Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Intellectual Property

I noticed that the article makes no mention of IP (patent, copyright, or trademark). The anarcho-caps who I have spoken with do not consider IP to be legit. However, I'm not familiar with the ideas of big-shot theorists. I think that this is important since the article (incorrectly) implies that anarcho-caps approve of all types of property. IP is a big deal these days, and clarifying the anarcho-cap position on IP is important. I suspect that this would be best in the "justifications of property" section (Natural law vs. utilitarian), but I did not read the article carefully, so I can't really say. AdamRetchless 19:40, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

N.B.: I agree that a section on intellectual property would be quite worthwhile. For what it's worth, the market anarchist / anarcho-capitalist tradition, and its precursors, is divided on the issue: Lysander Spooner and Hebert Spencer defended both copyright and patents (indeed, argued that existing copyright and patent law was not strong enough); Murray Rothbard defended copyright but denounced patent; and Benjamin Tucker, "Tak Kak" (James L. Walker), Tom Palmer, Roderick Long and others have argued against both copyright and patent on libertarian grounds. I don't have much to contribute in the way of the actual writing of the section at present, but mayhap someone else will--or I will sometime in the not-too-distant future. For some background, cf. Copyright and Patent in Liberty, Man, Economy, and State ch. 10 § 7, The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights, etc. Radgeek 20:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

Does anyone else want to take this? An anonymous user keeps putting in dubious edits, and I've tried to accommodate them by adapting some, but then s/he keeps putting in more, and I'm tiring of the process. I'm not even very sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism (I just want it fairly portrayed); maybe someone who is would be more motivated to defend this page. There seem to be three separate issues, the first being whether anarcho-capitalists should be called anarchists; but this is discussed in the intro already, perhaps too much. The second, more complex issue is the anon adding in words such as that ancaps favor "supposed free markets" and "ostensibly voluntary contracts", to imply that free markets are not what they are always defined as, and so on. As part of this he argues defense of one's property is aggression and therefore it cannot be considered a "negative right". This seems to me like an anti-property POV, since that is not the usual meaning. The third, related to the second, pertains to the claim that there is no history of ancap violence to impose their view, which is true (there have been so such violent revolutions attempted), but is denied by the anon since these people might have used violence to defend their property, which thus is to "impose their view". These counterclaims are problematic because (a) just about any system, even worker-owned farming, allows for self-defense of (perhaps collective) property; (b) defending one's property in a non-ideal world does not mean trying to impose a different system. Maybe this is a bad summary, but hopefully it communicates the gist. -- VV 11:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I should add a fourth point. He keeps changing the reference to the American Revolution from one of people fighting for their liberties to one of wealthy people fighting for their property. Besides being an obviously biased characterization, it doesn't make sense in context when written like this. -- VV 22:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I would be happy to discuss this myself VV, and have been trying to discuss it with you for some time on the dicussion page for anarcho-capitalism. For the first point I'm not sure what to say, making it clear that the claims that capitalism is a form of anarchism are controversial seems like straight forward honesty to me. I'm not trying to declare that one view or the other is superior in the context of that page. One the second point, you say that your use of free market is what it "always" means. But that is clearly false. A reading of most any individualist anarchist (say Tucker or Spooner) will tell you that by free market they themselves meant a market free from usury in the case of the former and wage labor in the case of the latter. Thus this meaning is not universal, and specifically referring to capitalist support of a market free from state interferance would clear up any misunderstanding. As for defense of "ones property," it can in be viewed as aggression by many people, you probably often view it as aggression yourself at times. For example, if some joe claims the earth as his property, and shoots anyone who tresspasses on it, we would generally view his act as aggression due to the fact that his claim is not legitimate. Given that many people contest the legitimacy of capitalist property claims (indeed, often capitalists contest the legitimacy of claims made by other capitalists) it is biased to assume that claims made by capitalists and enforced with violence will never be aggression according to the people finding themselves starring down the barrel of a gun. To assume that all anarcho-capitalist property claims are legitimate to all people is to assert that either A) there is no dissent (which is false) or B) any dissent is without merit (which is heavily biased in favor of anarcho-capitalism and a violation of NPOV). For your third point, you appear to be familiar with anarcho-capitalist forums like ASC. Given that, you have probably already seen posts where individuals give their experiences in upholding their property claims by using violence. Whether you consider that violence to be defensive or aggressive depends on your view of the claim, as discussed above. As such, it is presumptive to claim that there is no history of violence used to impose anarcho-capitalist economics on others, unless you are trying to claim that the capitalist position is universal and without worthy objection. For your fourth point, as with the above, you never discussed it. I'm happy to let that one go if it is so important to you, I simply felt that it was important to clarify the business interests of those who financially backed the revolution, and the benefit that its success had for them. Kevin 11/16/03
1. It is already made clear in the third paragraph that capitalism as anarchism is disputed (it even says by most anarchists, which seems pretty strong); it does not need to be stated again and again.
Of course not, but no one is attempting to restate this, none of the edits do restate it. All the edits have done is strive toward neutral language that does not assume the dispute is already settled in favor of the anarcho-capitalist interpretation. - Kev

2. I'm willing to add "(in the sense of free from state interference)" to the "free market" phrase, but that term is an important one used by capitalists and should be noted.

Fine, as long as your define your terms to avoid confusion. - Kev

For the other points, your additions are generally redundant attempts to repeatedly negatively portray the view.

They are attempts to hold to a consistent standard of neutral language, rather than to constantly revert back to the assumption that capitalism is in fact compatible with anarchism regardless of views to the contrary. Why you think consistency is "redundant" is beyond me. -Kev

What's wrong with "They consider capitalist corporations based on voluntary contracts as a legitimate..."? Does this really need to be "ostensibly voluntary", or "They consider capitalist what they consider corporations based on ostensibly voluntary what they consider contracts as a what they consider legitimate..."? This is all what they consider the case.

Sure, but the relationships they are referring to are one and the same as the relationships that others are. The only difference is that one side views these relationships as voluntary, while the other does not. Since this is the main point of contention, it is far more appropriate to place the emphasis on the voluntary claim, rather than the entire claim in general. -Kev

Finally, considering security in one's possessions a "negative right" is not inconsistent with the existence of conflicts in property claims, just as belief that murderers should be imprisoned is not inconsistent with disputes over who committed a certain murder.

I don't see how I have claimed otherwise. I am merely pointing out that what you consider to be a "negative right" for "protection" of property others would consider to be a "positive right" for "imposition" of property claims. Neither side has a monopoly on truth here, both are making their own assumptions. The language should reflect this fact. -Kev

3. I've never heard of ASC, but the distinction remains. A history of violence to impose their view refers to bombing city hall or some such to bring about an ancap order.

