed tag on the sentence where it is claimed that Spooner supports "cooperatives." He uses the term "partnerships." A "cooperative" in anarchism typically implies a collectivist situation. There was nothing collectivist about Spooner. RJII 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why won't you allow use of Spooner's term?  A direct quote prevents a dispute. It's the most NPOV thing to do. If you think Spooner didnt support join investment, you're wrong. RJII 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Joint investment is exactly what he's talking about: "The amount of money, capable of being furnished by this system, is so great that every man, woman, and child, who is worthy of credit, could get it, and do business for himself, or herself --- either singly, or in partnerships." RJII 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So the link is the problem for you. Then use his term "partnership" and link it to "cooperative." I've yet to see a dual proprietorship where the proprietors don't work. RJII 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spooner and partnerships

message: Ind-anarchists are opposed to class distinction. Tucker quotes and Spooner quotes. -- infinity0 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense? RJII 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not a "split between employers and employees."  There is no necessity that an employer does not make his income through labor. RJII 20:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A "split" is your own words. Tucker never says that. RJII 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Individualist anarchists do not oppose a disitinction between employees and employers. RJII 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the same thing as saying they oppose a distinction between employees and employers. What they oppose is employers earning money without working. Benjamin Tucker, for example, has no problem with employer/employee situations. What he wants is for the employer to have to pay the employee wages high enough to compensate him for the value of his labor (which Tucker thinks accords with the labor theory of value). RJII 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The distinction between people who employ and people who are employed is that and employer owns a means of production and  the employed doesn't. The employed operates someone'e else's means of production and gets paid for it. Benjamin Tucker does not say he wants to eliminate that. He says he wants the employer to not be able to sit back and pay someone to operate his means of production, but wants the employer to operate it as well --to work for his income. He's still an employer --but he's working for a living just as his employee his working for a living. RJII 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No he doesn'st say that "he wants to eliminate the fact that there is a clear distinction, or split, between people who are employed (who "operates someone'e else's means of production and gets paid for it" in your words) and the employers." You're making that up. The distinction is not that some are employees and some are employers, but that some don't work for a living and others do work for a living. There is no necessity that to be an employer you have to be idle. RJII 18:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This conversation is over. Read and understand the material first, then get back to me. RJII 18:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Why did you remove the point that individualist anarchists also oppose class distinction? -- infinity0 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJII removing point 

message: The contents of the section is not divided up into "social" and "individual" anarchism, nor should it be. It's about different forms of anarchism in general, and should deal with it issue-by-issue, not school-by-school. -- infinity0 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section needs to be broken up with headings. I don't understand why "infinity" wants everything conflated and confusing. RJII 19:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Infinity is confusing things by trying to lump all forms of anarchism as one. Individualist anarchism and communist anarchism cannot be conflated. The article is more POV now, as is the section. RJII 19:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 

message: Infinity took the Carl Levy source that I put in, and changed it to say "They ["anarcho-capitalists"] also argue that anarcho-capitalism is a rebirth of the tradition of individualist anarchism that was popular in America in the late 19th and early 20th century"  Carl Levy is not an anarcho-capitalist. This needs to be fixed. Unforunately I can't fix it, because once again, infinity has got me banned from editing this article by complaining about my edits, even though they are sourced. Unfortunatly adminstrators don't have to the time to verify the complaint. RJII 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is he then? -- infinity0 12:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cary Levy source being used wrongly by infinity