User talk:Libertatia

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Anarchist FAQ

could you please comment on the talk page of An Anarchist FAQ? RJII is inserting undue weight about the authors. -- infinity0 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Anarchist FAQ

In an effort to remove the npov tag, I hope you can express your opinion on the article version represented in this link at the talk page. Thanks. Steve block talk 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJII RfC

Hi. I'm thinking of starting an WP:RFC on RJII for his recent behaviour at An Anarchist FAQ and other articles. Are you willing to participate? -- infinity0 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2. Could you please comment? Thanks. -- infinity0 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction

I deem unfounded the complaint (if you meant it to be directed specifically at me, as seems the case from the context) that I answer specific "historical accounts" with abstractions. I'm always happy to discuss historical accounts of capitalisms But on the Talk page of Anarchism just now I was countering the abstract claim of 88.152 and others that anarcho-capitalism is inherently contradictory with an equally abstract (but no more so) explanation of why it isn't. I wasn't 'countering' particulars with abstractions. I will always try to address anyone on the level of concreteness with which he addresses me. ----Christofurio 20:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was directed to the comment directly above. I'm agnostic about the label anarcho-capitalism, as those who fly that particular flag vary in important regards as to their actual politics. Libertatia 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few words more, because this is a lazy Sunday. You write, in the same passage I responded to above, "Now, traditional individualist anarchists also trade in the (semi-mythic) promise of a really-free market-to-come, but try to call it something different, to avoid confusion."

Something different from "capitalism," then, is apparently what you mean there. This task of looking for a "Something Different" name that would itself be immune from anybody's nitpicking seems unnecessarily burdensome. I'll continue to call it "capitalism" in the meantime, and let the nitpickers make of that what they wish. And this is why it risks no genuine confusion: capitalism as an ideal is continuous with certain aspects of capitalism as an existing force in the world. One of the contentions implicit in much anarcho-capitalist writing is that if and when that ideal free market does come about, the historians of that time will see the development of, for example, secondary markets in equity over the recent centuries as having been a positive step forward toward the world that they enjoy. They'll see the prosecution of "insider traders" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as having been a hindrance to the coming-to-be of the world that they enjoy. The word "anarcho-capitalism" doesn't merely constitute a mooning after an imagined future ideal -- it connects that ideal with some factors in the present and the past. It means one takes the side of the "kulaks," rather than of their liquidators, in memory.

So the term "anarcho-capitalism" isn't merely internally consistent. It contributes to your goal of "avoiding confusion." --Christofurio 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an issue of "looking for a ... name that would itself be immune from anybody's nitpicking." Sure, such a thing is impossible, and to the extent that these debates never rise above the level of semantics, they are essentially worthless. Constructions like "consistent Manchesterian," "unterrified Jeffersonian," and "free-market anti-capitalist" do, however, strike me as more initially thought-provoking than "anarcho-capitalist," in part because it has been so easy to appropriate that last term to describe the mafia-capitalism of the post-Soviet states. Then again, when I see Enron execs associated with "kulaks," and in a positive sense, perhaps you don't mind those associations. In that case, your use of capitalism is clear as a bell, and in line with historical usages. It's your definition of anarchism that remains open to question. Libertatia 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good thing I never associated Enron execs with the kulaks, then, isn't it? I associated myself with the kulaks, "in a positive sense," because I think their memory must be defended. I certainly imlied that some prosecutions for insider trading and related offenses have been, in my view, misguided. I'll give you some examples if you like, but for now let's say this has nothing to do with the Enron crowd. They're on trial (yippee!) for having violated their fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders. A manager's fiduciary responsibility is to work to make the owners of the company -- which in this case was a category that overlapped with the category "employees" considerably -- a profit. And that means a real profit, one that would show up given honest accounting! Lay, Skilling, and crowd violated that responsibility. They failed the basic test of capitalist ethics. And I'll never call myself an "unterrified Jeffersonian," I assure you. Huh? The adjective fits, but the noun applies to me not at all. --Christofurio 03:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist anarchism