Then please make this claim explicit. "A history of violence to impose ones views" could easily and coherently be interpreted as acts to impose property restrictions on others, even on an individual basis. -Kev

If one uses violence to subdue a car thief, one is probably doing it to keep one's car, not as part of a long-term goal to bring about an ancap order through enforcing the property rights that would exist in such an order, especially since those rights already exist in the current legal order. Under your interpretation, we could go around Wikipedia adding phrases like "Greenpeace activists have a long history of violence" (one even beat up a burglar!).

This is a false analogy on your part. Anarcho-capitalism proposes and supports the use of inter-personal violence to resolve property disputes. It further legitimates that violence when it is done by certain actors in certain cases. Thus, when all of these conditions are filled, it makes sense to assume that those proclaiming to be anarcho-capitalists are acting as anarcho-capitalists when they act in full accordance with the behavior dictated by their philosophy. When greenpeace starts making the same kinds of claims, then yes of course their supporters can be held accountable for their actions in accordance with these claims. -Kev

4. Interpretations of the American Revolution vary enormously; stating yours as fact is clearly wrong.

There is a double standard here. The interpretation of the american revolution that was present before my edit was itself stated as though fact. If you find problem with mine, you should equally find problem with theirs. If, that is, you are claiming to be consistent. -Kev

Anyway, I will make another series of edits to try to adapt these ideas (including the puzzling objection to the synthesis claim). -- VV 00:05, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The article is about a point-of-view. Of course it's going to contain things that others disagree with. To avoid a POV problem, the anarcho-capitalism article should clearly label anarcho-capitalism as a viewpoint. The article should explain the viewpoint and leave contradictory viewpoints or other disagreements to the reader's intelligence or a separate section in the article. It is stupid to have an article that can't say anything about a viewpoint without being overladen with contradictory adjectives or phrases and it insults the reader's intelligence. – Olathe December 12, 2003

If you would like to propose that the article be prefaced with the "NPOV dispute" warning indefinitely, and that a note be added to the beginning along the lines of "This article does not attempt neutrality but rather to explicate a given viewpoint. As such, all of the statements contained therein are to be taken as claims on the part of anarcho-capitalists rather than undisputed facts." then I would not object. In fact, as an alternative to the current dispute I have already suggested this myself twice. However, I am under the impression that one or more individuals did not accept this alternative. In addition, it also undermines the stated "neutral point of view" intent of wikipedia articles. I have also suggested the splitting of the article into two sections, both detailing different perspectives on anarcho-capitalism, but was under the impression that one of these would be pushed into a "criticism" sub-section rather than detailed as a second alternate viewpoint and given its own place as an equal part of the page. Anyway, either of these paths is a fine way to go in my own opinion, but if they are not acceptable to others then grinding to a neutral pov presentation in language at least - that is, a presentation that does not automatically rule out dissenting views - is the only alternative I can think of. - Kev 12/12/03
This is still listed on Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, but the page was getting too long to keep all the above discussion there. Angela. 01:20, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
In the last month, no one seems to have contended the above points any further, so I have now removed it from Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. Angela. 13:24, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Feb 9

All the changes I made today are reflected in the ongoing discussions above, most of the points have stood for over a month now. The exceptions are the following:

(though only for defensive purposes)

The claim that anarcho-capitalists will use military power only for defensive purposes is not a fact, it is an opinion based on their position. I do think the fact that they believe they would only use military power for defensive purposes should be stated in the text, but it must be clear that this is their assertion and not a fact, because many would view their proposed uses of power as offensive in nature.

(They also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them because they are violations of rights, not because they are committed by governments.)

This is simply not true. Anarcho-capitalists support the application of rent and enforcement of it by police forces, this is qualitatively identical in some instances (not all) to the practice of statist taxation. Similarly, many anarcho-capitalists believe that they would be justified in engaging in war for a number of reasons. Finally, the determination for what counts as "coercive" regulation and "coercive" monopoly is entirely subjective. These terms need to be define precisely, because many anarchists would view the existence of any monopoly coercive, rather than only those forms of monopoly that don't fit capitalist standards for rights.

For example, Spooner rejected wage labor, Tucker argued against usury and described his project as "voluntary socialism," and Stirner argued against the very application of property. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, emphasize the individualists' critique of collectivist politics, and point out that the individualists denounced the use of violence to oppose the economic relationships that they considered exploitative.

I didn't remove this passage, but I would like to point out that it is problematic. As it stands, the argument of the anarcho-capitalist is left without response, adding such a response will inevitably lead to another anarcho-capitalist response, and the whole thing will drag out in the middle of the article. It may be best to remove this passage and just leave it as this: Anarcho-capitalists typically claim them as intellectual forbearers; anti-capitalist anarchists often argue against the claim by noting that each of these individuals rejected essential aspects of the modern capitalist marketplace.

I also removed the last part of the last sentence which refered to voluntary transactions and free markets, as these terms were used to mean explicitly different things by anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists, thus equating the two traditions in this context is misleading to the point of bordering on dishonesty.

All the other edits have already been discussed above and stood without further challenge for some time. - Kevin 02/09/04

syndicate anarchists never quite

Anyone who's visited the Infoshop.org FAQ on syndicate anarchism will know, syndicate anarchists prefer to debate by droning on and on, restating the same things over and over again, and including unnecessarily long quotes. They also like to try to confuse the reader by not clearly explaining what they're talking about.

Syndicate anarchists think that they can win a debate by out-talking their opponents, but any outside observers see this as simply bullying.

To clear up a few points of dispute, and make a few suggestions. You should consider mentioning Murray N. Rothbard and David Friedman (*not* Milton Friedman) when discussing anarcho-capitalists.

If it's just a matter of 'mentioning,' you could well mention MILTON Friedman, too. For many anarcho-caps, he played a role in the formation of their views, however much that fact may dismay him. That isn't limited to his son's case.

Morally, the anarcho-capitalist must adhere to the non-aggression axiom, which is something that you should mention in your discussion of them (the non-aggression axiom states that the only things which should be preventable by force are the initiation of violence against a person or his propety). Thus, the anarcho-capitalist cannot possibly support an offensive war. Granted, certain private individuals in an anarcho-capitalistic society could engage in offensive warfare. However, anarcho-capitalists would see the violent opposition to this as justified, though not the socialization of a response.

The link to panarchism is well-put. It follows from the non-aggression axiom that anarcho-capitalists would permit any set of individuals to live in their own societal arrangement, so long as they do not aggress against the anarcho-capitalists. That means anarcho socialists could live in Ingsoc right next to ancapville.

