Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 15

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)

GDP in Somalia

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)

RJII, you may be thinking of some other source. There is no mention of the text you claim in the current source. Please check and give the correct source if there is another. Ultramarine 00:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII, you can not compare these GDP figures. The CIA number are PPI adjusted, the others are not. Ultramarine 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean PPP. Bad comparison ..deleted it. RJII 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism mentioned in MS Encarta Encyclopedia article on Anarchism

"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. [1] RJII 17:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Two Anarchisms

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)

Anarchist critiques of anarcho-capitalism

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)

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)

Anarcho-capitalism in the old Wild West

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)

The An-cap FAQ

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)

Infinity deleting sourced information

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)

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)

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)

When you assert "it is used" it is taken to mean "commonly used". Add it in, but only if you include "rarely used, and disputed" in brackets. -- infinity0 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

"It's sometimes called ind-anarchism" is POV, because it fails to mention that many people don't think of it that way at all. Besides, it's called a type of ind-anarchism, not synonymous with it. -- infinity0 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, well done. Ind-anarchism can be argued to include a-capitalism. But there is no way you can possibly argue that a-capitalism is synonymous with it. See set theory. -- infinity0 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The article says ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. -- infinity0 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Isn't Individualist Anarchism supportive of socialism? I know Benjamin Tucker was a self described socialist FionMacCumhail 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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[2]. (Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Resources relating Anarcho-Capitalism to Individualist Anarchism

By Anarcho-Capitalists:

• Andrew Rogers
• Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century by Ralph Raico
• About Market Anarchism by Prof. Roderick Long (extensive individualist anarchist resources)
• Wendy McElroy

By Individualist Anarchists:

• The Individualist Anarchist Society at UC Berkeley
• Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Individualist Anarchism by Daniel Burton
• Individualism Reconsidered by Joe Peacott

And finally, the Google Test - 20,900 hits. Though admittedly, a few of these are attempts at distinguishing the two rather than relating them, so this may not be convincing. --Academician 00:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple more.. By Socialists or anti-capitalists:

• A Rational Theory of Socialist Public Ownership by Mario Ferrero
• Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide by Simon Tormey: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."

By mainstream reference works:

• Anarchism by Carl Levy, MS Encarta Encylopedia. UK version.

Note that most of these sources, including from Academician, not only "relate" anarcho-capitalism to individualist anarchism but refer to anarcho-capitalism as individualist anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism IS individualist anarchism. There are various kinds of individualist anarchism, such as Stirnerism, Mutualism, Voluntaryism, and Anarcho-capitalism. Of course there's always going to be people saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, but that's besides the point. The little box in the article is about terminology. RJII 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, the box says ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. The FAQ argues that a-capitalism isn't ind-anarchism. I thin k it's implied by induction that it also disagrees whether ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. -- infinity0 17:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity is trying to use the "Anarchist FAQ" as a source disputing that the term "individualist anarchism" can be applied to anarcho-capitalism. The FAQ is not arguing that. I demand a quote from that source indicating otherwise. RJII 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, why are you adding the dispute tag? Set theory. If A is a subset of B, and P claims B, then P also claims A.

"a-capitalism is (a type of) ind-anarchism" is clearly a subset of "a-capitalism is a type of anarchism". -- infinity0 17:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's a quote from the source arguing that individualist anarchism is not a word, or should not be a word, for anarcho-capitalism? RJII 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? When someone claims B, they are also claiming all the subsets of B. It is implied. -- infinity0 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A, B, P, Q, whatever. I demand a quote. RJII 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"All atoms contain protons". I DEMAND A SOURCE THAT THIS ATOM IN MY HAND CONTAINS A PROTON. See my point? -- infinity0 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No I don't see your point. I demand a quote. Synthetic arguments are "original research." RJII 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a synthetic argument. It's an argument extended completely logically and with no mathematical fault whatsoever. Ie. it's objectively true. Are you going to disprove set theory? -- infinity0 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with arguing with you. Provide a quote. RJII 18:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Two whole sections of the FAQ are arguing against a-capitalism being a type of anarchism at all. By logic:

1. The FAQ argues a-capitalism is not anarchism.
2. Ind-anarchism is a type of anarchism, and the FAQ acknowledges this.
3. Therefore, FAQ argues that a-capitalism is not a type of ind-anarchism. (IA is a subset of A, AC is NOT a subset of A, therefore AC is NOT a subset of IA).
4. The article claims that ind-anarchism is another word used for a-capitalism (IA equals AC)
5. Positions 3 and 4 are opposed (ie. 4 is disputed by 3, like it says in the article).

What's wrong or even remotely POV about this deductive logic?

And this is the case with "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology).

-- infinity0 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide a quote saying that the term "individualist anarchism" should not be applied to "anarcho-capitalism" RJII 18:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the above step-by-step logic. Also, the above quote in italics says it quite nicely, albeit in a roundabout way. -- infinity0 18:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, it's a bad source. Don't put it back in. RJII 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good enough source. You're being stubborn - that quote above says the point perfectly. What's wrong with it being not direct? -- infinity0 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism is not the same thing as saying that the term "individualist anarchism" should not be used for "anarcho-capitalism." Such as argument would be like arguing that the term "anarcho-capitalism" should not be used for "anarcho-capitalism." The box is about terminology --not whether anarcho-capitalism is "true anarchism." RJII 18:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote above says "[a-capitalism's] ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism... even individualist anarchism". They believe the two are "at odds" with each other. So, they are disputing that ind-anarchism is another name for a-capitalism. -- infinity0 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they say that anarcho-capitalism isn't true anarchism, but they don't say that the term "individualist anarchism" should not be used to refer to "anarcho-capitalism." RJII 19:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They believe the two are "at odds" with each other, and take two sections to explain why. Why would they feel the need to explicitly state "individualist anarchism cannot be used to describe a-capitalism"? -- infinity0 19:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying they are at odds with each other is not the same thing. They say that anarcho-capitalism is at odds with anarchism, but I don't see them saying that anarcho-capitalism should not be called anarcho-capitalism. Likewise, they never argue that anarcho-capitalism should not be called individualist anarchism. RJII 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your logic makes no sense. They in fact do put "anarcho" in quotes much of the time, showing their dislike of that terminology. -- infinity0 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure they dislike the terminology "anarcho-capitalism," but don't have any other name for it. They never make an argument that anarcho-capitalism should not be called individualist anarchism. RJII 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They call anarcho-capitalists "libertarian capitalists" in the introduction and at many other places. They don't explicitly state "individualist anarchism cannot be used to describe a-capitalism" because they have already written two sections on their differences. They believe the two are "at odds" with each other. -- infinity0 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that "they don't explicitly state "individualist anarchism cannot be used to describe a-capitalism" Case closed. The don't say that. It's a not a proper source. RJII 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? They explicitly state "anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism". -- infinity0 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're making that up. Give us the link where they state "anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism." RJII 20:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"[a-capitalism's] ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism... even individualist anarchism" - is that explicit enough for you? -- infinity0 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. And, please, do not fabricate any more quotes. RJII 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? That quote explicitly says a-capitalism and individualist anarchism are dissimilar, meaning they're not the same thing. And how is that "fabricating quotes"? -- infinity0 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You said just above: "They explicitly state "anarcho-capitalism is not individualist anarchism"". You made that quote up. It's not in that FAQ. RJII 21:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. "And this is the case with "anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology)." is the full quote. [3]. -- infinity0 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not saying that anarcho-capitalism should not be called "individualist anarchism." The box in the article is about terminology --the quote you're giving isn't. RJII 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break up this little tiff, fellas, but are we suddenly using the Anarchist FAQ as the primary authority on individualist anarchism now? IIRC, it was not written by individualist anarchists. And let me know, this little back-and-forth between you two is not helping and is not resolving anything.

The box originally stated (when I entered the fray): "Other terms sometimes used for this philosophy include:" This is not saying that individualist anarchism is identical with anarcho-capitalism - it is just saying that the term is sometimes used. I've heard numerous modern anarcho-capitalists calling themselves individualist anarchists - and good source material (as I linked above) supports that usage - so why are we having this debate? Isn't this pretty darn trivial? --Academician 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that "anarchist FAQ" is a not a good source anyway. Those who wrote it openly say they are "social anarchists (communist-anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and so on)" [4] who "reject individualist anarchism." [5] At least they're honest and make their bias known: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism. This does not mean that we ignore the many important ideas associated with individualist anarchism, only that we think social anarchism is more appropriate for modern society, that it creates a stronger base for individual freedom, and that it more closely reflects the sort of society we would like to live in." [6] RJII 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII is arguing that the Anarchist FAQ source does not actually argue that individualist anarchism is not another word for anarcho-capitalism. The FAQ argues that they are at odds with one another, so it is clearly implied. -- infinity0 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Infinity0, that this is what the Anarchist FAQ implies. So what? --Academician 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, RJII was disputing that that was a good source for "but the applicability of this claim is disputed" and put a {{dubious}} tag next to it. -- infinity0 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, you're ignoring the body of thought that suggests that any sort of control mechanism isn't pure anarchism, and anything but true free-market economics has controls in place? I'd say that this argument pretty clearly shows that a-c is a type of anarchism, and that it is a highly individualist form of such, so can quite reasonably be described that way. -- ConcretePeanut 20:37, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm not arguing whether acapitalism is anarchism or not. I'm just saying that there are anarchists who dispute it. -- infinity0 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So all you are saying, really, is that some people don't think a-c is anarchism despite the fact that it is? -- ConcretePeanut 22:14, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

LOL. Let me point you to An Anarchist FAQ. -- infinity0 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote " There is a nice historical irony in Caplan's attempts to use Kropotkin to prove the historical validity of "anarcho"-capitalism. This is because while Kropotkin was happy to include Tucker into the anarchist movement, Tucker often claimed that an anarchist could not be a communist!" from that source makes me slightly dubious as to it's validity. So what if Tucker claimed an anarchist couldn't be a communist? I agree completely. What if Kropotkin was happy to include such a person with such a view in his idea of anarchism/anarchists - it just goes to show that 1) T agreed with anarcho-capitalist thought (in at least some forms) that communism was not compatible with anarchism, and 2) that K thought this was a perfectly reasonable point of view for an anarchist to hold. In fact, it undermines the 'irony' of Caplan's attempts.

As it there are plenty of much more reliable sources than that link that put forward quite clear and supported arguments for not only anarcho-capitalism being a valid form of anarchy and communism being an incompatible ideology in regards to anarchism, but also several solid arguments that would support the idea that a free market is necessary to a truly anti-authoritarian system such as anarchism. Just as an example, how can you be said to be truly free to act with liberty and outside of state interference if you aren't allowed to trade goods/labour for what you can get for them?

I'm sorry, but your reliance on that one source is detrimental to your argument, as it is by no means an infallible source (I would personally call it a fairly baised and poor source, and I'd no doubt be crucified if I ever used it as the main point of reference for any serious writing). If you are so sure you are right and it is the majority that agree with you then you shouldn't have trouble finding an overwhelming number of different, valid, and respectable sources to support that claim, rather than point-of-view from a single baised source, which strangely enough was what you seemed to be objecting to in the first place. -- ConcretePeanut 22:52, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

I was only returning the arrogance I received from you. "despite the fact that it is?" - all I can say is WOW. Sorry, but I'm really not interested in having this argument. -- infinity0 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asking for clarification of your previous comment, where you seemed to be saying that you didn't dispute whether anarcho-capitalism was a form of anarchy or not but some people do - it sounded like you were saying that you thought it was yet were supporting those who didn't, which struck me as odd. If you think asking for clarification an act of arrogance then, well, you may be mistaken. Perhaps if you addressed my points in my previous response I'd have a clearer idea of what you think and why you are arguing as you are, but if you are unwilling to address them for whatever reason then it could be you are expecting too much from others to address your own concerns regarding whatever topic is up for debate. You are, of course, free to continue jumping to conclusions if you so wish, but perhaps more credence would be given if you spent that time responding to people's points clearly and calmly. -- ConcretePeanut 23:01, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

Then you should have said "even though you think it is?". I can't be bothered arguing whether it really is or not, because I don't think it's worth my time. -- infinity0 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet you dispute it enough to delete or dispute other's efforts? More over, you call me arrogant? Suit yourself. -- ConcretePeanut 23:30, 13 March 2006 (GMT)

To me, what's on the article is more important than what you personally think. -- infinity0 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what I think, I'm talking about the schools of thought and the inherent definitions of what we're talking about - an anarchistic system with even less 'state' (in whatever form) control than others, yet some people dispute as being anarchistic at all. It would seem that there is a much stronger argument for putting in the fact that it is often accepted as being true, but there are some groups who disagree, although their justification for doing so is disputed, rather than the original suggestion that it is as having a disputed marker next to it. My only purpose in commenting here (I am still very new here, so I'm keeping myself to the background discussion rather than the actual article writing for the moment) is to put whatever weight I can (through argument and reasoning) behind what I would strongly suggest is the correct nomenclature and reasoning. -- ConcretePeanut 00:24, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

In fact, having read more of that link my opinion of it has fallen further - "Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery." suggests that slavery is compatible with equality, which is clearly nonsense as slavery is practically one of the defining examples of inequality. Also, from a more socialist/communist standpoint you could easily (in theory) have equality without liberty, so long as you have sufficient compassion. The fact that shortly after that comment it claims that all anarchists view capitalism as usury just goes on to compound the support for the bais of the site.

You're trying to make out that a-capitalism is a major school of anarchism - it isn't; most anarchists denounce a-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist views are fringe. "correct nomenclature and reasoning" is also your own POV. "it is often accepted" - no, it's not. Most anarchists are against anarcho-capitalism and dispute that interpretation. -- infinity0 16:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to support the argument that you are wrong in saying a-c isn't comparable or a form of i-a. Anyway, I wasn't aware that any school of anarchism was 'major', assuming you discount the mid-teens rallying against authority simply because that is what they do. Anarchism itself is a relatively fringe movement these days, and anarcho-capitalism (at least from the areas I've seen of it) isn't significantly smaller than many other 'accepted' forms of anarchism. If you look carefully at the reason many people dispute a-c's validity it isn't on what are claimed to be anarchistic/liberty principles, but generally (if not exclusively) on socialist/communistic grounds, and such people are better referred to as socialist-anarchists or socialist-libertarians than true anarchists, as they still promote the idea of enforcing economic controls on the individuals within society. How can you say that something is true anarchism if it won't allow someone to choose to offer services or goods for a price, and others to choose to accept or refuse those same things? This is not POV stuff any more than any political ideology is POV - what is best for whom, and how should it be achieved, in my opinion is the unspoken qualifier that goes as taken before any political viewpoint is argued for or outlined.