It's true that Rothbard didn't call himself an "individualist anarchist" but I don't think Tucker or Spooner ever called themselves that either. Are you aware otherwise? "Individualist anarchism" just means "an individualist form of anarchism." It means no more than that. It's not a single defined philosophy but any philosophy that is individualist and anarchist, with no two individualist anarchists having indentical philosophies and some have very different philosophies.Anarcho-capitalism 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I don't really give a hoot what labels are used, as long as the specificities are maintained. If you look at the traditions of Warren-Andrews and Proudhon-Greene, and their development through right up to the present, there are very few "outliers" in terms of core beliefs, personal and institutional associations, etc. Stirner is an outlier, who retrospectively because the founder of a third major individualist line. He had far less in common with the other two root traditions. (Greene and Warren may have made common cause on the mutual banking issue as early as 1851, based on material in Martin and in the Agnes Inglis papers.) Pretty much each figure in the "mainstream" deviates in some way: Spooner on intellectual property; Greene in his continuing use/subversion of theology; Andrews in his own universological and pantarchic projects; Westrup on "standard of value;" etc. And they fight like cats and dogs. But they remain associated. I have concluded that anarcho-capitalism has to be accounted for within the broad history of individualist anarchism (and appear to have made that position a bit more accepted in social anarchist and mutualist circles, for better or worse.) But it's obviously a kind of offshoot or graft, possible in part because the original individualist anarchist traditions were at a pretty low ebb when Rothbard came along. Currently, there are individualist anarchists (clustered around the Movement of the Libertarian Left, for example) who look a lot like the individualists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some of them call themselves anarcho-capitalists, and some mutualists or just market anarchists. But they maintain solidarity, while fighting like cats and dogs. You appear to be unaware of any of that stuff, though you claim to speak for all an-caps and to know what everybody believes. Long story short, OR and all, the individualist anarchist movement seems to have much greater continuity than you claim. Any entry which effaces that, and can't tell the mainstream from the outliers, is lousy intellectual history and lousy movement history all at once. I think the Holy War for Current and Correct Language is one of the single most significant, and foolish, impediments to getting these entries written accurately. Libertatia 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to speak for all ancaps at all. Each anarcho-capitalist is free to have his own unique philosophy. Just as Friedman is free to have a different anarcho-capitalism than Rothbard, I am free to have a different anarcho-capitalism than them both - as is anyone else. Sure, there is some continuity among individualist anarchists, but my point is that there doesn't have to be. Someone can wake up tomorrow and become an individualist anarchists without having any knowledge whatsover of Rothbard, Tucker, Stirner, etc. All he has to do is to oppose the authority of others over himself, including the authority of the collective, and to oppose the state. That is all that's necessary to be an individualist anarchist. And all that's necessary to become an anarcho-capitalists, is to agree with that and support markets and don't agree with the labor theory of value or just ignore theories of value altogether.Anarcho-capitalism 18:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you claim to speak for entire groups all the time. But this sort of debate takes us precisely nowhere in developing a strategy for accurate articles. Libertatia 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism

If you're taking a break, it'd be great if you could pop around to the talk page, I don't wanna be on my own :) Donnacha 22:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo

I appreciate your response to my comments on the anarchism talk page.

My true concern is this: I feel the article is excellent, reflects quite a bit of hard work, and deserves to be a featured article. In fact, I think it's a very important topic (particularly in these times) and it deserves a day (or rather a week) in the sun of Wikipedia's front page. That can't happen if the tags aren't removed.

You may very well be correct that anarcho-capitalists are a US-based extreme minority. I don't know, and I quite honestly don't care. The point that I was trying to make with the google search, et. al. is that there are enough of them to...not go away. In addition, there are enough of them to protest about their absence and/or misrepresentation in this article with enough frequency to keep the tags on it forever. I think the article on anarchism vs anarcho-capitalism is on the right track, and hopefully it will go a long way towards satisfying your (and many others, I know) concerns and/or general....disgust, perhaps?

I would be deeply thankful for any efforts that you can make towards bringing this article up to featured article status. If you've got primary sources - great! Please consider bringing them into the article. If you've just got titles, send them my way and I'll start buying them as I can.

Frankly, I still don't see how anarcho-capitalists aren't libertarians, but again I just don't care. If they believe that there can be capitalism without a state, then let 'em. It's more important (in my opinion) to find common ground with as many people who desire change as possible. Otherwise, change is never going to happen, on ANYONE'S terms, and everyone will continue to suffer.

If there is anything you would like to respond to, I would appreciate it if you would leave your responses on my user talk page. Mail makes me happy!