Feb 29

First of all, I pulled the neutrality header. It's been there for months, surviving long periods of inactivity, and at this point after all that's been hashed out serves no purpose.

Until you came along and inserted a huge number of biased reverts just now, sure. But now the header needs to go right back up, because you are obssessed with ensuring that this article is strictly POV. - Kev

Furthermore, I made more edits,

You mean you made a huge slew of reverts, again, that is what almost all of them were. - Kev

undoing some anti-ancap wording and deletion, but mostly doing things long talked about. E.g., I've restored a version of the "synthesis" claim, giving it a Radgeekian formulation, following his (and my) argument that it is a fairly indisputable claim;

I've addressed this argument to Rad Geek, feel free to respond anytime. - Kev

I've left in the redundant "discards" caveat just to be sure. Another area worthy of comment is in the "monopoly" section: I removed this other argument because so far as I know it is not "[o]ne of the most common criticisms...", but rather a criticism from a specific viewpoint. -- VV 14:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This criticism is common in anarchist literature. Should it surprise me that you don't know this? You also removed a part of the article that further explicated the difference between individualism and "anarcho-capitalism", feel like explaining that one? - Kev 03/01/04

I believe the synthesis claim is NPOV, and have not heard an argument otherwise. I will not stand for you reverting everything I write. Your criticism may be common in (left-)anarchist literature, but that does not mean it is common. The other criticism is one common among minarchists/libertarians/common guy/etc. As for removing the individualist criticism, that is because this is not an article about what ind-an's think, and insofar as this is the case the sentence is redundant, as the difference is already noted in the previous sentence. This view can be explained in an article on this subject. Maybe you can tell me why you erased the opposition to private violence, not merely state violence, which clarifies the ancap philosophy. -- VV 22:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I already addressed the reasons why the synthesis claim is unacceptable in my discussions with Rad Geek. I also addressed, in detail, why the claim of being opposed to private violence is not valid concerning a philosophy that justifies private violence in a number of circumstances. If you can't be bothered to go back and read the discussions that list all the reasons for the edits you have summarily deleted/reverted then I'm hardly going to take the time to stamp them out once again for your personal benefit.
The criticism of anarcho-capitalism amounting to a de facto monopoly exists in all sectors of anarchism other than ac, I think that is quite common in this context. Just because the only criticisms you hear come from the crowd you have repeatedly stated that you are "sympathetic" to does not make them more common in general, just in your experience. Nor does it make you some kind of expert on what the common criticisms are. The individualist reply is necessary because individualism is being contrasted with anarcho-capitalism, it is not redundant to a previous sentence because of the need to clarify that the term "free market" is being used in two different senses here. - Kev 03/01/04
I will not take you seriously if you call my efforts "propaganda". The synthesis claim is so weak and caveated I can't imagine you could oppose it on any non-ideological grounds. Your objection can go in the objections section, I just don't think it's the most common one; I'd do it myself but whatever edits I'd make you'd just revert claiming they're biased. I added a note about the free market terminology issue, not that it's helpful. -- VV 22:53, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You haven't taken me seriously in a long time VV. Just a couple hours ago you reverted one of my edits, your SOLE justification being that I was the one who called for it. "My" objection happens to be shared by most anarchists, and it should go exactly where it is with the other relevant objection. - Kev 03/01/04
VV "Sole reason" - obviously untrue.
Okay, try sole stated reason, "but restoring this sentence since absolutely no counter other than kev's accusations" - Kev 03/01/04
And what other anarchists think is less important than you seem to realize, as this position stands against many views, not just left-anarchism.
I'm not talking about left-anarchists in particular, and what other anarchists think is very important in the context of anarchism, which happens to be the context of this conversation.
And notions of "violence" vary enormously; some may claim that me withholding my kidney from you would be "violence", but I might still claim to be a pacifist. Ancaps' known strong opposition to violence is important and central and should be noted. -- VV 22:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Of course. And when we note it, lets note exactly which kinds of violence they are opposed to in order to ensure we don't produce the kinds of misunderstandings you seem to be aware might exist. They obviously don't oppose all private violence, so lets not claim that they do. - Kev 03/01/04
VV Again, read what I wrote. Conceptions of what private violence is vary. Anyway, one can oppose violence and still believe it is occasionally justified.
I read what you wrote the first time, my original response applies. - Kev 03/01/04
VV Your behavior is again proving to be very poor. Completely removing the anti-violence stance of ancaps is not kosher.
Ancaps don't have an anti-violence stance. They have a stance against some violence. You constantly criticise my behavior, but apparently can't be bothered to hold a mirror to your own. - Kev 03/01/04
However, I am respecting Wikipedia's "three-revert per day" rule (which you have broken as of now), so congratulations your biased version gets to stay around for a bit. -- VV 23:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Don't even get on a high horse with me. I have voluntarily ceased to edit this page for weeks at a time on multiple occasions just to deal with your constant barrage of edits even while you continued your revert sprees in my absence. In the past you've reverted this page as much as a dozen times in a single day, sometimes without even attempting to discuss the issue while I have asked you to please take a moment and talk. If you want to suddenly play nice and be constructive for a change, I'd be happy to play along. You want to suddenly start respecting wikipedia and its customs? Fine then, I would be HAPPY to oblige. But you can take your holier than though attitude and stick it where it belongs. - Kev 03/01/04
I'm not interested in your creative interpretations of the edit history; since I was there, I'm not going to be fooled. It is true you took voluntary leaves, but far from "revert sprees" I attempted to find agreeable text in the interim. However, since no matter what you accuse me variously of having an agenda, creating propaganda, and harboring a grudge, my efforts were unsurprisingly not appreciated. Ancaps do have an anti-violence stance; deny that and you demonstrate your own, well..., this is coming from someone who says left-anarchists oppose coercion. -- VV 02:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Right, now merely denying what you assert is coercion! I'm sorry, oh great VV, for ever having offended you. Ancaps are not against all forms of violence, this is a fact, thus denying that they are anti-violent perfectly valid, and certainly doesn't count as me coercing anyone to do or not do anything. They are against certain forms of violence, this is also a fact, and thus it should be stated in the article. To say that they are against all private violence is simply false. To say that they are against all private violence that they view as illegitimate is true, but it is also meaningless. So again, I implore you to detail what forms of violence they are against if you are so keen on including their alleged anti-violence in the article, rather than waste anymore of our time coming up with excuses as to why I should just sit back and watch as you misrepresent them. - Kev 03/02/04

You are not paying attention to what I said, given your gross misinterpretation above, so I don't know why I bother. Do not simply revert everything I do.