I was originally drawn to this article as a source of information for a presentation I have to give tomorrow, and thought the discussion behind it might be equally or more useful. I felt the need to step in and put forward these points because I was rather distressed to read that someone was deleting/disputing what is, after a fair amount of reading, a perfectly fair statement. You consistently say 'some people disagree' or 'read this single baised source I like', but won't respond to the arguments I (or anyone else, it seems) put forward to support our argument. That is not sufficient reason for the changes you make/desire to be made actually occurring, and it would be a terrible shame for such a good source to lose integrity through someone unjustifiably tampering with definitions for what appear to be personal preference reasons. -- ConcretePeanut 17:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

"If you look carefully at the reason many people dispute a-c's validity it isn't on what are claimed to be anarchistic/liberty principles" - that's not true. Criticims of a-capitalism that it's contradictory is mainly because capitalist structures are authoritative and oppressive, and restricts liberty.

What source is losing "integrity"? What is a "definition", and how is it being tampered with? -- infinity0 17:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Those criticisms could be levelled at any socialist or communist form, too. A freedom to partake in a free market if one so wishes is part of having true liberty. Do you dispute the fact that these leads to the conclusion that a system which allows that choice is freer than one which doesn't? If you do dispute it then I'd be really interested in seeing the reasoning behind your argument. If you don't then I can't see how you can defend your position with coherent arguments.

It also ignores the fact that heirarchy is not only natural but unavoidable to some extent in any society, be it in the form of an oppressive state that is clearly divided from society, or as the inherent superiority over the opposition that will be found in any clear majority or vastly better equipped minority. Of course an anarchistic system wants to remove implicit control and any authoritarian structure, right? So it would seem the ultimate anarchistic society would be where people could choose to live in commune or to partake in a free-market economy as individuals or groups, so long as they don't impinge the freedom of others to choose otherwise.

The article in question here (surprisingly...) is the one that would lose integrity if it were to fall into the same trap as many other anarchist resources by being taken over by strong leftwing politics, thus becoming terribly biased and less useful and respectable than they otherwise would have been. If you want a discussion on etymology or linguistic definition then I suggest you go elsewhere, as it isn't relevant to this discussion unless you happen to be working from an entirely different set of language assumptions and rules than everyone else.

I do have a slight hope that you might respond to some of the questions and arguments presented to you, but this may well be rather misguided in origin. -- ConcretePeanut 18:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Those criticisms exist, and so they must be mentioned. Saying "ind-anarchism" IS another word for "a-capitalism" is completely POV. Also, I do not wish to have an argument with you about whether a-capitalism is actually anarchism or not, because it would be a waste of my time and it will accomplish nothing. No offence, but I have other, more productive things I can be doing. -- infinity0 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Those criticisms should be mentioned, I completely agree. However, they are not by any means comprehensive or fool-proof (in fact, I don't see how they are even that persuasive, for reasons I've already given and more) so do not justify actually saying a-c isn't anarachist at all. I'm glad you have a very busy and important timetable, but I do feel sorry for you if it precludes you from spending a couple of minutes from time to time actually supporting your claims with unbaised and coherent references and arguments. And I thought I was busy... -- ConcretePeanut 19:58, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Oh, I could put apart the time to argue with you, but I don't see much point. Also, there's no need to imply that source is biased or incoherent. -- infinity0 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is every point to imply it, because that is just what it is - biased and incoherent. As such it not only fails to support your argument, but actively undermines it. As I said, if I ever used it for referencing for anything serious I'd get a slap. -- ConcretePeanut 21:16, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Offering this kind of summary editorial judgment on sources of criticism is explicitly not the purpose of WikiPedia. Cf. WP:NPOV. If you want to note the suggestion that the Anarchist FAQ is dubious or incoherent you'll need to provide a source other than your own thoughts on the matter or this Talk page. But please don't bother, because this is not an article about the Anarchist FAQ. Radgeek 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The facts speak for themselves - it's hosted/mirrored on 20+ websites and is one of the most cited online anarchist sources. -- infinity0 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And Big Brother is one of the most watched programs on television - what is your point? The fact is I've given examples of how it contradicts itself or common sense quite clearly (equality being compatible with slavery being just one of the more stupid examples). Popularity does not insure accuracy, and if you are going to cling so to a source simply because some people like it (and perhaps you should think why that is - to support their own ideas, despite the incoherence of them) then you are liable to remain incorrect on various matters. Without trying to sound rude, you come across as quite young, and perhaps a tad idealised. You will find, though, as you progress through education/work that relying on one source simply because you like it is a terrible mistake, and that sources that are clearly biased are also often highly dubious in usefulness 'across the board', as it were.

So, the facts that do speak for themselves are that despite your appeal to popularity/majority opinion for the site (or perhaps it's own) the site contains contradictory/nonsense information, and is clearly heavily left-wing biased. I suggest reading some books on political ideologies not written by the theorists in an area but analysing an ideology or school of thought, as they are extremely useful for highlighting logical inconsistencies within the orginal outline or suggestions, rather than sites that clearly have an agenda to support. When I've sorted out the tip in my room I'll try and dig out a couple of the better ones to suggest, if you're interested. -- ConcretePeanut 22:42, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

You are assuming that BB and AFAQ get their popularity from the same thing - this is false. BB gets its popularity from entertainment; you cannot make the same claim for the AFAQ.

If you think that AFAQ says equality is compatible with slavery, then you obviously have not fully understood it. My guess is that you're so hell-bent on discrediting that source (that has been your main point ever since you started posting) that you have built up an inherent prejudice against it, and therefore cannot process any of the arguments it makes neutrally. The other explanation is that you're distorting its words on purpose, but I am trying to assume good faith.

If you think being anti-authority is "clearly heavily left-wing based", I cannot change what you think. -- infinity0 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that at all, I was merely highlighting the fact that popularity does not always indicate quality. I thought the comparison was clear, but evidently not - I hope it is clearer now.

The AFAQ implies that equality is compatible with slavery, as I have shown with a quote (which I shall give here again for clarity): "Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery." (emphasis mine). If you can see some way in which saying that 1) something that is equal can also 2) be a justification for slavery doesn't justify slavery then I will retract my claim, but until then my point stands entirely reasonably. I'm not hell-bent on discrediting the source, as there seems to be much useful information there. However, any unbiased source would say that yes, there are those who claim a-c isn't anarchism, but that none of the arguments are conclusive and there isn't any other area of definition that it would fit under. It would also, of course, not make blundering and verifiably false or nonsensical statements such as the one quoted. I don't see how I could possibly have developed an inherent hatred for something that until you linked me to it I'd never come across before. No distortion of words is necessary, but if you need the above explanation for why the quote implies what I claim it implies I will be happy to provide it.

I'm afraid it appears that it is you not understanding me - I haven't said that being anti-authority is being left-wing biased, I said that being socialist/communist is clearly a left-wing bias, which is what that site is clearly heavily leaning towards. -- ConcretePeanut 17:57, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

The comparison is invalid. The AFAQ gets its popularity from its quality - what else?

"equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery" - please explain your logic, step by step, why that sentence means "equality is compatible with slavery". I would have thought "impossible" explicitly states incompatibility.

The site makes anti-capitalist argments because it thinks capitalist structures are authoritative and anti-anarchist, not for the sake of being anti-capitalist. It is a fact that most anarchists, and the main anarchist movement is left-wing, and you would expect an "unbiased" anarchist site to reflect that. The FAQ cites from and tries to represent all schools of anarchism, even though it does not agree with them all. -- infinity0 18:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't think there is any other reason that something that isn't for entertainment purposes could derive popularity other than quality? Think about it - if a school of thought wants to push it's agenda and discredit the opposing schools of thought, would it not perhaps reference biased sources to support itself?

Okay, here goes the reasoning for that -

"equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery" if broken down forms 2 explicit claims, firstly that equality without liberty is impossible, which alone would say that you cannot be equal without being free. It doesn't say what level of freedom is required to make it impossible, or what level of equality is prevented when this level is not achieved, so let us assume that it means when the amount of freedom being restricted outweighs the practical equality evident in society, equality is in effect non-existent. Anything less than such would be 'fairly equal' or 'free-ish' (bearing in mind that total freedom in any society is impossible and that true equality can only come around through being given choices and the freedom to act on them, not through coercive efforts to 'level the playing field' and forced choice).

So, if part one says that without a certain level of freedom you cannot have equality, what does this mean for part two, which states that in combination (not either/or, but 'and') with this, not only is equality without a set degree of freedom (whatever level, but as defined above for the sake of this argument), but it is also a justification for slavery. Here we have a claim which goes "Equality can't occur without liberty, but if it did it would justify slavery". This means either the statement is meaningless (this will never happen but if it does we can blindly guess that X might happen) or that 'equality' as defined by the writer is considered itself to be meaningless unless you have the freedom to exercise it to it's fullest potential (which I'm sure you'd agree is the most likely standpoint for any form of anarchist or libertarian to take on the matter). However, if being equal means all have the same potential choices and are treated the same, how can this ever - impossible or not due to restriction of freedom by the state (although you could potentially have a system without a state where individuals restrict one another in equal ways - I'm not really buying the equality requires total automnity) - that can never be said to justify slavery.

If anything, the quote should be reworded to say that "With slavery equality is impossible, and a justification for the restriction of freedom" or even "With slavery freedom is impossible, and a an end to equality". As it stands it at absolute best is meaningless rhetoric that states if something that can't happen happens something else bad will happen - I don't see why the writer would want to do this, to be honest, as it is a waste of time. However, what does seem more likely is that the writer is saying that in a society with a state and a modicum of equality (i.e. the same laws apply to everyone but the state weilds more power than the populace, as in modern western states) not only is it a rather hyperbolic claim, but also a profoundly stupid one, as you cannot reconcile 'equality' with 'slavery' in any context, be it theoretical or otherwise.

I appreciate that the majority of anarchists are leftwing, but I would expect an un-biased site to reflect all schools of thought objectively, simply stating what they are, the arguments for and against, the major thinkers, and then a comment indicating how popular it is. I would not expect to see sections which take opinion (a-c isn't anarchism at all) and state it as fact. -- ConcretePeanut 18:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

If a school of thought wants to push its agenda then there would be heavy resistance and denounciation from the opposing schools. I have not found any major criticisms against the whole FAQ - only a few scattered bits and pieces against a few sections of it, mostly the anti-anarcho-capitalist ones. Also, I myself see no misrepresentation within the AFAQ - ie. saying ind-anarchists think something when they don't.

Three paragraphs, 516 words to explain an evaluation of one sentence? Logic is supposed to be concise, could you at least condense it down into bullet points? I did say "step by step".

AFAQ doesn't state it as fact - it backs it up with quotes. It even acknowledges opposing views. Its arguments are clear and succinct. Obviously, it is trying to convince the reader that a-capitalism isn't anarchism. That's the origins of the FAQ. Of course it has some bias. But that doesn't make it a bad source, or incoherent in its line of argument. -- infinity0 19:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So you say that there'y be resistance from the opposing schools, and then state that the criticism you do see tends to all be from one particular school (a-c)?

Sorry, I didn't realise you were one of those people who can't follow descriptive language. Allow me to simplify it for you. I assume that as you didn't raise any actual issues with it my points about freedom and equality were reasonable enough? I will use them again here, to save redefining them all over again. Of course, I have a sneaking suspicion you're just trying to avoid answering the points (again), but if you genuinely have trouble reading short disections of a single sentence and would like it spelt out point by point then here goes....

1)Equality requires a minimum value of liberty.

2)Without this requirement being met, equality is impossible.

3)Equality in such a state is a justification for slavery.

That is what the argument states, correct? Equality, when in an impossible situation, justifies slavery.

4)The writer either intended to say that without liberty he didn't see equality as having true practical value, OR that you implicitly can't have equality without liberty.

5)In conjunction with the end of the quote, this means he either felt that you could have theoretical equality in combination with slavery, OR that if an impossible situation were to occur (equality without liberty) slavery would be compatible and justified.

6)The writer either thinks equality in theory can be reconciled with slavery, OR is speculating over scenarios that will never occur.

The only other way that comment could be read would be "Without equality you can justify slavery", which is such an obvious and pointless statement (as well as being incorrect, as you can have moral values that prevent slavery even in an unequal system) that I'd have to ask why it was not only mentioned, but also why on Earth it was phrased so badly.

If the above doesn't make a huge amount of sense then I apologise, as I've had very little sleep in the last 24 hours.

Any source should strive to be unbiased, and the AFAQ fails miserably in that, being highly biased. A highly biased source is a bad source in nearly all circumstances, especially concerning areas such as politics. You defend this bias, yet come on here and complain about what you see as bias on a page concerning the very area you find bias acceptable over on your own source? -- ConcretePeanut 19:43, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Yes - if the FAQ is as bad as you say it is, then individualist anarchists would criticise it for misrepresenting their views. I haven't seen such criticism.

Point 5 is invalid. The points are "equality without liberty is impossible" and "equality without liberty is a justification for slavery". "Impossible" and "justification for slavery" are separate objects of the verb "are".

I highly doubt any anarcho-capitalist author is unbiased. Of course I complain that this page is biased. WP:NPOV. AFAQ can be biased as it is only being used as a primary source. -- infinity0 20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that anarcho-capitalists criticise it for doing that, which you admit you have seen. Is it always this hard for you to follow an argument, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Right, so 'X without Y is Z' where Z is an impossiblity, and 'Z is a justification for A'? Either equality without liberty is impossible AND a justification for slavery, OR equality without liberty is impossible and that impossible situation would be a justification for slavery. If the latter (assuming it means truly without liberty, rather than with merely limited liberty) then it is an irrelevant statement, if the former then it is saying that in some situations there is something that can be described as equality which can co-exist with slavery.