I don't revert everything you do, and you have reverted at least as many of my edits, so this is just more pandering on your part.

The counterargument you provided is a separate one, and should be seen as such. Ancaps do oppose violence; conceding it is sometimes necessary for defense does not change that.

According to you and the ancaps, NOT according to everyone given their extremely broad definition of "self" which happens to include inanimate objects and items a person has never even seen in their life. - Kev 03/02/04
VV Most conceptions of non-violence include provisions for self-defense; what this means obviously varies from person to person, but it is still accurate to state that opposition to violence is a central part of ancaps' belief system.

Their views on these matters are explained already in the article. The analogy I made was the wording you so treasured as to insta-revert every rewrite where the anarchy page says anarchists oppose coercive control, when arguably they do not, depending on what you think of coercion.

WTF? I already replied that you might as well make the same argument with government, it was a specious argument on your part. - Kev 03/02/04
VV No, it was a different argument. Yes, one could do the same with government; that is another reason why your anti-violence argument fails.

But to say that misses the point I've made a hundred times. I am aware of your discussion with Radgeek, you did not refute the synthesis claim,

Of course I didn't refute it, I have a standing argument against it which has yet to be put to rest. Until you do put it to rest, the synthesis claim is bogus. - Kev 03/02/04

which has the advantage of not making the causal assumption you scream so screechingly about. -- VV 21:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scream screechingly... lol... Keep on working toward that constructive dialogue VV, someday you will get there. - Kev 03/02/04
VV Of course, I'm not going to bother responding to this. Nor will I stand for your massive reverting of my contributions, whatever you choose to call them. -- VV 23:54, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You mean my "massive" reverting of your own reverts? Of course, when you revert it is a "contribution" or a "restoration". This despite the fact that you initiated this latest series of reverts. Whatever. - Kev 03/02/04


VeryVerily should be ashamed of himself for starting edit wars like this. It is clear to me, as a neutral observer, that Kevehs is absolutely right and VeryVerily is acting just abysmally. -- Richardchilton 20:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


VV I am continuing to restore my edits. Kev claims falsely they are simply reverts of his work,

I have not. I claimed that most of them were reverts, and the history clearly shows that most of the times you changed this page you changed it in order to revert a number of things, the fact that you made one or two other edits in addition should hardly seem consequential to you given that you completely write me off when I do the same thing. - Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

but in fact of the seven changes I made, only two were reverts to old versions,

You seem to think that once you make an edit it doesn't matter what happens, whether I edit it or not, you simply consider it a revert once it has changed. But you have done a number of reverts, even by your own admission, and the history page shows this clearly. Further, every time I reverted I was very careful to keep every edit you made that I had not already addressed on this page. Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

in one case the restoration of deleted useful text

That "useful text" happens to be explicitly false, and I have a standing argument against it that you have not put to rest Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(the other the word state -> government). Kev did the same to my work on the anarchism page,

lol, once again, the history clearly shows that YOU were the one who reverted my work repeatedly. The intro that you changed was originally to an exact copy of a version previous to my edits. That is called a revert VV, no matter how you try to make it look otherwise. Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and it took another user intervening (working with my text)

lol, that user worked with text I introduced as well, which is now incorporated into the intro paragraph alongside "yours". But your tunnel vision only sees what you do, you consistently ignore all my edits, all my pleas, and all my attempts at addressing the issues rather than getting bogged down in this tireless personal grudge you have against me. Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

to stop his repeated destruction of my proposed more neutral intro.

Right. Lets see if Miguel backs up this bullshit claim that his reason for intervening was to stop my "repeated destruction" of a more neutral intro. You are so totally full of yourself VV, he intervened to stop a revert war in the making, something you have a tendency to get into very often regardless of the subject matter or the other people involved.

He continues to incorrectly characterize himself as working hard and me as merely reverting

I did not say that you merely reverted, I said that you are mostly reverting, and the page history backs me up on that. As for my own edits, inbetween your reverts it just so happens that the page history backs me up on that as well.

and seemingly is "counting" my reverts, even though he's had four per day (in violation of the three-per-day guideline) two days in a row: [1] [2] [3] [4] (yes, one letter uncapitalized, that's as much of a non-revert it is), and similarly before.

Once again, the page history clearly shows that as of the very moment you declared you would start following the three-per-day guideline I agree to do the same and have. Look for yourself. The fact that I didn't follow that guideline previously, or expect you to, has everything to do with your past behavior on this page. You never spoke of or followed that guideline up until this most recent series of events, and in fact in the past have reverted this page as many as a dozen times in a single day. But the very MOMENT you agreed to follow the guideline I said I would be happy to follow suit, and I have. But go ahead VV, continue with your own propaganda of how you have done no wrong. Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is clear it is not possible to work with him; I have been trying different wording [5] (edits at bottom not mine) [6] [7], but he just reverts everything. So, I have no choice but to revert to my version.

You have the same choice now that you have always had. Account for my objections. Don't simply move the words around so that they entail the exact same problems that I'm objecting to, but actually read what I have repeatedly written in great detail on this talk page and A) discuss it, and B) account for it. But that is apparently beyond you, so I will feel no guilt in continuing to revert your reverts. Kev 23:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV Also, for people who don't know, Richardchilton above is almost certainly a sock puppet for HectorRodriguez and Lancemurdoch, who has a well-known agenda against me. -- VV 22:02, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Truce

I highly reccomend this page. Sam Spade 03:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I feel I've been doing all I can. I left this article alone for a long time when other users were on it, and came back and found he had put his same-old biases into it, presumably outlasting the other users' patience. I keep offering wording to address Kev's concerns, but he just reverts and tells me what I'm putting in is "propaganda" (he clearly does not AssumeGoodFaith), and I'm really starting to lose patience. He consistently misrepresents the edit history, and it's pretty clear at this point he has a personal bias to push: oddly, he seems to despise anarcho-capitalism, but is obsessed with editing the page about it to his liking (presumably to discredit it). I'm fairly neutral on the politics, yet he claims I have an agenda. And he attacks me and my motives personally repeatedly. How do you deal with someone like that? As a measure, I've been restricting myself to the three reverts per day; that has meant in practice he reverts four times and it sits thus until the next day. -- VV 06:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have an opinion too, but the truth is following policy (as it appears you are doing) is the only real soloution. Generally what happens is one or more well meaning editors assume bad faith, and/or disobeys policy, and everything goes to heck. I also dislike reverts, and maybe its time for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment (or whatever the next Wikipedia:Dispute resolution step is). Sam Spade 06:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on Kev's user pages? Sam Spade 06:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kevehs, VeryVerily, please knock off the revert war. Please discuss your major points of disagreement in the talk page. -- Infrogmation 17:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the third time that a third party has asked VV and I to cease this revert war. As such, I will, for the third time, cease to edit or revert or in any way change this page for a single week. I SINCERELY HOPE that VV takes the opportunity to actually discuss these issues this time rather than simply reinstating his own edits and letting the time go to waste. As always I am open to discussion of each any every one of these issues. All my concerns are already on this page or archived, but I will focus on repeating myself on any issue that VV doesn't have the time or energy to read the talk page to learn about. Kev 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV

VV is clearly holding some kind of personal grudge here. He REFUSES to address the issues, and instead only comes to this talk page now in an attempt to further discredit me. The page history demonstrates that after months of discussion my edits remained unchallenged for 20 days. VV then returned and reverted most of those edits, while editing a few, without addressing any of my concerns. After a series of reverts on both our parts I tried a complete edit once more (as I have done many times in the past). VV kept a small number of these edits (he has stated they are temporary) and reverted all the rest without ANY discussion or a single edit on his part. Because all of my edits have already been introduced on the talk page and are standing objections that he refuses to attempt to address, I feel that his reverting/deleting of most of them without even attempting to modify the text or talk about the issue is totally uncalled for, so I reverted it back. He then goes ape and accuses me of reverting this page even as he subsequently reverts it himself several times. I'm begining to think this page it going to have to be locked if things continue like this, but I'm afraid he will just come back and continue his personal crusade against what he calls "bad edits" the moment the lock is over. Kev 17:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


As I said above, I will cease to revert or edit this page for another week in order to facilitate discussion. I have done this two times before, I hope this time it does some good. I implore you VV, please discuss these issues this time. You can say whatever you want about me, but you KNOW that I've always been open to further discussion, that I've always replied to any point you have brought up, and that many times I have put some or all of my edits on hold pending resolution of these issues. All I want is for this page to accurately represent the theories it is contrasted with, and that requires neutral language throughout. PLEASE make good use of this time, do not merely use it to reinstate your edits again. Kev 17:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The page is protected, so no one is going to be editing it at the moment. I have been addressing your points over and over again, and you just say the same thing back to me. Further, you have also repeatedly misinterpreted/misrepresented what I write, which gives me the impression that you don't really pay attention to what I say anyway. Your accusation that I am here to make propaganda, that I have an agenda, and that I hold a grudge also belies any claim you have to be listening to me. -- VV 19:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As you can see, I volunteered to cease editing before it was protected, I had no idea it was going to be protected. You have not addressed my points, that is why I "say the same thing" back to you. I have not intentionally misrepresented a single thing that you have written, and there has been misunderstanding on both sides. I did not say that you are here to make propaganda, I said that you make propaganda in regards to yourself. And you do, you constantly repeat the same things over again concerning our conflict no matter how many times I correct you, and you make gross generalizations that even you know do not represent what is going on here. As I said before, your agenda is clear from your history of user contributions, and if you have no grudge against me then I have no idea why you focus on my edits and call me out on the talk page so often. I'm sure from your perspective it is just because I'm the only one doing bad edits or something, but very often you have accepted the EXACT SAME EDITS from other people. I think you should take a moment and note just how many edit wars you have been in. Because the ONLY person I've ever been in an edit war with is you, and only on the anarchism pages. You seem to routinely involve yourself in these petty disputes all over wikipedia, yet you paint me as some time of trouble maker. When are you going to be ready to get off these BS personal attacks and actually talk about the edits for once? Kev 20:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you guys need mediation. Just my 2 cents. Sam Spade 02:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so what's going on with this? Have there been any developments that are reflected on this talk page? Shouldn't we at least list this page on "requests for comment"? - NYK 08:07, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
So I gather that some sort of developments have occurred. Okay, then, carry on. - NYK 04:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If this article is ever unfrozen, I submit that it might benefit by a discussion of the means/end question. How do anarcho-caps propose that their system be implemented? Do they vote or otherwise contribute to political campaigns in the here and now to try to elect the least restrictive govt., or do they consider any such participation a form of selling out? If they don't vote, what DO they do to try to move the world closer to their heart's desire? Look for uninhabited islands?



You are AMAZING VV. I volunteer not to edit the page, pleading with you once again to take this opportunity to discuss this. The page is then protected to prevent a continued revert war. And what is the FIRST thing you do when it is unprotected? Did you even ATTEMPT discussion in the mean time? Do you even try to edit the page?

No, and no. All you do is revert it the first opportunity you get. Well I said I would wait a week, but since it was protected after I said that I will give you another week. I will ask you AGAIN, for the fourth time now, to work through this issues and stop with the reverts. I implore you, AGAIN, to use this opportunity and not squander it. Kev 04:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you are not satisfied that your version (which consisted of reverting me) was up for twelve days. Anyway, I have been discussing it on this page, for months upon months, offering various compromising and attempting to answer your objections, and you simply declare my objections irrelevant, do not really even pay attention to what I say, and accuse me of pushing an agenda and writing propaganda while you mischaracterize the edit and talk history. Excuse me if I do find this process rewarding. Nevertheless, I will post yet again my objections when I have more time later, if only for the benefit of observers who might wonder what the fuss is. -- VV 07:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was the first to object when this page was protected, and I was the only person to ask that the protection be removed. I don't give a damn how long your mangled version is up, as long as you are willing to put forth even the smallest of effort in working toward a resolution rather than enforcing your will. You could have taken any of those twelve days, or the preceeded two months before it, to actually address my arguments. But instead you focused time and again on me personally, making clear what your real problem is.
Of course maybe you forgot already the previous 2 times that I had already volunteered to stop editing this article for a week and allow your version to stand pending discussion, or the fact that I had again volunteered to stop for yet another week before it was protected, which would have again allowed your version to stand another 7 days. Or maybe you are looking past the fact that yet again I have ceased to edit it and allowed your version to stand. Maybe you are looking past the fact that the reason it is no longer protected atm is because I volunteered not to edit it (something you sure as hell never bothered to do). You really want to ignore all of that, pushing only the evidence that supports your personal take on things, and tell me that you are not engaging in propaganda? Next time, just a suggestion, why don't you actually consider detailing your arguments BEFORE you engage in a revert right after the page has been protected in order to STOP THOSE VERY REVERTS! Kev 09:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the revert war

I just got done looking at the last version of the article that Kev posted, and the differences that it had with respect to VV's edit. And I was wondering if I was the only one who thought the most differences between the two were almost insignificant? They amounted to nothing more than how forcefully one stated the opinion of the anarcho-capitalists. Maybe it would be better for all if we made it clear when something being stated in the article is only the opinion of the anarcho-capitalists.