I'm not claiming that any anarcho-capitalist authors are unbiased - where did I state anything of the sort? You can complain this page is biased, but if your justification for doing so is by using a biased source then you have no argument to support you. If you find primary sources that are biased as a reasonable sole supporting source for calling what they are biased against biased a reasonable line of argument then perhaps you may want to reassess your referencing standards. -- ConcretePeanut 21:23, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

It doesn't surprise me that a-capitalist criticise it. But since that is the point of the FAQ, it is to be excepted. What would make this FAQ bad would be if they failed in their objectives. They try to represent most schools of anarchism fairly, inc ind-anarchism. I haven't seen any ind-anarchist critique of the FAQ.

No. It's "X without Y is A and B." B is "justification for slavery". The "justification for slavery" applies to "equality without liberty", not "impossible".

No, I complained this page was biased, THEN included AFAQ as a source to give multiple viewpoints. Inclusion of AFAQ was my RESPONSE to the bias, not the justification for claiming the page is biased. -- infinity0 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, so "X without Y is A and B". That's fine. However, as A is 'impossible' B is irrelevant - if X without Y was B and was possible then it would be relevant, but in light of X without Y also implying A, which is an exclusive statement precluding any other elements.

Yes, you complained that this page was biased and then justified your position by referencing a single biased source. If you did that in a report, essay, or evaluation you'd be torn apart - it is easy to find things supporting your claims of bias from opposing sources that are themselves biased against that you wish to criticise. It matters not whether it was the reason or the response, it still fails to meet the requirements for justifiably supporting your claims, and as such they remain just that - unsupported claims. -- ConcretePeanut 21:58, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

You cannot have true X without Y, but some people may use "X without Y" to justify slavery.

Of course I did. Biased means from one point of view only. So I provided an source with the opposite view, justifying my claim that the page is biased, since the page did not contain that opposite view, but instead stated the first view as a fact. -- infinity0 22:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Either people are equal or they aren't though - you can't be 'a bit equal'. Within reasonable definitions of equality, if there is not a reasonable level of liberty (X without Y) you can justify slavery is an entirely different claim to "if not Y then X is impossible, so Z" as it implies that you could have an equal society without freedom but with slavery. If you want to put it clearly (which you must in political ideological debate, otherwise people will jump all over your theory) it should say something along the lines of "If you wish to have as unequal a society as possible you must have as free a society as possible, as without such you may end up facing slavery and oppression". This - as I hope you can clearly see - is entirely different in tone and jist to "Equality without liberty is impossible, and a justification for slavery".

Biased means not only from one point of view only, but misrepresentative of an objective look at the whole picture. Using biased sources to support an argument is not a wise move. I can't understand why or how you can think it is. -- ConcretePeanut 01:18, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Look, ConcretePeanut, you're being obtuse. It's well known (by capitalist libertarians, among others) that phoney pleas for "equality" under a statist order have been used to justify appalling forms of totalitarianism, up to and including the literal slavery of the gulag. The folks making these pleas claimed that "equality" could come about through totalitarian statist control and massive expropriation from, among others, innocent workers. Thus "equality" was used as an excuse for slavery. But what happened was not in fact equality in any genuine sense of the word (since genuine equality requires liberty). So it was used as an excuse while the people using it as an excuse made its real implementation impossible. This seems a rather straightforward reading of the point that the AFAQ authors were trying to make.

Radgeek 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

ConcretePeanut, I refer you to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. --AaronS 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but considering this is an article about anarcho-capitalism surely the minority view is that being represented, so in the area under discussion it isn't really a minority opinion at all (in the same way as, for example, a discussion about the political importance of Portugal would represent the thoughts and forces within that area, as opposed to the relatively insignificant scope and importance they'd be assigned in any discussion on world politics in general)? -- ConcretePeanut 02:15, 16 March 2006 (GMT)

Good points, as well, but I wasn't perhaps clear in indicating that I was referring to anarcho-capitalism's relation to individualist anarchism. It is a minority view (if not even an extreme-minority view) that anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism are synonymous, as this article suggests. --AaronS

"A minority view" among whom? The general populace? Anarchists? Individualist anarchists? Anarcho-capitalists? Academics who study anarchism? Somebody else? Help me out here. Radgeek 17:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Minority view amongst anarchists. -- infinity0 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, (1) how did you determine that it's "a minority view amongst anarchists"? (2) Are you including anarcho-capitalists in the group of "anarchists" whose views you're considering? —Radgeek 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of anarcho-capitalists compared to the number of anarchists, including a-capitalists or not, is very small. Ask anyone. Outside the net, anarcho-capitalism is unheard of. -- infinity0 21:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, how did you determine this? The anarchist census? Radgeek 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of anarcho-capitalism before I started editing wikipedia and many other people agree. See Intro. Even most anarcho-capitalists admit it. -- infinity0 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction to the Anarchist FAQ does not provide any evidence for the claims that anarcho-capitalism is unheard of outside the Internet. It simply asserts that there aren't many and that they are "irrelevant" offline. (... as opposed to the breathtaking political influence of anarcho-communism or primitivism? Please.) For what it's worth, I found out about anarcho-capitalism first in print before I read about it on the Internet. We could sit around here all day and swap our personal impressions and anecdotes about how many anarcho-capitalist as vs. anti-capitalist anarchists we've met, or heard of, or think that there are, but until there is actually some effort at providing evidence for these claims, I don't think that anyone has a legitimate basis for making appeals to the relative proportions. Radgeek 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

@infinity0 If you are claiming that anarcho-capitalists are minority you need some indepedent source to support it. If you don't have such source, it's OR. -- Vision Thing -- 09:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is significant. Insignificance is always assumed. --AaronS 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, than we can assume that number of social anarchist is insignificant too. -- Vision Thing -- 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! And rather safely. I don't think that anybody has claimed that anarchism is a large movement. It is perhaps growing larger, but it's hard if not impossible to measure. What we can claim, however, is that most anarchists do not call themselves anarcho-capitalists, and that maybe just as many do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchism. --AaronS 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a specific empirical claim about relative proportions, not a claim about encyclopediac "significance." The burden of proof is on you if you are going to make the specific assertion that "most" anarchists (including or excluding anarcho-capitalism) believe X. But neither you nor infinity have offered any evidence at all to back up these claims, other than your gut feelings and "ask anybody." Radgeek 16:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaron - I'd say that in a field as small as anarcho-capitalism all views are going to be minority views. In addition to this I don't think there are many a-capitalists who don't consider themselves ind-anarchists. It would be reasonable, I think, to say that all anarcho-capitalists are individual-anarchists, but not that all individual-anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. From how I've read the article and this argument, it seems to me that it isn't claiming the latter and is in fact pretty clear about the former.

The best you could do is show that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be individualist anarchists. That's all. At the same time, you'd also have to show that many anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalists to be anarchists, and especially that most anarchists don't consider anarcho-capitalists to be individualist anarchists. --AaronS 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity - the article is about the anarcho-capitalist theory and arguments, right? As this isn't what I would see as a particularly minority view within anarcho-capitalists, in part for the reasons I gave Aaron, I don't think the same issue arises. If this was a general article about anarchism, or even individual-anarchism, I would agree, but it isn't. I would think that most of the main anarcho-capitalist thinkers would class themselves as individual anarchists, even to the point of saying that without a free-market you cannot truly be anarchistic or individual. Other articles state (such as social or communist anarchism) that capitalism is heirarchical and coercive in ways that seem like fact because from that point of view it is generally held to be so. I don't see any different standards being applied here. ConcretePeanut 19:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is on an encyclopedia, so it must represent all views, especially since this is a minor view, and so utterly disputed. They might call themselves ind-anarchists, but to say their thought is synonymous to another school's thought is complete POV, and must be balanced, since this involves another school, not just an issue. -- infinity0 19:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Picture looks horrible, is POV, is uninformative to the reader, is uncited original research. -- infinity0 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Is FAQ on Infoshop.org written from socialist perspective?

In section A.1.4. of FAQ it's stated that all anarchists are socialists and anti-capitalist. Because of that I would say that Infoshops "An Anarchist FAQ" is FAQ written from perspective of social (leftwing) anarchists. -- Vision Thing

Even individualist anarchists such as Tucker and mutualists such as Proudhon called themselves socialists. The only "capitalist" (right wing) anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. Right anarchism redirects to this article. -- infinity0 12:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are supporting my claim? -- Vision Thing 12:49, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

Bryan Caplan's Anarchist Theory FAQ is more fair and balanced. *Dan T.* 12:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan is a lone nutcase with a website. To call his "FAQ" "fair and balanced" is a joke. // Liftarn

It means your claim is redundant. Anarchists are anti-capitalist. Bryan Caplan's FAQ is not more fair or balanced - he is a libertarian historian economist (wow, he's not even a historian), not even an anarchist, and An Anarchist FAQ replies to "errors and distortions" in his FAQ in Appendix 1.1. -- infinity0 12:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To you who are anti-capitalist my claim is redundant. To me it's not. If this is going to be balanced article, in footnotes that direct to Infoshop.org FAQ must stand that it's written from socialist (leftwing) perspective. -- Vision Thing 13:09, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

It's not written from a left-wing perspective, though. The FAQ tries to represent all schools of anarchism except a-capitalism. -- infinity0 13:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are your arguments for claim that it's not written from a leftwing perspective? All schools that FAQ tries to represent are socialist schools (or that is what Infoshop claims). -- Vision Thing 13:36, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

LOL. Obviously you have not read any of the FAQ - the FAQ tries to represent individualist anarchism and many lesser known schools such as anarcho-primitivism. It's all detailed in the "what types of anarchism are there" section (section B IIRC). If those sections were biased, I would expect criticisms from individualist anarchists or anarcho-primitivists denouncing the FAQ. I have found no such complaints. -- infinity0 13:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Are anarchists socialists? Yes." Infoshop.org FAQ is pretty clear about that issue. -- Vision Thing 13:59, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

Individualist anarchists called themselves socialists. What's your issue? -- infinity0 14:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments for claim that Infoshops FAQ isn't written from a socialist (leftwing) perspective? -- Vision Thing -- 14:09, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

I just showed you that the FAQ tries to represent all schools of anarchism and that they don't misrepresent them. -- infinity0 14:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You just "showed" that FAQ tries to represent all socialist schools of anarchism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:20, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

Yes, I just showed that the FAQ tries represent all schools of anarchism except anarcho-capitalism. -- infinity0 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how representation of only socialist schools of anarchism makes false claim that Infoshops FAQ is written from a socialist (leftwing) perspective? -- Vision Thing -- 14:40, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

Can you explain how this anarchist FAQ is written from a socialist or left-wing perspective? Left-wing as opposed to what? -- infinity0 14:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It states that all anarchists are socialists and anti-capitalists. That is biased statement. -- Vision Thing -- 14:57, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

Why is it a biased statement? -- infinity0 15:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll write a guide to music that includes all forms of music except rap, and then use it to justify a statement that rap is not music. And I'll assert that there is no reason to claim that this guide has an anti-rap bias. *Dan T.* 15:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

@infinity0 It's a biased statement because there are some anarchists who are not socialists and anti-capitalists. Also FAQ in general is very anti-capitalistic and pro-socialistic. You should be blind not to see that. -- Vision Thing -- 15:12, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

That's because anarchism apart from anarcho-capitalism is anti-capitalistic and pro-socialistic. The FAQ explicitly says that it doesn't represent anarcho-capitalism. The vast majority of anarchism is anti-capitalistic. To say "left-wing" implies there is a significant "right-wing" anarchism to contrast it to. There isn't. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- infinity0 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan T, your analogy is flawed. Firstly, most forms of music aren't anti-rap, so you can't write that guide in the first place. Secondly, saying something has anti-bias is different from saying something has pro-bias. Thirdly, in the article, the FAQ is not being used to justify anything - it's giving anarchists' views on anarcho-capitalism. -- infinity0 15:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

@infinity0 And you can't see how that makes FAQ "written from socialist perspective"? -- Vision Thing -- 15:36, 19 March 2006 (GTM)

It's written from an anarchist perspective. Make of that what you will. To say "left-wing" implies there is a significant "right-wing" anarchism to contrast it to. -- infinity0 15:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's written from perspective of anarchist who is socialist and anti-capitalist. That's all I'll include in footnotes. -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "from the perspective of"? Saying that one author is anti-capitalist makes it seem like there is a significant portion of anarchists that are not anti-capitalist. -- infinity0 16:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't because there is nothing in that statement that implies quantity of the rest. -- Vision Thing -- 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That it is there signifies the significant existence of an opposite. Otherwise, why add it in? -- infinity0 16:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Because if it wasn't there it would be implying that there is no opposition to Infoshops FAQ at all. Also name "An Anarchist FAQ" implies that FAQ unbiasedly includes views of all anarchists and that is not the case. It's in fact "An Anti-capitalistic Anarchist FAQ" and footnotes need to reflect that. -- Vision Thing -- 17:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, surely that it's implied that since AFAQ opposes anarcho-capitalism, then a-capitalists oppose AFAQ? I've wikilinked to An Anarchist FAQ, is that OK? -- infinity0 18:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It will be ok, as soon as I modify the article a little bit. -- Vision Thing -- 14:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A lesson on statistics

• A is a-capitalism, B is anarchism.
• A is a subset of B
• B is an integer (for simplicity for now)
• a is the percentage of A in B
• The average person knows x pieces of information about B (1<=x<=B)
• The average chance of the person hearing about A is random variable y (ie. y is the probability of A in x)
• Binomial distribution: y ~ Binomal(x,a)
• For a person to NOT hear about B, the probability is P(y=0) = 0Cx(a^0)(1-a)^(x-0) = (1-a)^(x-0)
• Let k = (1-a)^(x-0)
• All of the n people I've come across have heard of anarchism but not anarcho-capitalism
• This can be represented as a binomial distribution: z ~ Binomal(20,k)
• P(z=n) = nCn(k^n)(1-k)^(n-n) = k^n

Inputting some real data:

1. I will take n to be 20. I've actually asked a lot more random people, but 20 is a "worse case" scenario.
2. Assume that 0.8 chance that my experience is average and unbiased.

• k^20 = 0.8
• k = 0.9889
• (1-a)^(x-0) = 0.9889
• Since x>1, a<0.012

Hence, using the above assumptions 1 and 2, 1.2% OR LESS of all anarchists are anarcho-capitalists.

Obviously, this is a (very rough) estimate, but it gives you the general magnitude of the actual fraction. -- infinity0 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And from my personal experience not only are most people who've heard of anarchism aware of anarcho-capitalism, but in fact a large portion of them have expressed the same attitude as myself (and various others) regarding the incompatability of anything but a free market with a true anarchistic system, therefore 'preferring' anarcho-capitalism in many cases. You prove nothing - many people will have heard of anarchism - in fact probably most - but that doesn't mean they know a lot about it. You need to ask a more knowledgable sample. -- ConcretePeanut 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can provide sources which say anarcho-capitalism is a minority. Can you provide sources which say the opposite? [7] -- infinity0 00:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't deny it was a minority view - I was disputing your entirely fallacious statistical argument that it is as tiny a minority as you claim it to be. You (claim to have) went around asking people whether they had heard of anarchism, and then whether they had heard of anarcho-capitalism. That is probably the worst bit of research I've ever come across. Were they all politically savvy? There are a huge number of people who know absolutely spit about political ideologies beyond the most broad and common concepts, so are pretty useless in determining whether, amongst people who are by definition highly politicised, a view is prevelant to a particular degree or not.

As I said, I've had quite the opposite experiences when asking poltically aware and educated people (i.e. the sort of people who are going to be strongly ideological) - while those who would identify with a-c were in the minority, those who had heard of it were in the vast majority, thus totally screwing up your 'proof'. 81.103.161.101 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? My vague approximate model isn't accurate. Incidentally, I've not even come across anything claiming a-c is a significant minority of anarchists. -- infinity0 16:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

With statistics based on personal experience you can prove almost anything. You should know how important the sample is in the statistics.

• S is social anarchism, B is anarchism.
• S is a subset of B
• B is an integer (for simplicity for now)
• s is the percentage of S in B
• The average person knows x pieces of information about B (1<=x<=B)
• The average chance of the person hearing about S is random variable y (ie. y is the probability of S in x)
• Binomial distribution: y ~ Binomal(x,s)
• For a person to NOT hear about B, the probability is P(y=0) = 0Cx(s^0)(1-s)^(x-0) = (1-s)^(x-0)
• Let k = (1-s)^(x-0)
• All of the n people I've come across have heard of anarchism but not social anarchism
• This can be represented as a binomial distribution: z ~ Binomal(20,k)
• P(z=n) = nCn(k^n)(1-k)^(n-n) = k^n

Inputting some real data:

1. I will take n to be 20. I've actually asked a lot more random people, but 20 is a "worse case" scenario.
2. Assume that 0.8 chance that my experience is average and unbiased.

• k^20 = 0.8
• k = 0.9889
• (1-s)^(x-0) = 0.9889
• Since x>1, s<0.012

Hence, using the above assumptions 1 and 2, 1.2% OR LESS of all anarchists are social anarchists. -- Vision Thing -- 10:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not for nothing that there's a well-known book entitled How to Lie with Statistics. Incidentally, just about every time that I can recall that I've asked anybody I know about the relationship between anarchism and socialism or communism, they've gotten confused and said "Aren't they opposites? Socialism/communism involve big intrusive government, while anarchism involves no government!" *Dan T.* 12:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, use my argument but replace the appropriate words. Real clever. Unfortunately, it also becomes clear that your assumptions are bullshit, because they're my experiences with a few words replaced. Of course, being illogical as well as using fake evidence gives you the wrong conclusions. -- infinity0 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't randomly asked. In statistics "random" doesn't mean that the sample is selected without thinking or intention. There is something called "equal probability of selection" which is crucial for correctness of poll results. Anyhow, see: Gallup FAQ, Bias (statistics) or Selection bias.

Also, my 1. assumption reflects my experience. -- Vision Thing -- 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So, who have you asked? And can you point me to sources which support your claim? -- infinity0 11:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just showing that your sources are easily disputed. -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You really didn't get the point of me doing this, did you? The more sources I come up with which agree with the claim, the more likely it is correct. You have not come up with any sources which contradict the claim. -- infinity0 11:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your poll and "An Anarchist FAQ" aren't credible or independent sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Infinity, a binomial distribution is a function of two arguments, n (the number of trials) and p (the probability of success). You've made n the number of the "pieces of information" that an arbitrarily selected person knows about anarchism, and you've made p equal to the percentage of anarchists (broadly construed) who are anarcho-capitalists.

But both of these involve a crude mistake. n represents arbitrarily selected trials out of a larger population. What's the larger population out of which the n "pieces of information" that the "average person" knows about anarchism are being selected? Is it all the "pieces of information" about anarchism that there are? If so, then you have no right to use the n "pieces of information" that the "average person" knows about anarchism as the first argument to a binomial distribution, because the "pieces of information" that a person knows about anarchism are not randomly selected from the set of all the pieces of information about anarchism that there are. People don't acquire the information they have about anarchism by random selection; they acquire it by learning, and some "pieces of information" (like, say, anarchist opposition to the State as such) are "selected" much more frequently than others (like, say, the details of various ideologies and tendencies within anarchism; that's why the counterexamples that Dtobias and Vision Thing mention turn up). Since there's no random selection, there's no binomial distribution.

Further, p is supposed to represent the percentage of the larger population which would count as "success" in the trial; in this case, the percentage of all "pieces of information" about anarchism that would convey knowledge of the existence of anarcho-capitalism. But what is that percentage? You've assumed that it's equal to the percentage of the population of anarchists (broadly construed) who are anarcho-capitalists. But why would you assume that? You've given no justification for this assumption, and in fact it seems like a rather silly one. Since the method you offer for etermining the probability that a given "piece of information" selected randomly (even if they were selected randomly in these "trials," which they're not) will convey knowledge of the existence of anarcho-capitalism is unjustified, so are your calculations of proportion based on it.

In short, this is sheer sophistry, and you ought to be embarassed that you indulged in it.

Radgeek 17:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Since there's no random selection, there's no binomial distribution." - for the purposes of being simple, it's a random selection. You think I could calculate the individual circumstances for everyone?

No. What I think is that you don't have a binomial distribution when the selection of trials from the larger population is not made at random. Since people do not acquire pieces of information about anarchism at random (they learn them, and as has been repeatedly pointed out, they tend to learn generalities much more often than they tend to learn details about specific ideological subgroups) you do not have random selection from a larger population. Thus you have no right to make calculations of probability based on a binomial distribution. Period. All of the calculations that follow are, frankly, bullshit, because binomial distributions tell you about the probability of a particular outcome of random selection or successive trials, not the probability of a particular outcome of systematically determined selections. Radgeek 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the larger population out of which the n "pieces of information" that the "average person" knows about anarchism are being selected? - The larger population is B. It comes out of the calculations because it is unneeded - I realise I should have explained further - B is chosen so that "1 piece" represents the amount of information a person needs to learn to know what anarcho-capitalism is.

Is B supposed to represent anarchists as a population, or "pieces of information about anarchism"? If it's the former, then "pieces of information" can't be selected out of B, because the element of B are people, not pieces of information. If it's the latter, then you can't approximate the number of anarcho-capitalists in the population of anarchists just by approximating the ratio a, as you try to above, because a is then a ratio of the number of a subset of "pieces of information" to the number of a larger set of "pieces of information," not a ratio of the numbers of people. Radgeek 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Further, p is supposed to represent the percentage of the larger population which would count as "success" in the trial;" - P is the probability of each individual trial succeeding. The expected value of the distribution is p*n, but since it's a random variable it could very well NOT be p.

No, it couldn't. When the "trials" are selections out of a larger population, with success defined as having trait T and failure defined as not having trait T, the value of p is fixed by the ratio of T-possessors to the total population. You seem to be confusing the number of successful trials in the selection (which is what the binomial distribution is a probability distribution for) with the percentage of the larger population which has the trait that you're testing for. Radgeek 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"You've assumed that it's equal to the percentage of the population of anarchists (broadly construed) who are anarcho-capitalists. But why would you assume that? You've given no justification for this assumption, and in fact it seems like a rather silly one." - Oh yes, I'm sorry I didn't list out all the assumptions I've made. However, why is it silly? On average, each noted proponent of a theory pumps out the same amount of information about that theory. It's unlikely that 1/3 of anarchists will pump out ten times as much information as the other 2/3.

I think it's silly to suggest that you can quantify "pieces of information" about anarchism in the first place. But supposing that you could somehow, it's unlikely that what most people learn about anarchism has very much to do with what anarchist writers "pump out" from day to day (most of which is theoretical and polemical work that non-anarchists have very little contact with). It's also silly to presume that every "piece of information" about anarchism that an advocate of school X within anarchism "pumps out" would convey knowledge of school X. (Lots of anarcho-capitalists and anti-capitalist anarchists write a lot of words on themes other than just the specific details of their own personal school of anarchism.) Radgeek 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"In short, this is sheer sophistry, and you ought to be embarassed that you indulged in it." - lol. I said "Obviously, this is a (very rough) estimate, but it gives you the general magnitude of the actual fraction" - meaning, about 10^-2%. Of course it's easy to pick out flaws in it.

This is not a matter of trifling quibbles. You attempted to pass off mathematical calculations about probabilities that were pure bullshit, because they depend on variables being random which are not random, and depend on ratios being changed from ratios of people with particular beliefs, to ratios of "pieces of information" about those beliefs, as it suits you. You ought not to have done that, and you ought to be embarassed that you did. Radgeek 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But you miss my main point, which is:

You cannot say my claims above (that anarcho-capitalists are in the minority) account for nothing, because they are not my personal experiences, but of everyone I have randomly asked, and the more people that I ask that agree with my proposition, the more chance of being correct it is. -- infinity0 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I can very well say that they count for nothing, because you have given no reason other than a sophistical abuse of statistical formulas, to suggest that having heard of anarchism but not having heard of anarcho-capitalism proves anything at all about the proportion of anarcho-capitalists to anti-capitalist anarchists. (How many people do you think have heard of anarcho-syndicalism, compared to the number that have heard of anarchism or anarchy? Does that prove that anarcho-syndicalists are a tiny minority?) Radgeek 05:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikitopian project

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)

Too many links

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)

In my opinion they shouldn't be removed. -- Vision Thing -- 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? There's already about 30 links here, and quite a lot of them are from the same websites. -- infinity0 11:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They don’t look needless to me. Is there some Wikipedia guideline about number of links in an article? -- Vision Thing -- 08:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not specifically, but blogs and personal website are frowned upon, hence why I deleted the geocities, freewebs, podcasts and the blogs. -- infinity0 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, I didn't notice them. I didn't have a chance to either; you reverted me within about 5 minutes, and I was working on other things. -- infinity0 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will go and remove all the personal websites from the list of links now. -- infinity0 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

series inclusion?

Is it NPOV to put link to anarcho-capitalism in the anarchism - tradition series?? Ive seen how, for instance autonomist marxist, nor luxemburgism, nor titoism.... arent put on the communist series, so their non-inclusion would not imply much; however their inclusion prejudicates something that is usually contested? Besides, this is totaly confusing, cuz when you come to the article itself, it is a member of libertarian series, and a mention of the anarchist series is put only in relation to the mention of american individualist anarchism. So, which is it? aryah 83.131.140.200 21:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Give it a shot. I don't think it's POV to put an anarcho-capitalist link in. Someone else who tries to monopolize the term might, though. The "libertarian" box in this article and the "anarchism" box for individualist anarchism is just a result of POV warring. Again, communist anarchists want to present the POV that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, but they will reluctantly accept that early American individualist anarchism is real anarchism because they were opposed to "capitalism" even though they support private property and trade. Go figure. RJII 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Give what a shot? Im attempting to hear reasoned discussion? 'Just' a result of POV warrning?????????????? what is that supposed to mean?? It seems to me that anarcho communist critiques have at least as much say in the discussion and that the admittadly contraversial state of anarcho-capitalism should be presented as such - contraversial. Thats not prejudicationg that it either is or isnt justified, just noting the existance of such a contraversy, presenting critiques as well as supportive arguments. And that this inclusion might be such prejudication; while im not sure - and request opinions - that exclusion should prejudicate anything. I know too little about wikipedia customs, and ask of practises in other series as well, and how they apply to this situation. --Aryah 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is not accepted as anarchism by the majority of anarchists - ie. its position in the anarchist movement is disputed. As with all disputed schools, they are not included on templates. Including "anarcho-catpialism" in the anarchism template would be akin to including Nazism on the socialist template. -- infinity0 17:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism may not be accepted as anarchism by certain kinds of anarchists, but that's not really important, and that's to be expected. Scholars and neutral parties do regard it as a form of anarchism. That's what counts. RJII 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Irrespective of the disputes on whether or not anarcho-capitalism is "really anarchism," the fact remains that there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists out there referring to themselves as anarchists. Someone is an anarchist, or any other type of -ist, when they self-identify as one--not when they pass an ideological purity test created by others who identify as members of the same group. Attempts to exclude anarcho-capitalists from the various traditions of anarchism is a pretty clear example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Think about it. Which is more encyclopedic--anarcho-capitalism listed as part of the anarchism series, along with the very relevant fact that their status as 'true' anarchists is considered controversial by other anarchists? Or having it arbitrarily exlcluded from the list without explanation? One choice is a balancing attempt to broaden the reader's perspective, and another is POV-pushing attempt to narrow it. rehpotsirhc 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion within the template is more POV, because it actively implies to the reader there is no dispute. Exclusion makes the reader wonder "why?" and then he will look for the answer, which is on many articles. -- infinity0 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How does an inclusion imply there is no dispute?. A cursory glance over the first paragraph of this or a number of other articles will quickly inform the reader of the nature and character of the dispute.