For instance, one place that I agree with Kev is his change to the paragraph:

VV's version:

Thus, anarcho-capitalism is a variety of anarchism, in the sense that it rejects the state. They reject all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights. They also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them because they are violations of rights, not because they are committed by governments.

Kev's version:

Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism in the sense of a rejection of statism. They reject all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights.

Who say's that anarcho-capitalism is a version of anarchism? IMO that's nothing more than the POV of the anarcho-capitalist, since the libertarian socialist believes anarchism to be more than just a society without a state-government. So it should be clear in the paragraph, that this is only what the anarcho-capitalists believe.

I don't like how Kev removed the last sentance completely, but in its current state, it also is not a NPOV. Maybe we can change it so that it is more neutral:

Anarcho-capitalists argue that they also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents. In the opinion of the anarcho-capitalist they are violations of rights, regardless of if they are committed by state governments.

I can't see why anyone would object to pointing out that these things are the opinion of the anarcho-capitalist, unless someone were simply trying to turn this wikipedia article into a propaganda campain for anarcho-capitalism. millerc 20:45, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say, millerc. I was trying to get my brain around the source of the edit war a while back, but I was surprised at how few substantial points are being argued over. Personally, I don't see the problem with starting a paragraph "anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be ..." but it gets a little ridiculous to restate that multiple times through the course of the paragraph. I don't see the problem with VV's final sentence here. - NYK 01:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geographical limitations of anarcho-capitalism

It should though be noted that anarcho-capitalism is pretty much an American social phenomenon. It has little to no support on a sizable level in Europe or elsewhere. This is not a value judgement of the philosophy but I beleive it to be true. It would be helpful to the page to list such a fact.-GrazingshipIV 20:51, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree with stating it that way. I'm pretty sure that no form of anarchism has support on a sizeable level anywhere in the world right now. It would be misleading to say something that implies this is not the case. - NYK 01:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. This is also why some Americans get confused when they hear the term libertarian socialism, since the term libertarian is used quite differently in the USA. Since wikipedia is availible to people in other nations, we American's shouldn't state American political labels as if they were representative of the rest of the world. millerc 20:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think you're conflating two issues here. It is true that the term libertarian is used differently in America than it is in continental Europe (although they don't speak English there, but I'll leave that aside). This is why the article on libertarianism has a disambiguator right at the beginning. It's true that most of the proponents of "anarcho-capitalism" are Americans (I think, it's sometimes hard to know what's going on abroad), but the term itself is not ambiguous. There's nothing about "anarcho-capitalism" that is in particular an "American political label". - NYK 01:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's good that the libertarianism page has a disamgiuation, but this doesn't stop the confusion. Look at the libertarian socialism talk page if you need an example. Sam Spade tried to get the page deleted with the excuse that he didn't understand the label libertarian socilism. Also I didn't mean that anarcho-capitalism was an ambiguous term, what I meant was that it should be clear that it is a political term mostly used by Americans. By following the convention that we clarefy the usage of these terms on all political/ideological/philosophical pages, we would help any confusion that may arise. I don't know why anyone would be against usage clarefications. I also think it quite ignorant to say that people in other countries don't speak English, since the most common second language of Europeans, and the most common internet language is English. millerc 05:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The only reason that I might be against such a usage clarification are that I don't know how we would verify its accuracy, and I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. What I mean is a) how do we know for sure that "anarcho-capitalism" is primarily in American usage? I suspect it's true and you suspect it's true, but do we have any real evidence? And b) it is not the case that American "anarcho-capitalism" is referred to by some other name elsewhere in the world (in English), nor is the case that "anarcho-capitalism" is used by some other people to mean anything other than what Americans use it to mean. Therefore, I don't know what confusion it is that we would be clearing up. I do also worry that a usage clarification, depending on how it was phrased, might be seen as another shot across the bow in the recent edit war.
As for your other point, I consider myself very fortunate to live in a world where so many people use my native language as a second language or on the internet. But, fortunate or no, I still would not normally take advice on word usage from people who are not native speakers. However, this is a special case, in which presumably they are referring to a word in their own native language which is obviously cognate to "libertarian" (i.e. libertario in Spanish, etc.), which is why I decided to set the issue aside above. - Nat Krause 05:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That was not my suggestion. The beleif system of anarcho-capitalism is authentically American. Such groups have little to no popular support and social/political existence outside America. This is not a bad or good fact but it is true. It is distinctly American. I am not saying anarcho-capitalists do not exist abroad just not enough to have relevance to the social and political processes of their respective native land. There are real and powerful organizations in the U.S.A that have anarcho-capitalism as a platform or call themselves as such and they play a significant role in American politics. This is not true elsewhere which is why I think it bears noting in this article.-- GrazingshipIV 01:28, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