As for the "wondering why" part--and what about the readers who have never heard of anarcho-capitalism, or haven't given it enough thought to go traipsing through Wikipedia searching for an answer to why they didn't see a certain anarchist label included in a series? I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but an exclusion basically amounts to a willful attempt to keep people in ignorance. rehpotsirhc 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial schools are not included in the template of a school. Anarcho-capitalism is mentioned on the anarchism article, but not the template, for that reason. Anarcho-capitalism fits more within libertarianism, and is included there. -- infinity0 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be in both series, since it is related to both? Why should controversial sects of political movements be exluded from the templates of those movements? Many right-libertarians would dispute that left-libertarians--a broad group including many anarchists--are libertarians at all. Yet left libertarianism is included in the Libertarianism series template. This is one clear precedent among many. rehpotsirhc 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because a template has limited space. A template conventionally only lists the major, undisputed aspects of the subject - by contrast, an index lists everything. Actually, Left-libertarianism says "For the more original usage, see libertarian socialism. This article describes two distinct movements arising out of post-war North American libertarianism, both of which designate themselves left-libertarian." - the article talks about the faction within right-libertarianism. So, I don't particularly mind if that is excluded from the Libertarian template. -- infinity0 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism definitely belongs in the anarchism template. See a source just below for anarcho-capitalism being considered a form of anarchism from a scholar. It's not important whether, say, communist anarchists dispute whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism --there's always going to be infighting among anarchists. RJII 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

They are a minor movement and most anarchists dispute them. Anarcho-capitalists are far outnumbered by other anarchists. One source is irrelevant. -- infinity0 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because a template has limited space? What exactly limits the space in a template? Wikipedia is not paper. rehpotsirhc 19:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it misleads the reader into thinking anarcho-capitalism is a widely-accepted form of anarchism. What limits the space in a template is the reader's screen resolution. -- infinity0 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "anarchists dispute." What matter is what scholars say. RJII 19:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your logic means that the views of vast majority of anarchists are discounted. That violates WP:NPOV. -- infinity0 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What violates NPOV is you keeping anarcho-capitalism listed. Scholars and independent parties consider anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism (of course). And, you're keeping it out because YOU don't think it's a form of anarchism. You're violating NPOV. You need to learn to accept sources and realize what a credible source is. Do you honestly think a communist anarchist is a credible source when he claims anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism? RJII 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To assist us in coming to a conclusion, let's compare the number of Google hits each entry in the Anarchism series template gets:

Anarcha-feminism: 68,600

Anarchist communism: 80,000

Anarcho-primitivism: 23,800

Collectivist anarchism: 611

Eco-anarchism: 26,500

Green anarchism: 22,500

Individualist anarchism: 70,000

Anarcho-Capitalism: 168,000 rehpotsirhc 19:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I think anarcho-capitalism is the most popular form of anarchism today, or if not, it's on it's way to being so. RJII 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Google hits are unreliable as to number of supporters; many is critique of anarcho-capitalism. Similarly, you haven't searched for common pseduonyms for the other schools. RJII cites unbalanced citations - only scholars from one side of view, and very few truly independent parties. -- infinity0 19:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You own hopes account for nothing, RJII. Anarcho-capitalism is minor and disputed as anarchism - unlike the other schools of anarchism mentioned. If you can show anarcho-capitalism to be a major and widely-accepted school of anarchism, then provide those sources to back up that claim. Otherwise, it is original research. -- infinity0 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at the source just below. Not only does it say that it's a form of anarchism but that it's a "recognized" form of anarchism. That author is certainly not an anarcho-capitalist, so stop making bogus claims such as "RJII cites unbalanced citations - only scholars from one side of view". You're the one that can't cite anyone but communist/social anarchists that says anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism (of course they're going to say that --they're anti-capitalist.) RJII 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is one source out of millions, and means nothing. If you are going to continue denying what is an obvious fact, that anarcho-capitalism is very minor out of all the schools of anarchism, I really can't argue against you. -- infinity0 20:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You or I have no proof on which kind of anarchism is more popular. I'm just making a guess that anarcho-capitalism is, if not the most popular, that it is becoming so. This is just irrelevant speculation. Aside from that, I provided a source below that anarcho-capitalism is a recognized form of anarchism by a non-anarcho-capitalist scholar. I know how you work. No matter what sources are presented you refuse to accept them. Then, you go running to administrators accusing the person of "POV". RJII 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but you don't give sources detailing the opposite claim. I haven't found secondary claims saying anarcho-capitalism is popular, or even a significant minority amongst anarchists. I have found secondary claims saying anarcho-capitalism is minor. We both know, however, that a-c's position within anarchism is very heavily disputed; much more so than the other schools. For that reason, it shouldn't go on the template. -- infinity0 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity0, here are a couple of links I think answer your assertion that the only people who think that anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchism are anarcho-capitalists themselves.

• One of the least fruitful of these sub-debates is the frequent attempt of one side to define the other out of existence ("You are not truly an anarchist, for anarchists must favor [abolition of private property, atheism, Christianity, etc.]") In addition to being a trivial issue, the factual supporting arguments are often incorrect. For example, despite a popular claim that socialism and anarchism have been inextricably linked since the inception of the anarchist movement, many 19th-century anarchists, not only Americans such as Tucker and Spooner, but even Europeans like Proudhon, were ardently in favor of private property (merely believing that some existing sorts of property were illegitimate, without opposing private property as such)." An Anarchist Theory FAQ, Dr. Bryan Caplan, George Mason University

• At the other end of the political spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism... Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought

• The individualist anarchist (Rothbard, 1970) rejects the state on grounds of efficiency (the private market, it is claimed, can deliver public services...Norman Barry, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory

The smartest thing to do at this point is to wait for a few others weigh in so that we can attempt to reach a consensus at some point in the future. rehpotsirhc 20:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Caplan is an anarcho-capitalist (though of course his credentials count for something), but the others are good as examples. RJII 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Bryan Caplan is a libertarian.) There may be some scholars which do think anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (I myself can see similarities) but there are many anarchists who deny this, even individualist anarchists. The topic is certainly controversial, and it is for that reason why it should be left out of the anarchism template. -- infinity0 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's your sources??? Find a non anti-capitalist credible source who says that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. RJII 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Got a source for your claim that "even individualist anarchists" deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism? I didn't think so. RJII 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is another mainstream source. Carl Levy, political historian, says it's a form of individualist anarchism. He says the individualist anarchism "tradition has been reborn and modified in the United States as anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism." [8] RJII 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you miss the point. Just because a few sources that you find and selectively cite say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism, doesn't mean other people don't dispute it. I am really not going to waste my time citing sources just to please you. An Anarchist FAQ is a good source, and has been written by very many anarchists. You say it's not scholarly, but that doesn't make it invalid. Also "reborn" doesn't mean "type of" - rather, a derivative of which has been modified in some way. I yet again repeat my point - a-c's place within anarchism is very heavily disputed and as such should not be included in the template as a type of anarchism. -- infinity0 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity0, You keep asserting that anarcho-capitalism should be left out of the tempalte because it's controversial. Why? I've already asked you how inclusion in the template suggests that there is no dispute when every relevant article series features a prominent section about the dispute. rehpotsirhc 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What hypocrisy. You fault others for bringing up pro-capitalist as sources for anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism, but then you use "An Anarchist FAQ" written by avowed anti-anarcho-capitalists as a source for anarcho-capitalism not being a form of anarchism. It's laughable. Credible sources on this matter need to be non-anarcho-capitalists claiming it's a form of anarchism and non-anti-capitalists claiming it's not a form of anarchism. We've provided the former; you've provided none of the latter. RJII 20:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Because templates only show major and undisputed aspects about a subject. They don't show all the minor details. -- infinity0 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We've already seen that

• anarcho-capitalism actually gets more hits on Google than any of the other entries on the template
• there are at least two mainstream academic textbooks that include anarcho-capitalism in the tradition of anarchism in general
• there is at least one other template including one political subsect whos status as a member of the broader sect is disputed by others

For me, these points settle the issue descisively. But like I said, let's hear what others have to say. I'm going outside, participating in this marathon Wikidebate sapped my stamina :) rehpotsirhc 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII: "is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of… individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians…" J.W. Baker, "Native American Anarchism," The Raven, pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61-2.

That's not saying that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. If you look at the fuller quote, he's obviously talking about state capitalist libertarians: "It is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of . . . individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians, whose claims on Tucker and the others can be made only by ignoring the violent opposition they had to capitalist exploitation and monopolistic 'free enterprise' supported by the state." Anarcho-capitalists oppose "monopolisitc 'free enterprise' supported by the state." Nevertheless, Baker is obviously anti-capitalist so he's not a good source anyway. Morover, why is Baker notable? It's not even a book that he's written that this is quoted from. It looks like a newsletter that he possible wrote in to. RJII 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No. "They" refers to Tucker and the ind-anarchists, not the libertarian capitalists. -- infinity0 22:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Rehpotsirhc: "Left libertarianism (the one in that article)" could be removed, I don't mind. I didn't know it was disputed, though. Google searches aren't accurate or reflect upon the real world. And the textbook sources doesn't mean it isn't widely disputed. -- infinity0 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Another mainstream source of anarcho-capitalism being anarchism

"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)

surely the Objectivists can do better than this

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)

I agree. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good luck finding an Objectivist that even understands Objectivism. RJII 01:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Law on the free market

RJII argues "can't say all ancaps are for law to be market supplied. friedman is for that, but not rothbard" I'm not sure. Are you sure that Rothbard is against that? The important thing is that he and other ancaps are not for law being supplied by a state monopoly as is the current situation. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard supports contract law, of course. But,he believes in inviolable natural law, whereas Friedman believes in all law being the product of the market. So, a law that that wins out in the market may conflict with Rothabard's natural law (that law being a prohibition against force and fraud, and property created through labor). I'm not an expert on the difference. But, that's how I understand it. RJII 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, look at Friedman's definition of coercion: "I defined 'coercion', for the purposes of this definition, as the violation of what people in a particular society believe to be the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals." (Machinery of Freedom) Whatever they decide is going to be "coercion" is going to be coercion. If they decide that initiation of force is ok in some cases, then that case is just excluded from their definition of coercion. So, it's pretty clear that Friedman's and Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism can conflict in practice isn't it? Also, this points out a problem with this article. It seems to assume that all anarcho-capitalism is Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. RJII 03:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really conflict. Friedman, in that quotation, might give the impression that he is okay with whatever people in a given society want to do, but his exposition of his ideas elsewhere shows that he has a lot of pretty clear ideas about what that is or ought to be: he believes in property rights, the wrongness of murder, etc.; basically all that good stuff that Rothbard believes in. Rothbard does believe in a natural law, but, of course, he doesn't expect people to follow a natural law that they themselves don't believe in. So, as far as any society where anarcho-capitalism actually prevails, I think the Friedmanian vision and the Rothbardian are basically the same.

In my experience some of the Rothbardian think there is a conflict between Rothbard and Friedman, but Friedman does not. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Iceland

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)

VOTE: Is anarcho-capitalism a political movement/theory/philosophy?

This article was just removed from these three categories:

• Political movements
• Political theories
• Political philosophies

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarcho-capitalism&curid=1023&diff=52224944&oldid=52194995

I just added the last one today, but the others have been there for a long time.

In order to avoid an edit war with Irgendwer, I would like to see if we can establish consensus on this point.

QUESTION: Is anarcho-capitalism a political movement, theory and/or philosophy?

Discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So you have reverted to no empirical manifestation except for your disgusting trolling. --Irgendwer 07:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

---

Also, one might wish to note that Irgwender is apparently the same person as our old friend User:Alfrem, who was once temp banned from editing Libertarianism due to an edit-war campaign to remove the implication that it is "political". Just a heads-up. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Categories

Since this is an involved group of editors, perhaps folks here can help figure out the real-world difference between Category:Political philosophy and Category:Political philosophies. -Will Beback 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote

(Please vote either YES (to the above question) or NO, and sign with ~~~~.)

Yes --Serge 23:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes —Tamfang 15:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Serge, who starts this vote, is on the crazy trip to make all and anything to a political philosophy. He args in Talk:Libertarianism:

Any time more than one individual is involved, you have a group, and you have a political situation, period.

So libertarianism is to him a political philosophy per se. It should be "political" "that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish" (see intro libertarianism). In a plural grasp it may be correct. People call that political individualism. But libertarianism doesn't address this plural per se. There is not even an empirical manifestation in common science or linguistic usage (see google:"anarcho-capitalism is a political")

It is a political need of democrats to value all and anything as political and to enforce their POV by votes. This is truth. --Irgendwer 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting on stuff is not particularly anarchist (capitalist or otherwise), and is also rather unlikely to resolve anything in the perennial Wiki-Wars over anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, and related topics; there have been many votes, polls, and surveys, none of which really settled anything or got anybody to change their mind. *Dan T.* 12:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The practical purpose of a vote is to establish a consensus if there is one, in case that becomes necessary to address an administrative matter to end an edit war. --Serge 07:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

in other words, to enforce majority pov. --Irgendwer 07:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that less legitimate than your campaign to enforce the pov of a minority of one? —Tamfang 15:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Which pov of a minority? I dont have an entry. So, I can't have a pov. --Irgendwer 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask you to spare me the sophistry, but this doesn't make even enough sense to be called sophistry. You maintain the opinion that a-c is orthogonal to politics; you attempt to enforce that opinion by removing the politics category links whenever someone restores them. (I don't know what you mean by "an entry".) —Tamfang 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An entry is an active assertion in the sense above. I may remove all pov from Wikipedia in coherence of the guidelines. So it is when there is no evidence. --Irgendwer 23:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You deny making any "active assertion"? So I guess you're not the one who actively asserts that a-c is not political – or rather, that a-c is not legitimately included in a list of political philosophies/theories/movements. (I wonder why Anarchism has not been subjected to the same sanitizing.) If you were, I'd ask you to support that assertion. What a pity that that person is not available. —Tamfang 00:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look to the Guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability (One of three policies which are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.) calls for: The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

By the way, Classical Anarchism has actually some collectively enforced rules against profit, rent, interest or capitalism. So there is a need of any political body, e.g. worker's concils, so that it is really content in some political scientist reference books on "State theories". Even though, one may dispute about the weight when it should be a qualified message. --Irgendwer 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anywho

The opinion that the political sector ought to be minimized is a political opinion – or, at the very least, an opinion with potential effects on politics. I think I understand the theoretical point that Irgendwer is making, but removing a-c from the political Categories means that people looking there for the range of relevant opinions are deprived of an opportunity to learn that a-c exists. Statists ought to be grateful to Irgendwer for that. —Tamfang 15:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously not only a theoretical point. It is also a practical, i.e. empirical point, because there is no relevant person who is claiming that anarcho-capitalism would be a political issue. --Irgendwer 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "relevant person"? Should we ask someone who's practicing empirical anarcho-capitalism, e.g. a drug smuggler, whether a list of political philosophies/theories/movements ought to include a-c? —Tamfang 00:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reliable sources --Irgendwer 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Any philosophy that critiques politics/government is a "political philosophy." RJII 16:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where? In which reference book? In which curriculum?

Furthermore, I am ancap, but I don't have a critique on politics/government. They shall form a Stalinist society if they want. The only point is voluntariness. Even this is no issue of political philosophy. --Irgendwer 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are an ancap then of course you have a critique of government. If you oppose government, then you have a criticism of government. If you support voluntary interaction then you oppose the State. Of course anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, like any other anarchist philosophy. RJII 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim that opposing government is a "relevant" critique. Furthermore, you claim that critique would be an "objective" criteria to define political issues. I have a lot of other indices against it. One may dispute about who is claiming better. But obviously you are absolutly incorrect because you don't even have an empirical support. --Irgendwer 18:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying you have a source claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a political philosophy? This source refers to anarcho-capitalism as a political theory; it says, "The anarcho-capitalist political theory of Murray N. Rothbard..." [9] RJII 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nay, I wrote, I have a lot indices against your argument. But YOU must provide an evidence, otherwise you publish only your own thoughts and analyses.

Then, Edit conflict. OK, you have one source now, with a difficult title. But at first go, I can not see what should be the concrete anarcho-capitalistic political theory. Probably the anarcho-capitalist person is addressed in his whole bibliography. It would be easier to name the alleged poltical theory directly if there is one. --Irgendwer 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The political theory of anarcho-capitalism is that the State is a systematic monopolistic initiator of coercion and therefore should be eliminated. RJII 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Do you have a reference for this from political theory? --Irgendwer 23:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rephrase the question? —Tamfang 00:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? It should be clear. --Irgendwer 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretend I'm a bit stupid. That shouldn't be too hard for you. —Tamfang 15:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need because it is directed to RJII. --Irgendwer 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RJII has now provided one more reference than Irgendwer. —Tamfang 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I answer to arguments. --Irgendwer 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So how come your answer is usually to demand a reference? —Tamfang 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

References need a examination, doesn't it? --Irgendwer 00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please rephrase the question. Your English is not as clear as you seem to believe it is. —Tamfang 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

better now? --Irgendwer 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The only point is voluntariness. That is a political opinion. The central political question is "When is coercion legitimate?", and answering it "Never" does not make it unpolitical. —Tamfang 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a political opinion. - Not in the sense of ancaps. I understand it as natural law like Rothbard, or as an apriori like Hoppe. It would be a political opinion in the sense of 'politics' if there would be an active intention to convince the 'Demos' to voluntariness as a matter of principle. But just this would rather be a political joke than a political theory. --Irgendwer 23:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So there is an ancap sense of "political"? —Tamfang 00:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a rhetorical question? --Irgendwer 09:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there is no one who actively seeks to convert statists to anarchism? The people who write books on the subject must have some purpose in mind. —Tamfang 00:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are actively persons who seeks to convert statists, but not to make rules within a group, or to eliminate the U.S. government. --Irgendwer 09:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a-c if not a set of recommended rules for group interaction? What is anarchism without the goal of eliminating the state? —Tamfang 15:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a-c if not a set of recommended rules for group interaction? - You use a wise word "recommended". anarcho-capitalism is a recommendation to consensual rules whenever. But politics is a recommendation to enforce rules within a enforced political group.

What is anarchism without the goal of eliminating the state? Ancaps don't want to take the state away from you because it is no collectivist ideology. A standard goal is e.g. "Don't treat on me!". --Irgendwer 18:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And you hope to get "don't tread on me" without either persuasion or force? If your definition of "the state" is broad enough to include (contrary to normal usage) an entity that asks each individual's permission before governing, then:

• why are you so fussy about a narrow definition of political??
• wherever I've written "state" you can read it as "involuntary state", okay?

—Tamfang 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And you hope to get "don't tread on me" without either persuasion or force? Self defense is force, not politics. But in the long run states fall always by own antinomies.

The rest is not clear to me what you aim at. --Irgendwer 00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Many states have fallen, and yet statism remains. If you use force against the state, your force has a political effect whether or not you call it politics. Meanwhile, perhaps you ought not to engage in edit wars about that which you don't understand. —Tamfang 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course statism remained in the form you may see it. Anyhow, modern statism is a very young formation in human history and it is not unlikely that it will change as fast as it had come into existence. But this is far from the point here. You are fudging a story (like RJII above) that anarcho-capitalism must have a theory to eliminate the state by force. I am quite more familiar with anarcho-capitalism than you but this would be new to me. However, you may read Rothbard's books. These are all online. Maybe you find a fishy remark. :-) --Irgendwer 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said that "anarcho-capitalism must have a theory to eliminate the state by force." Some might advocate force, and some might advocate convincing people through philosophy. Some might even advocating moving away from the state to another location to set up a society. But, in all these cases there is a criticism of the state intervening in private affairs. That makes it a political philosophy. RJII 17:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would be correct then political science would reference NAP, consensus, free markets, Rothbard, Hoppe, Friedman, private law enforcement and so on. Or, Rothbard, Friedman and Hoppe would speak at least seriously of their own "political philosophy". But this is obviously not the case. --Irgendwer 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancaps don't want to take the state away from you because it is no collectivist ideology. Non sequitur, unless "collectivist" means anything that goes beyond self-defense, e.g. it's collectivist to poison mosquitos and thus deprive other people of their right to choose to be infected with malaria. —Tamfang 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

all known statism is collectivistic ideology and goes beyond self-defense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irgendwer (talk • contribs) 16:24, 17 May 2006.

Obviously statism/collectivism goes beyond self-defense, but my implied question was about the reverse implication: do you maintain that everything that goes beyond self-defense is collectivism? —Tamfang 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

@RJII, I have checked your Modugno source above again. [10]

In short the message is:

"The anarcho-capitalists would also entrust to the free market the usual functions justifying the existence of the State i.e. defence and the administration of justice and they propose a system of protection agencies in competition with one another in the same territory. The non-anarchists find it necessary to preserve the State’s monopoly on the exercise of force and the administration of justice. In the opinion of the anarcho-capitalists, the State is an immoral institution because, with its countless monopolies, it tramples on the rights of individuals and is also an inefficient institution for the supply of goods and services. For this reason, they propose a scenario of small communities based on consent which would go beyond the idea of State and nation based on the concept of the monopolistic control of the exercise of force in a given territory."

Is this a political theory? I don't think so.

In other respects, it is rather an informative bibliography. --Irgendwer 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Would a negation of the above assertions — "the state is necessary, the state is moral" and so on — be political? —Tamfang 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because it is anti-political and not schizophrenic. --Irgendwer 06:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread my question. —Tamfang 19:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

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)

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)

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)

What does "as own labeling" mean? —Tamfang 22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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))

I have well founded objections. But tomorrow. --Irgendwer 00:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Are you arguing that Rothbard is not an anarcho-capitalist? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Rothbard founded in his book The Ethics of Liberty a theory of natural laws to define a "philosophy of liberty". He saw that political philosophy fails to induce liberty itself, so he started an new idea of what political theory should be to fulfill this task.

I think this is an honest valuation. One should not peg all as political philosophy solely due to some excursions. It is for my taste rather critique of ideology, or sociology. --Irgendwer 09:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

FAC removal candidate

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)

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)

I don't think there's any glaring POV problem. What do you mean by "idiosyncratic."? RJII 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [11] RJII 05:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

67.141.22.170

• 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)

Any particular part of that you need a source for? RJII 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Somalia section split

The section on Somalia should be split into a new article for the reasons that the article is too long and that Somalia seems to have a state now. I'm thinking of reducing the section the first one or two and the last paragraphs. Bob A 17:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

agree, in part. I'd suggest some trimming of those first two paragraphs, and probably a re-write of the last one. I'm not convinced that there should be an Anarchy in Somalia article, instead of a section within the article on Somalia or Politics of Somalia. Regarding the last paragraph, while the ICU has taken over Mogadishu, is there still anarchy in the countryside? Argyriou 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Somalia seems to be about current politics, but Somalia might work. The reason I suggest a new article is that there's already a Military of Somalia, Scouting in Somalia, etc.. Bob A 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there even any sources that discuss Somalia as having something to do with anarcho-capitalism? If not, then the whole section would be original research. I would think that there would be a source out there, but I don't think I've seen one. RJII 19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up a few links from google:

• The end of the salad days in Somalia by Llewellyn Rockwell
• Somali Anarchy discussion board
• Anarcho-Capitalism and Statist Lock-In comments to the main post denying that anarchocapitalism can work, using Somalia as an example
• Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

Argyriou 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mm-kay; I've split the section. Bob A 03:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Peikoff

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)

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)

FAC Removal

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 "[12] (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)

FAC status is not for nifty articles, it is for the absolute best articles on wikipedia.

• This article uses original research in the form of speculation, "However, Marshall may have overlooked that the most noted individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker explicitly supports the right to inequality in wealth and upholds it as the natural result of liberty,"

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)

• speaks in the subjective voice of its own editors, "The similarity to anarcho-capitalism in regard to private defense of liberty and property is probably best seen in a quote by 19th-century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros:",

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)

• engages in speculation without citation, "He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current (U.S.) pro-capitalist sense."

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)

• repeats itself in several places (noting that Rothbard brought anarcho-capitalism into existence by combining individualist anarchism and classical liberalism no less than three times),

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)

• and has horrible punctuation, grammar, and syntax throughout.

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)

• It also fails other important and necessary FAC attributes, this discussion page is clear evidence that the page on anarcho-capitalism is not "uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view);" despite what some of its editors would prefer to see it as.

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)

• The size of its table of contents and its relative stability are more debateable but still important factors in considering its worthiness for featured article status. The attitude of "its a work in progress and thus deserves FAC status for the time being" of its biased editors is not acceptable.

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)

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)

Several of these failings and more have been brought up repeatedly on this discussion page and ignored by the editors who would rather see their pet ideology on the frontpage then do the work required to create and article worthy of it. If I was an anarcho-capitalist I would be ashamed to see that my ideology is being pushed more through the repetitious squaking of its adherents than the quality of its portrayal. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments. Any comments from those who disagree? --AaronS 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of those sentiments for reasons explained by Twobitsprite. -- Vision Thing -- 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Recent edits

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)

I'll move them to Wikiquote, then. That's a more approprate place for them. --Aquillion 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

POV in Dispute over the name "anarchism"

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)

"Individualist anarchism" label

This discussion happened a while ago, and it ended with most of the disputants giving up and reluctantly accepting RJII's Ralph Raico source. This, however, is the only source provided; further, it is not clear that the source substantiates the claim that "individualist anarchism" is even sometimes used. I don't think that this term should be in the infobox, although I think that it would perhaps be worthy of a brief discussion in the article. If it were to remain in the infobox, I think that it should be qualified with a "(disputed)" label. --AaronS 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Only source, unless you could these above on this very same page: [13]. In any case, the box is only claiming the that terms is frequently used, not that such a term is appropriate. And the fact that people, ancap and otherwise, do use the term for anarcho-capitalism is not disputed, so I don't see the reason for marking it that way. MrVoluntarist 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

None of those really pass the muster of a reliable sources test. You are right, however, to point out that we're simply talking about use, not appropriateness. But if that is the case, then I must ask whether or not the infobox is really necessary at all, or whether or not we should note that the use may not be appropriate (because it does imply that it is). --AaronS 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's necessary to point out alternate terms, unless you want to have an article for each of those different terms, and not have them link each other. The purpose of the infobox is to list other terms that have been used. It does that. MrVoluntarist 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's about disambiguation, then shouldn't we simply do redirects for those terms? --AaronS 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should be used to explaining myself multiple times by now. People may want to know the other terms that are used for this concept. Disambiguation is for when people use the other terms and need to be directed to this one, not when they use this term and need to learn about others.

I recall an earlier version of the box that listed some of them as also having been used to refer to indvidualist anarchism. If you want to state that before such terms are used ("The following terms can also refer to individualist anarchism:" -- and yes, "individualist anarchism" would be in that list), I have no objection. I don't know why it was changed away from that. MrVoluntarist 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your condescension is quite endearing. I forgot that you have difficulty answering polite questions. --AaronS 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I remembered that I had to repeat myself multiple times when dealing with you. MrVoluntarist 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't. I think that you just like to pretend to be exasperated with the idiots that populate the world. I bet it makes you feel really smart. --AaronS 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When you confused disambiguation with synonym provision, I wasn't pretending. I promise. MrVoluntarist 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I just saw a lot of sources saying that anarcho-capitalism is individualist anarchism over in the Wikiquote article. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/Anarcho-capitalism

Oh, great. Another Hogeye sockpuppet. Do you really think that we're that dumb? I mean, MrVoluntarist is probably the most intelligent person alive. --AaronS 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but it's a better estimate than your previous ones. Remember the time you posted that edit note where you said "Golly, guys, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia, but, gee, I just feel that, as an outside observer, <insert your biased opinion>" and then didn't sign? It would have worked, except that you forgot to sign in as a sockpuppet first. Do you still feel kinda new to Wikipedia? MrVoluntarist 14:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't sign in as a sockpuppet, it's a bit strange that you're accusing me of sockpuppetry. But you're bizarre obsession with me hasn't kept you from making even more whacky attacks on my character. You're a lot of hot air, and very little substance. --AaronS 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm accusing you of attempting to engage in sockpuppetry, but, well, forgetting to actually sign in as a sockpuppet. Would you like me to show everyone here your post, and let them decide if you were making a failed attempt at being a supportive sockpuppet?