GrazingshipIV, I really don't mean to seem combative, but I'm not sure if you're right. Historically, the first modern anti-state right-libertarian was, as you may know, Molinari, who was Belgian. I will agree that the center of gravity of this movement is in America. But are there no other countries where the A-C movement is at least comparable (on a per capita basis)? There might not be, but I don't think I would know if there were. It would be nice if there were indeed "real and powerful organizations in the U.S.A." that are A-C, and I guess it's subjective, but I wouldn't have made that assertion myself. What organizations are you thinking of? - NYK 04:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dude no problem, What I was refering to was the power of anarcho-capitalist ideals in America as opposed to the rest of the world which henceforth leads to organizations to play to those ideals. Even though many politicans in America are not anarcho-capitalists in action (by a long shot) they play to the ideals of anarch-capitalism often. Ronald Regan is a well-known but weak example (he also was very smpathetic to Ayn Rand objectivism) for making "government the enemy" by claiming it was the greatest threat to average americans. Ron Paul a congressman from texas, also being a strong example as he supports many anarch-capitalist ideals (abolishing the central bank and public education etc.). There are also many powerful organizations that back anarcho-capitalist ideals such as the CATO institute (although used by conservatives and claiming to be libertarian- many scholars are anarch-capitalists), The US Libertarian party (which adopts anarcho-capitalists the way democrats adopt leftists) as well as a myriad of other lobbying and think tanks groups who put pressure on the government to pursue policies that anarch-capitalists would. This phenomenon does not really exist anywhere else in the world, if it would be anywhere it would be Europe but many europeans "vote with their feet" and move to America (particularly from England) to join anarcho-capitalist movements rather than work on creating them were they are (one might call this voter outsourcing). Eitherway America is the place to be if you are an anarcho-capitalist which is why anarcho-capitalism has geographical limitations. GrazingshipIV 02:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to quibble with most of your examples. Because the USA was founded by libertarians (they talked a good game anyway) you see lots of echoes of that kind of talk in modern political discourse, but those people were explicitly not anarchists. Reagan, if nothing else, said some very nice libertarian-sounding things back in 1960's, long before he was president, when he was working on Barry Goldwater's campaign. Goldwater said some nice things too, but, in my opinion, his allegiance to the state was higher than his allegiance to human liberty, so he could be described in some sense perhaps as a (right-)libertarian but in no sense as an anarchist. The same was proven true in spades by Reagan when he was in office. I don't know of anyone at Cato who is an A-C, there probably are a few, but I think Cato as a group would go to lengths to distance themselves from such opinions. The Libertarian Party has a lot of radical minarchist tendencies but, given that they are full of plans to take control of the government and descriptions of what they will use it for afterward, so I don't think they can really be described as A-C, either. I would argue that what we see here is a whole range of opinions favoring limited government, from the moderate to the radical, but very few influential ones favoring its elimination. Ron Paul is an interesting case, who may or not be an exception, but if so he isn't saying it in public. In any event, he is a unique anomaly in Congress and is generally ignored by the media.
If your point is that America is a hotbed of sentiments that may be somewhat closer to A-C, then I would agree. If your point is that America currently has an active A-C political movement, then I haven't noticed it. I would describe what we seen (if we're right) as a "geographical concentration". - Nat Krause 05:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am forced to take Krause's point of "geographic concentration" as fair as well as the critique of my examples. But I would respond to say that many people in the libertarian party would call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" and many people who work on projects do not see much of a difference between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Take the free state project (freestateproject.org) this is run primarily by anarcho-capitalists but named a libertarian project. It involved a mass movement of people who want to establish a state that at least is anarch-capitalistic. I do not think that because people are working through the governmental system they are nesasarily disqualified from being called anarchists. My underlying point is that the only real significant place where anarcho-capitalism has a foot to stand on is America.GrazingshipIV 05:36, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, in the above, I have been trying to draw a distinction between anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, but I guess this is not a distinction that you agree with. The Free State Project people may in their hearts be A-Cists, but their means are clearly minarchist at best and "anarcho-capitalistic state" is an oxy-moron. Anyway, this important only as an aside. I still don't quite understand the context in which this information would be incorporated into the article. I think we might be better off discussing it further in regard to a specific proposed change. - Nat Krause 09:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are correct I do not draw that distinction. I do not propose an alteration to the page but rather an addition. I think a "Geographic contrection" section to the page would be appropriate but I would like some sort of consensus before making the edit. This new section would merely note the fact that anarcho-capitalism in today's politics is mostly an American phenomenon with little influence in Europe and virtually none elsewhere. GrazingshipIV 16:13, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think it will be problematic for you to hold work on this article if you won't make that distinction. It's important. Why, suppose you write up a passage, how will you know whether to put it in the anarcho-capitalism article, the minarchism one, or just under libertarianism? Anyway, I must still object to this plan on about the same grounds as before. To summarize:
  1. I don't really have any hard information on whether or not it is correct that A-C has little or no influence in Europe or the rest of the world, although I think it's true.
  2. Phrasing it this way might give the impression that A-C is more influential than it is. Really, I'm pretty sure that it's political influence in America is pretty similar to its influence in the rest of the world, that is, sadly, close to zero.
  3. Do other similar articles have a section for that kind of information?
  4. Depending on how its phrased, people might think it is intended to give the impression that other forms of anarchism are considerably more influential outside the world, which I don't think is true. Now, I don't think this is a controlling factor by itself (its not the wikipedia's fault what people read into it), but it exacerbates the other problems. - Nat Krause 17:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not know that much about politics in other countries, but I just looked it up and saw that there is a party called, "Anarkokapitalistisk Front (AKF)" in the Sweden that is basically the same as our Libertarian Party, in both ideas espoused and power. As well, I found "The Libertarian Alliance" in the UK, which is not a political party, and a few other things. I found a lot more stuff in the US and Canada (Canada has the Libertarian Party of Canada), but perhaps that is because I know how to search for stuff in the US and Canada better better...--Thorn969 06:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Compromise

No apology nesesary just make sure you create this break so people don't get confused. thanks. GrazingshipIV 02:11, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for placing this at the bottom of the page since it belongs with the thread right above this one, but I wanted to ensure feedback. As a comprimise to what I have stated above in the Some thoughts on the revert war section, I think it would be best to go with Kev's version, of the initial sentance to make it clear that this is the POV of the anarcho-capitalists, but I would leave the second sentance alone, as was deemed appropriate by NYK. So the paragraph will be changed to:

Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism in the sense of a rejection of statism. They reject all forms of state control — including taxation, coercive regulation, war, and coercive monopoly on the use of defensive force — as violations of essential individual rights. They also reject these forms of coercive control whether they are exercised by state officials or by private agents; they oppose them because they are violations of rights, not because they are committed by governments.