Sure, but, if I were you, I would personally be embarrassed by such a public display of infatuation. --AaronS 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Will post when found. MrVoluntarist 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, what was the point of your reference to me being intelligent? I didn't understand its purpose in the context of that post. MrVoluntarist 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should rethink my opinion of your intellectual prowess, then. --AaronS 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Or answer the question, so we can finally see flawed chain of reasoning that lead you to it, like the time you said "pedantic" means "rude" (or something like that) because of some similar French word. MrVoluntarist 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some say "irony," others scream "flawed chain of reasoning." Whatever floats your boat! Oh, and I think that you're referring to my use of the term "flat-footed." It's amusing that you're bringing up all of these instances that really should be embarrassing for you. After all, if you remember, you said that "flat-footed" refers only to the anatomical condition. I took great pleasure in educating such a very wise man as yourself when I reminded you that it can also mean "proceeding in a plodding or unimaginative way" or "pedestrian." Are we going to continue this silly conversation, or have you gotten over me yet? I've been known to capture the hearts of quite a few ladies, but you're my first male suitor. --AaronS 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I said. (And I never said it refers only to the anatomical definition, liar. Try reading the stuff you link for once in your life.) I'm referring to your use of "pedantic" on the Flag message boards in December 2002. (Good memory, not good record-keeping or obsession.) I may have been Kevehs though, I forget. But that's not the question here. The question is: how exactly does your sarcastic reference to my intelligence fit in with your comment about Hogeye? I want to see how you got that, if for no other reason than to show others your thinking process. MrVoluntarist 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I am very flattered, I would rather not indulge your perverted obsession any more. --AaronS 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about apologizing for lying (one additional time), or answering my original quesiton? Would those be too much to ask? MrVoluntarist 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the insanity of such a request, yes. Dabbling with a diseased mind is only fun for so long. --AaronS 12:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's insane for me to ask for an apology for lying? And now I'm a "diseased mind". Real mature. MrVoluntarist 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what is insane is the illogical baselessness of your accusations, your oversensitivity, and your obsessive infatuation with me, all of which could be regarded as symptoms of anti-social behavior. From this point on, I'm not going to bother indulging you in these silly little conversations. While I do enjoy exercising my wit now and then, this is not the place for it, and I would like to adhere to the policy of this web site. So, you can continue to call me a liar, accuse me of raping babies, and haunt my every move on Wikipedia. I'm getting the pleasure that I receive from being here regardless of whether or not I engage with you in your seemingly uncontrollable need to bicker, hurl insults, and stomp your feet. --AaronS 14:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaron: you did lie. That is unambiguous. In the post you are referring to, I suggested one (sort of) reasonable meaning of "flat-footed" you could have meant, and then, separately, suggested the anatomical use. You clearly stated that I said it could only mean the anatomical use. You lied. There's no wiggle room on this one, I'm afraid. You also made a gratuitous reference to me (the sarcastic remark about my intelligence). There was no reason for it to be there. It made no sense in the context of your post. It was a cheap shot at me. Perhaps you think it's mature to dismiss any criticism of your behavior as "anti-social", but it's not. Please stop lying about my posts. MrVoluntarist 15:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Article length

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)

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)

Good work. I began adding {{Fact}} 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 {{Fact}} 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)

I just cut the article from 66 to 62KB by removing theoretical speculation, fluff, weasel words, and a few unsourced claims that weren't really essential to the article. I welcome all discussion of the matter. --AaronS 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Most economists arent subjectivist marginalists?

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)

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)

Anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism

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)

Reverts

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)

I went ahead and put back some of my previously reverted edits. Here's why:

• In the contractual society section, it is not clear that the particulars of such a society are difficult to determine because it is contractual. My version is more succinct and does not make that unverified claim.
• That anarcho-capitalists maintain that the social structure of a contractual society would be self-regulating is unverified theoretical speculation, and therefore does not belong in the article.
• "As to the question of law itself, various anarcho-capitalists have different solutions." This statement is entirely unnecessary.
• All of the things I preened from the "use of force" section were unverified bits of theoretical speculation; please do not put them back, fact tags and all.
• The semantic dispute is largely dubious, unverified, and mainly the result of the original research produced by the University of Hogeye and RJII.

I welcome your thoughts on these matters. --AaronS 14:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

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)

The length of anarchism in comparison to the length of this article is of no import. --AaronS 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

article significance?

Where do Nwe, AaronS, and The Ungovernable Force get some sort of arrogant right to judge the significance of this article? If you all have some special degree in the study of anarchism I would kindly like to see it now. I find your attacks on several editors here highly offensive and insulting in the extreme. If Hogeye, RJll and Vision Thing have all graduated from the same university than you can bet I did, too. And Nwe, you said, "anarcho-capitalism is not real anarchism". If you are a so called communist-anarchist or (socialist liberal), I believe you have some serious explaining to do. Because there is no such thing as communist anarchy. Like I said before you may as well say monarchist anarchy or fascist anarchy. That's how impossible such a thing is.

Capitalism is not a form of government' it just a system that allows individuals to trade freely. In an anarchy, by definition there is no government, it would happen because people would naturally want to sell goods sometimes and no government would exist to stop them.

Communism is a form of government, or more accurately a state. Maybe one of you would be so kind as to explain to me how a state and anarchy (lack of state or head or ruler or government) could exist together at the same time.

If at least one of you can't respond to these questions with some reasonable answers I will assume that you should not be editing this article because you can't back up your assertions with fact. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh...? --AaronS 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to agree with Aaron. But I have to ask, where did you learn about communism and anarchism? I can assure you that communism is much more than just a government owning the economy. That is one form of communism (albeit the most commonly understood and talked about form), but definitely not the only form. You seem to be uninformed as to what communism and anarchism mean historically in terms of actual social movements and philosophies, other than the basic "communism means government owns everything and anarchism means no government". That's how I thought in junior high, but after only a week of looking into actual anarchist philosophers and such, it became pretty apparent that that position was incredibly destitute. Look in a print encyclopedia on anarchism for one. Anarchism is about dismantling social hierarchy, including but not limited to governement. For most if not all anarchists (depending on who you talk to), this also includes economic inequality, in other words, creating a classless society where all individuals have control over the means of production (sounds sorta like communism, huh?). If anarchism merely meant no government, than anarchism really would just mean chaos. We could say that any time a government stopped functioning and everyone began killing and robbing each other, it would be an anarchist society. That simply is not the case though, as I'm sure you would agree. There is more to anarchism than just no governemnt. And since when has no government inherently implied free-market capitalism as you seem to say it does? Many people (such as myself) would rather give things away to people who need them and have the receiver reciprocate in kind when the original givers in need without any formalized trade system in place (see Reciprocity (cultural anthropology), especially the part about generalized reciprocity, as well as Gift economy which specifically mentions anarcho-communism). As Marx said "from each according to ability, to each according to need". There is nothing that implies governance in that statement, yet it's the essense of communism. This is neither selling of goods on a market or a planned economy.

And as for RJII, I don't think there is any way to defend a user who admits that their sole purpose was to insert their POV into all of wikipedia and do so through dirty tactics that ammount to psychological warfare. And Hogeye makes numerous personal attacks against other users which is completely unacceptable. The Ungovernable Force 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RJII may think that he had waged psychological warfare against some of us, but I think that he might have been his only victim. To be that emotionally and psychologically caught up in this web site is diagnosable at best. Throw in a grandiose sense of self, a belief in the Truth with a capital T, and a fervent faith in one's own calling to spread that word, and we just might have the next Prophet. Regardless, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for this kind of theoretical discussion. Anarcho-capitalism is significant in itself, even though it might not be as significant within the context of anarchism. --AaronS 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree. First off, I don't understand why you took to attacking us all here like you just did Shannon since Aaron and I were both saying that the fact that this article is longer than "anarchism" doesn't matter much. We never suggested that it be gotten rid of or anything like that. It is a significant idea that deserves mention, I'm just saying that I don't think it's a form of anarchism. It has elements of it, but it is much closer to American Libertarianism than classic anarchism. As for RJII, I think the saddest part about his attempt to wage psychological warfare was how painfully obvious it was that he was trying to do it. The Ungovernable Force 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

back to reality

I did not attack you, Ungoveranable force. I was merely defending the attacks on this excellent and well-rounded article.

Since your memories are so short here are two quotes (directly above):

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)

I find the term 'real anarchism' a joke at best. I wouldn't describe myself as a communist or an anarcho-capitalist, although according to the article there are a number of schools of thought this philosphy. The classical liberal, libertarian one would what I would be.

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)

Uh, making disparaging remarks about the significance of an unusually good article and comparing it to ninjas versus pirates would be considered real insulting in most circles.

Now you have insulted my intelligence and the depth of my knowledge, by comparing my statement to your understanding of anarchy when you were in Junior High. I probably had more insight and understanding of the hypocracy and sameness of the left and the right and of communism and fascism and socialism and all the other forms of government, and political parties by the time I was in third grade than most people will ever have.

Don't state what my understanding of anarchy is for I haven't told you that. I was just trying to simplify something that you apparantly have no understanding of.

My understanding, number one, is that anarchy means freedom. If there ever was a society that had little, if any, government intervention it was the pioneers in the mid to late 19th century. Guess what? They shared what they had freely with each other. They helped each other when it was time to raise a barn or harvest a crop. In the plains and on the farms there was no need for cops or petty tyrannical laws or any interference at all. And guess what? The large majority of these poor, hard working, but free people were either Christian or Deist.

I have read (albeit) a little of Marxs' writing and what I honestly saw was a ridulous twisting of the works and writings of Paine and Jefferson. Also anyone who can say that "the state will eventually wither away" should find another hobby, besides the further screwing of the hope of a free government (Paine and Jefferson, the United States which the federalists destroyed). States, my fine people, do not just wither away. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as a real important addition, the people who inhabited this great continent before the marauding Europeans arrived and stole their land, lived in real anarchy. And you know what? I bet they had more freedom and happiness than all the dreams of all the white folks who pretend to know what anarchy is put together. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how what I said has any relation whatsover to your claims against me. Perhaps you should reread what you quoted. --AaronS 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the people who inhabited this continent engaged in warfare with one another at times and some had governements. Others didn't, and many of them had gift economies, at least within their groups. I'm an anthropology major, I know that sort of thing already. That seems like a straw-man argument though.

Anyway, you said we believed we had "the arrogant right to judge the significance of the article" and included me in that statement. Then you gave two examples of people supposedly judging the significance article in a way you disagree with, neither of which were from me. And wikipedia is largely about judging significance, that's why we have notablility policies, so what does it matter if they did? Especially when two of us (Aaron and I) were defending the article as it currently is. Where are you getting the idea that we are attacking it?

Third, I'm not trying to insult you intelligence, I'm saying you don't have much knowledge of anarchism as it pertains to the specific philosophy and it's history. You seem to be basing all of this on your own interpretation of anarchy, which could include anything. That's fine for your everyday life, but not for an encyclopedia. By pointing out that that is how I thought in junior high I was showing that I can understand why you think what you do. I've met plenty of people who called themselves anarchists without any real knowledge of what that meant, and I used to be that way many years ago, so I understand where you are coming from, but it is not appropriate for this project. Again, read a non-wiki encyclopedia article on the topic. As for Marx, I agree that states don't whither away, which is why I'm an anarchist and not a Marxist. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a few good ideas. I also find it ironic that you would praise the same settlers who ended up being the final death nail in the lifestyle of the Natives Americans. The Ungovernable Force 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now you're really starting to piss me off. First don't patronize me. Two: who the hell are you to judge whether my knowledge is good enough for an enclyclopedia, or even what my knowledge is? Three, at least as far as editing an encyclopedia goes I don't try to push propgagandistic crap down the throats of the article's readers, (e.g. 'communism') throughout an article entitled 'anarchism'. Four: I've seen the way you gather together with other editors to bully other editors (RJll, Hogeye and Vision Thing) for instance and demean what is a better article than you ever likely to write. Please show me where you have written an article that even comes close to the excellence of this one. I see the way you twist people's words, derange the issue at hand, lie and insult people, and purposefully work at confusing an issue. (A very typically socialistic thing to do.)

I've seen the way you go running to the admins, (duh, a type of government) to report editors who you deem to be sockpuppets, thereby showing that you haven't got the most rudimentary notion of anarchism. No anarchist would cahort with the powers that be to hurt another editor. Now I suppose you will run to one of the admins and say something like Shannon is an obvious sockpuppet of some banned editor. Or will you just go and complain that I personally attacked you, when in fact it was the other way around? You have no idea how much I am biting my tongue now not to say certain things. (I'll let you guess.)

And 5: I don't really give a rat's ass what your sociology books say or what is "considered real anarchy." There's one more thing that I can claim, that you really can't. I have a mind that hasn't been destroyed and rendered disfunctional with the propaganda of others. I can still think. There's sort of an edge in that.

And then, fascinatingly, you still haven't told us what, exactly, communist anarchy is. I'm dying to hear it. I would also like you to point me to an article that you wrote that comes close to this one. Shannon^{duck talk} 05:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel no need to justify my actions to you, especially based on your last post. I stand by my actions and regret nothing, and you saying I'm not an anarchist isn't going to change that much. I can justify them to myself and that's what matters most. As for what really matters--content, look in an encyclopedia and tell me if you still think presenting anarchism as having things in common with communism is biased. Many encyclopedias barely give mention to an-cap if at all, at least the anarchism article here does so. You can believe what you want about what anarchism really means on your own personal time, but as far as the genuine philosophy and movement is concerned (as interepreted by scholarly sources), you need to lay off. Heck, rant about it, believe it, make a religion out of it, preach on a street corner, create a website, but do not try and present it as the accepted idea of what anarchism is as defined by scholars and the vast majority of self-described anarchists. The Ungovernable Force 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever an anarhchist is, it isn't you. Shannon^{duck talk} 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Boy, that really hurts. I think I'll go slit my wrists now. Again, you are avoiding the actual content of this discussion and focusing instead on personal attacks (please see WP:NPA). The Ungovernable Force 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

last paragraph of intro

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) (sorry, forgot to log in Two-Bit Sprite 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

"critical" links

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)

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)

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)

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)

Let's keep it civil, Kev. MrVoluntarist 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's quite generous. Are you sure that you don't have any evil intentions, Commie? --AaronS 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Big Move

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)

this article is under attack

Please leave it alone. Although I don't like the way many articles have gone here at Wikipedia, one thing that Wikipedia has remained good at is choosing featured articles. This article has received a featured status for a reason. Vision Thing cautioned me about reverting the vandalism of others by telling me that "reverting is what they want because it will lower the stability of the article." Maybe the kindest thing we can do to this article is leave it alone.

To those who would destroy it: What is your problem? Will you stoop this low to push your dominance over articles and spread your bias? Are you just jealous of this article? Is that why you are playing these horrendous and destructive games with it? Honestly, whatever the reason it crosses the boundaries of all decency..both in an encyclopedia and by any standards, anywhere.

As an added note. I am not an anarcho-capitalist. So don't accuse me of supporting this article based on some imagined alliance with anarcho-capitalism or anything else. Shannon^{duck talk} 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

An emphatic "yes" to all of the above. --AaronS 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes to stooping low enough to push your doninance and spread your bias, and to being jealous of this article, etc? I can't tell what you mean; if you are being sarcastic, or if you actually mean to conceed to Lingeron. Two-Bit Sprite 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas, comrade. I'm incapable of irony. It was banned by the Great Democratic People's Council on Comedy, and, out of solidarity, I refuse to recognize even its existence. Viva la revolucion! --AaronS 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I was just asking. ;) The problem with text communication is that all of the signals from body language and tonality are missing, so only semantic understanding is possible... Two-Bit Sprite 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, too true. Sometimes I just can't take things very seriously... ;) --AaronS

Nifty Boxes

The "as anarcho-capitalists define it" box is currently being used to insert cherry picked and in many cases non-normative anarcho-capitalist definitions into the voice of wikipedia by using these biased definitions to back the words then used to describe anarcho-capitalism in a supposedly neutral article. I intend to remove this box and overhaul the article to indicate when claims concerning such words are being made by anarcho-capitalists rather than by wikipedia. Not doing so would leave this article in violation of NPOV policy and be an on-going clear indication of its failure to meet featured article guidelines.

Second, the "other names anarcho-capitalism goes by" box is yet another attempt to push various anarcho-capitalist use of terminology as they use it into the article. Especially such terms as "free market anarchism" and of course "individualist anarchism" are a violation of NPOV given that they are terms used by other ideologies which conflict with anarcho-capitalism. I have a funny feeling that, given the tone of several editors on this page, folks aren't going to let me remove the box regardless of its clearly misguided focus. However, if the box was made NPOV, to actually present ALL the terms used to refer to anarcho-capitalism as it claims to, I think a lot of those same editors would suddenly be up-in-arms about keeping such terms out. So what should we do, remove the box to change the focus away from describing anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-capitalists describe it, thus retaining neutrality, or import all the terms (with referances of course) that the anarcho-capitalists don't want cluttering up their page, thus retaining neutrality? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 11:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that some of the terms are being used a little too loosely, and the article should point out — maybe even put in "scare quotes" — terms that are being used in an ancap sense. This however, is no reason to remove the box outright, just maybe to put a bit more explanation in it and, again, fix the usage in the article to differenciate between common usage and ancapist usage. I'll skim through the article myself and see if I can make some clarifications. Feel free to help me out.

As for the "other names" box, I see nothing wrong with it including indy-anarchism. I don't think the followers of Tucker, et al have any special privilage to the terms "individualist" and "anarchist" used in any combination, it is merely a combination of adjectives which also happen to acurately describe the way ancapists feel about thier beliefs. The box already goes further out of its way than I think it should to attempt to appease those who wish to claim ownership of the term. Two-Bit Sprite 12:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shall I take that as a vote for including other terms used to referance anarcho-capitalists in the box, or is this special box reserved to describe only those terms anarcho-capitalists use themselves?

I feel the definitions box is entirely redundant to the symbols and definitions article, I see no need for both the box and that article other than to confuse the reader into thinking that the terms used to describe anarcho-capitalism in this article are defined as anarcho-capitalists define the terms in that box. Still, my objection would lessen after a careful combing through of the article, which of course I will join you on, I just wanted to post my intentions here beforehand so that my attempts to improve the article are not continued to be percieved by some parties as "sabotage" and "attacks". Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The box is for terms which anarcho-capitalists, or those is similar theories have called themselves. It is possible for you to make up random terms (as I assume you are saying you would do) and put them there, but it might be considered vandalism. Please, I don't want to start a sarcasm war on the talk page, I merely expressing my understanding of the intention of the box. As for repetition of information from another article, I would agree with you if full explanations and definitions were repeated between articles, but merely listing them as a side note is not such a bad thing. I think more artilces should follow the format using boxes like this, I think it really helps bring color and structure to the article, esp. for us visual thinkers which like to see things itemized and visually — as opposed to strictly texually — organized. Two-Bit Sprite 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem, that the box is being used selectively for terms that anarcho-capitalists or similar (i.e. sympathetic) theories have called themselves. In other words, it is a storehouse of anarcho-capitalist point of view with no counter point being offered. Really it ought to be taken out imho, because it is so problematic, but if it stays I can't see it justified without a balancing of terms. (i.e. what terms are used to refer to anarcho-capitalism, rather than what terms the anarcho-capitalists want people to use to refer to anarcho-capitalism) Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, wait, also "horrendous and destructive". I think thats my favorite. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As a term for anarcho-capitalism? Please, your bias is showing. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the article on philosophical grounds, but please keep it to forums which are designed for discussing that. I understand you were probably just being sarcastic, but being as this is already such a touchy talk page there is no reason to incite another raging flame-a-thon. Thanks. Two-Bit Sprite 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding, I was refering to how my edits have be characterized by some users, not different terms for anarcho-capitalism. I mean, anarcho-capitalism IS horrendous and destructive, but there isn't any need to put that in the article. =) Blahblahblahblahblahblah 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Libertatis Æquilibritas

From what I can tell this symbol is a creation of the hosts of anarchism.net to identify their site and sell their pins. A google of the image shows it being used by two sources, anarchism.net and wikipedia (and its various mirrors). Unless someone can come up with a reliable source (preferably something published, scholarly, etc) pointing to this as an anarcho-capitalist symbol, I'm thinking an isolated web phenomena isn't enough. I'm removing it pending this support that this is something other than a vanity posting. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered about this as well, as I have never seen the symbol before in all of my research except on wikipedia. Thanks for the thorough investigation. :) Two-Bit Sprite 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(Oops, didn't mean to mark that as minor... Two-Bit Sprite)

Anti-state.com published an article by Per Bylund about his symbol here: [14]. The Wikipedia article on Per Bylund also notes that it is a significant symbol, although it looks unsourced at present. Here's another reference from a seemingly non-ancap writer: [15]. I think that the symbol should stay. Dick Clark 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-state.com published an article by me, as well. While I appreciate Jeremy's open-mindedness, I'd hardly claim that that allows me to go cite myself on the John Locke article. --AaronS 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Per Bylund, owner and operator of anarchism.net, creates the symbol. Per Bylund markets the symbol on his website. Per Bylund posts his "article" about the symbol to anti-state.com, which "publishes" it on their site (though oddly it isn't in their archives anymore). Some dude named Bjorn posts it to his personal webpage, saying he found it at anarchism.net. This makes it a representation of anarcho-capitalism? I just don't think wikipedia should be used to increase sales over at anarchism.net, and this is clearly a web phenomena. I'm sure if we scour the net we can find people talking about it in some forum or posting it to their personal blog, but doesn't anarcho-capitalism have any... like... more traditional symbols? Maybe something that could be found outside the net somewhere, in a book, refered to by Rothbard or Friedman, anything a bit more solid?

Please note that Per is using a wikipedia article to claim that his symbol has "gained recognition worldwide". I can't help but feel there is a clear conflict of interest/bias issue involved in using Per as a source for his own symbol so that he can use wikipedia to refer back to his symbol. Not that I'm not against using the name of anarchism, the symbol of taijitu, and the vehicle of wikipedia to make a quick buck off of engraved pins and lighters. Just cause I'm an anarchist, a taoist, and a wikipedia editor, no, I'm not personally invested in this at all. =) Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where it came from is less important than the question: is the use of the symbol notable? Is the identification solely with the website, or have others used it? I don't particularly care what the answer is (I only created the graphic because no one could provide copyright status on the origanal image) only that the answer is to the correct question.--Saswann 20:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as use is concerned, and I don't mean this pejoratively, but I thought anarcho-capitalists only existed on the Internet. In other words, I don't know where it would be "used," per se. It's not like the syndicalist flag or black flag. --AaronS 21:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought anarchism only existed on the internet... Two-Bit Sprite 12:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was all those major international events that happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. Sometimes you even see anarchists on the nightly news. ;) --AaronS 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is not on the internet, it doesn't exist --Saswann 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to that. If something is popular then it's going to be talked about on the internet. If something is obscure then no one is going to be talking about it on the internet. TheIndividualist 19:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Internet is the haven of the obscure -- at least as far as its demographic is concerned. Those are some strange standards. I'm currently involved in a research project doing a comprehensive analysis of every guerrilla group that has existed since the end of World War II. If I told my research advisor that the Karen National Union or some other guerrilla group didn't exist because I couldn't find anything on the Internet... well, I'd probably be off the project. --19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about existence but popularity. If the Karen National Union isn't talked about on the internet then it's not very popular. Anarcho-capitalism is talked about on the internet because it's popular. The internet is just a communications medium to discuss what people are thinking about in the real world. TheIndividualist 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just false. There are a myriad of people, groups, organizations, events, etc. that are very important, but which are not talked about on the Internet, for any number of reasons. It could be because the event or the person existed long ago, and was important then, but isn't considered important or isn't known about by average people today. On the flip side, there are some very insignificant things that are blown out of proportion by their presence on the Internet, again for any number of reasons. It's called systemic bias. Prevelance on the Internet measures nothing reliably. The Internet is an exclusive communications medium to discuss what some people who have access to it are thinking about in particular parts of the real world. If anarcho-capitalism has a presence on the Internet (the most popular site for anarcho-capitalists, Anti-State.com, which is essentially just a BBS, is ranked at 240,497 by Alexa), then that's it - it has a presence on the Internet. --AaronS 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that it reflects the ideas of those who have access to the internet. But most people in the developed world have access to the internet. Having presence on the internet is not simply having presence on the internet. You are forgetting that there are real people using the internet. What is being discussed on the internet is what is interesting to REAL people. Saying that there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists on the internet is saying that there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists in the REAL WORLD. No one exists on the internet. TheIndividualist 20:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists on the Internet. I'm saying that there are a few anarcho-capitalist web sites that have some traffic. Anti-state.com only has 1541 members for its BBS, and that's assuming that they're unique and that all of them are anarcho-capitalists (I'm a member, and I'm not). I think that you're failing to get the main point. If a bunch of people only talk about something on the Internet and then don't do anything about it in real life, then it's just an Internet phenomenon. That's why we don't say All your base are belong to us swept the world by storm. It swept the Internet. The other part of my main point is that no serious academic, scholar, or researcher would accept your claims. Now, that might not matter to you, but it is important if you want to create a trustworthy source of information. The Internet is no universal measure of significance. It is one measure, and whether or not it is important one is still to be seen, as it is a young one. --AaronS 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so essentially what you're saying is that anarcho-capitalism is a philosophical movement. That's a given. Individualist anarchism has always been primarily philosophy. It's just words on paper (and now that there is the internet it's transcribed over to digital format). So as a philosophical movement it's obviously very important as we can see through the proliferation of anarcho-capitalist philosophy. The modus operandi of individualist anarchists has always been to change the world through philosophy, rather than protests and riots. And that's why their writings are more sophisticated and thought-out because they've decided to use persuasion instead of violence. Individualist anarchism is PHILOSOPHY...that's pretty much it. That is, UNTIL individualist anarchism becomes a real social system that society chooses as a result of gradually educating society. That is the whole idea behind individualist anarchism. TheIndividualist 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that you had use violence to be significant in the real world? When did this become a discussion of individualist anarchism? --AaronS 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism IS individualist anarchism. Individualist anarchism is not a precisely defined philosophy. There are various theorists each with their own differences. Some people have chosen to call individualist anarchists who don't oppose profit "anarcho-capitalists." TheIndividualist 21:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a novel take on the matter. --AaronS 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. I saw several sources listed in this article saying that anarcho-capitalists were individualist anarchists. I've read the same myself. Besides, it's just common sense unless you simply deny they are anarchists because obviously they are individualists. TheIndividualist 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should note that my previous point still stands, anyways. It doesn't matter whether or not you are talking about popularity or existence. If I told my research advisor that some guerrilla group wasn't a big deal simply because it only got a few Google hits, again, I'd be off the project. I have studied guerrilla groups that receive no Google hits but which have shaped international events. --AaronS 20:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists do not exist ON the internet. They exist OFF of the internet. They are physical people. They use the internet to communicate. So do communist anarchists. If there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists communicating on the internet then there are a lot in the REAL WORLD. TheIndividualist 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's more to anarchism than anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, you know. --AaronS 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, though, being web-based is not a measure of non-notability. What's needed is a measure of how broadly something is used (on the web or not). If the symbol is just identified by a single person enterprise on a series of closely-related websites (which may be the case) it isn't notable. If a number of independent groups use it, it's a different story. Basically, can someone come up with at least two usages that is not a) A website maintained by Per Bylund or b) a wikipedia mirror? --Saswann 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it better to use the Ama-gi symbol instead in this article? Intangible 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

the many reverts to vandalism

How about just leaving this article alone? You of little faith in the featured status of a Wikipedia aritcle? Shannon^{duck talk} 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lol. You're a corker, Aaron. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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! Shannon^{duck talk} 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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! Shannon^{duck talk} 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)