I hope this compromise is sutable to all who were involved in the previous discussions. If anyone has any problems they should speak out about it now, before I place the new paragraph into the article. millerc 01:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Nat Krause 05:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this is not really a compromise. The whole point of having "in the sense" was to distinguish anarchism in reference to what may be dubbed the "anarchist movement" (left-anarchism) from a more general use of the term to describe statelessness, and thus make it unnecessary to have the words "hold their position" (or related qualifiers); by having both it's way watered down. Also, the "rejection of statism" language favored by the anti-ancaps is terrible; ancaps do not reject statism, they reject the state. Classical liberals would not say they are statists, either, but as minarchists they'd accept a state, though they would dislike and distrust it. Anyway, though I see where you're coming from, it may be hard to find compromise, because there's been a lot of give to the anti-ancaps already, but they seem insatiable. -- VV 23:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think that "hold their position to be" is more effective for this purpose than "in the sense". As I understand it, the ansocs disagree on the meaning of the word "state", so they do not agree that A-C would reject it. So, I would propose: Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism: a rejection of the state. How does that sound? - Nat Krause 09:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is that really an argument they use? I hadn't heard that one. The only one I was getting was that anarchism means one and only one thing, what the ansocs say it does. Thus, I had "in the sense of", to allow for maybe-a-little-bit the "literal" definition. I was hearing that government included any property (some said by "definition"!), but state was perhaps okay. (If you'll humor me, the double standard is remarkable, in that on anarchism partisans insisted coercion means only what they say it does by defining anarchism as opposition to it, and undid every edit I made to qualify this, while here when I put in that ancaps oppose "coercive control", it created this huge conflict. Sorry, lingering frustration there.) So, I would still prefer the existing version, although you may be on to something. -- VV 09:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know, maybe they wouldn't really use that argument -- I'm attempting the old "write from the other guy's perspective" trick. I tend to use "government" and "state" interchangeably, but I know some other people don't, so maybe I'm confusing their arguments about the one with their arguments about the other. Personally, I prefer my proposed wording either way, I just think it flows a little better as prose. I understand your frustration with regard to some of the editors -- the only solution I can suggest is that, as necessary, we can go line by line on this article to make sure it says things are true as clearly as possible. - Nat Krause 15:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the understanding. But, I should say the "line by line" approach has the potential to falter, as the cumulative effect of edits good on their own can be to provide a certain biased impression. Anyway, as for this matter, at this point I could go either way. I do feel the sentence as written is better, but the version you propose might be valuable in pre-empting endless edit wars (negotiating with edit warrers?), even if it's not ideal. In any case I'm too weary of this to concern myself with such a small difference. So, I definitely won't object if you still prefer it and drop it in. -- VV 20:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just comming from a different perspective...I agree with the statement by Nat Krause that "hold their position to be" is more effective for this purpose than "in the sense". Since I didn't quite get that "in the sense" was a qualifier when I first read it, which is why I thought that there might need to be more. But, I think you also have to point out that the Anarcho-capitalists are using the word anarchism to specifically mean rejection of a state (I will agree with the differentiation between statism and a state). Left anarchists use the word "state" in the same way that Anarcho-capitalists use the word, but the problem arises when left anarchists mean much more than simply rejection of the state by the word anarchism. They use the word for rejection of any form of hierarchical governance (including heirarchical buisness structures). So IMO saying that they use the term "government" in a different way than the Anarcho-capitalist would be more accurate. I also don't mean to water down the article (I will remember this on any future suggestions). I understand that you have fought with people over this before, which can be quite aggravating , but I thought the compromise might fend off future conflicts. You don't have to accept my suggestions. millerc 03:36, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Resolution

I move that the conflict be declared over for this page and that disputed neutrality header be removed. Are there any objections? --Thorn969 07:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wording

VV insists that this is a compromise that betters the page, he changed this: Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form anarchism in the sense that it rejects the state.

to this Thus, anarcho-capitalists hold their position to be a form of anarchism: a rejection of the state.

I'm wondering why a version that implies a stripped down definition of anarchism is considered better? Certainly anarchism is thought by meany to mean merely the rejection of the state, but it often means -more- than this, so making it clear that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves anarchists -only- insofar as they reject the state is to better describe the capitalist position. It certainly doesn't water down anything, it only clarifies the ac position. How is this offensive to you VV? Or perhaps there is something more than the edit itself you are objecting to, like how you recently objected to a nomination based not on the person who is being nominated or their merits, but based on the person who nominated them. Kev 00:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

You stated in the edit summary that four users supported an alternate version, but the alternative actually gaining support (well, it was a while ago) was that given by Nat Krause above. So I put his in instead. My objection to your wording is the same as before, that it doubly qualifies what at best needs to be qualified once. And I have no idea in hell what you're talking about re this nomination or whatever irrelevant thing you're trying to beat me over the head with. VV 00:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: My objection is foremost procedural; you installed your favored language while claiming support that is actually for another version. I wanted to avoid just reverting you, so I put in the actually supported version as, as I said, a "stop-gap compromise". You make a valid point above; it's one reason I prefer the older language. And please stay on topic if you want this conversation to be more productive than our previous ones. VV 01:09, 31 May 2004 (UTC) (Added after edit conflict with below.)
I casually mention something and suddenly I'm beating you over the head? I'm begining to see what people mean when they say you have a matyr complex. I was talking about snowspinner's nomination for admin, which you questioned based partly on the person nominating him. Furthermore, I never claimed support for any particular version, only a particular wording which others repeated here "hold their position to be". But this and your tendency to focus on the person rather than the edit aside - I think you are prefering a version which detracts from the understanding of anarcho-capitalism. Given that all the anarcho-capitalists I know what it to be -more- clear that when they call themselves anarchists they mean it only in regards to rejection of the state, I think the article should make this clear as well. But I will let it go for the time being, as apparently you are ready to jump at any edit I make and have learned nothing in the time I've been away. Kev 01:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
I did not oppose Snowspinner; I voted "neutral". It was not because of who nominated him, but because of his duration here. If you're going to go paging around in my edits, at least look to see what's there. And, yes, I don't feel this "casual mention" was meant to be so innocuous but was to attack me. Show me any evidence at all that I'm focusing on the person rather than the edit, when you're the one bringing in these irrelevancies. Who has learned nothing? I was actually making yet another effort to work with you but I see you have an agenda of your own. (By the way, I'm not unaware of your activities on the other anarchism pages.) VV 01:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
You've got a persecution complex VV, which is ironic given the witch hunt you are currently engaged in. I did not page around in your edit history VV, I could care less about your obssessions. I only noticed your comments because I had been watching snowspinner. It is rather interesting that you are now claiming that the person doing the nomination played no part in your comment, since you specifically mentioned that it did in the comment itself.
As for "evidence" that you focus on the person rather than the edit, what would suffice for you? Regardless of how many individuals I dig up whom you follow about (myself included in the past) reverting most if not all of their edits that didn't agree with your politics you could, and would, just claim it was the "poor quality" of their edits which motivated you. It is hilarious that your attempt to "work with me" began with, yet again, no discussion and no attempt at an original edit, just a revert back to a previous edit. Ah well, I'll let you spew out a bit more vitriol in the face of the fact that I'm letting your edit stand. And why am I letting it stand? Because regardless of what I do, how much we discuss this, how many times other people have to protect this page or I have to walk away to give you time to collect yourself, you will just continue with the reverts once we start again. And I don't feel like playing your game anymore. Kev 01:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
I did not say the nominator was relevant to my vote and did not oppose. I see my urgings that you stay on topic went unheeded, as you want to bring in other disputes you clearly don't understand, and furthermore seek to diagnose my psychology. I did not revert this page, I proffered a new compromise, and I explained in the edit summary why. In fact, it was you who put in a previous version I'd objected to in the past. Whatever, you're obviously not interested. Why do I bother trying to talk to you? VV 01:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

New intro

I think this - Anarcho-capitalism is a view which is best described by the saying "other people are not your property". - is a very inadequate definition. Besides the slogan being uninformative, it implies that ancapism is the "only" view in which people are not property, which is nuts. VV 09:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)