Best Wishes and keep up the good work, NinaEliza 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I've logged out because Vision Thing appears to be on the verge of Wikistalking me (I know Anarcho-Capitalism is checking my User contributions as he responded to the Request for Comment when I was still drafting it, I'm guessing VT is doing it too). He's reverted edits I made on the Socialism article - uncontroversial attempts to add appropriate wikilinks. I'm assuming he's doing it to remove the link to mutualism next to market socialism. He appears to have a new friend, 172, who has continuously removed the section on Anarchist Communism from the Communism article. As a result of their double-teaming, I'm up to three reverts on the Communism article and don't want to get banned. This is getting insane. Donnacha 22:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have You Noticed?

Ever since the complaints against User:Anarcho-capitalism started, User:Vision Thing and User:Intangible have been following around several members involved and edistalking them. I see you've been having problems with User:Anarcho-capitalism as well as he edits articles to suit his own liking. The three of them seem to be in league editing Wikipedia articles to suit Anarcho-Capitalist liking.

Should this be brought to Admin attention? Full Shunyata 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely noticed it, Vision Thing appeared on the Socialism article after I edited it. A point of information, Anarcho-capitalism responded to the RFC before I posted it on the main page or on any talk pages, meaning he's watching my User contributions. Donnacha 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having problems with these users. I strongly suspect that Anarcho-capitalism set up a sock puppet named "Your Honor" to edit war with me on the Anarchism in the United States entry when I started editing it in December 2006. I checked the history files for both users. Your Honor was created as a user right around the time I started editing that entry. Now Your Honor has gone away and Anarcho-capitalism has been vandalizing my edits. Chuck0 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proudhon

I'm on the verge of quitting WP completely, life's too short, but, while I'm still here, I thought I'd recommend that you point this [1] out to Mr. AnCap. The idea that Proudhon, who was still part of a dissident Protestant tradition, rejected tradition is hilarious. Donnacha 15:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. Whether Proudhon was part of an anti-authority "tradition" is irrelevant as to whether he was an anarchist. What makes someone an anarchist is their ideas - their rejection of coercive authority - not whether their ideas are similar to someone else's. Anarchism isn't defined by tradition, but by the meaning of the word anarchism itself: "without rulers." There actually is not "an anarchist tradition." There are simply a multitude of different interpretations of what it means to be opposed to rulership. Anarcho-capitalism 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian communism = communist anarchism

Article on Anarchist communism says otherwise: "However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, some libertarian communists, such as council communists, are not anarchists." -- Vision Thing -- 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question what Carson means. In any event, if Carson says we have to get along with the "libertarian communists," a set which includes the subset of "communist anarchists," it seems pretty clear, eh? Libertatia 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of my edits from anarchism

Hi. I reverted your removal of my edits because a) there is no consistent definition of anarchy aside from stateless b) the BBC define Somalia before the ICU as an anarchy in reference to being stateless. Simply removing me increases my wiki-stress and rudely assumes that you don't have to discuss your POV. Please bring to talk page before reverting again. Thanks, --Urthogie 22:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brilliant

Yes, the Anarchist POV is surely overwhelmed by one editor. Give me a break. I'm Ok with you not recognizing I'm the underdog in this argument, but bringing your bullshit to my talk page is nasueating. Please avoid it in the future.--Urthogie 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really a difference between "being an underdog" and creating unnecessary complications in an already complicated process. The nausea is a bit mutual. I'm sure we'll both survive. Libertatia 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:)

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you a Barnstar for your constructive edits and good humor that has allowed us to likely get past our disagreements. Much respect, --Urthogie 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Goodbye

Hey Libertatia! I just wanted to drop in and give my possible farewell. I've been thinking about quitting Wikipedia for a while, the edit-stalking from "anarcho"-capitalist members and sockpuppets, the heated battles, the senseless revisions, and the stubborness and close-mindedness of some members is too frustrating to deal with. I've enjoyed your contributions for a long time and I congratulate you for holding your own with User:Anarcho-capitalism. You have far more patience than I, and I take my hat off to you. Some other anarchist members have already been banned or chased off the site by members and admins, so I'm seriously thinking about leaving within the next couple of days before I get banned as well for upsetting other (anarcho-capitalist) members. Apparently, if social anarchists help portray Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists in a historical light instead of an-cap historical revisionism, it's a diabolical communist plot. *rolleyes*

Anyway, I was glad to know you and I wish you the best. ;) In solidarity, Full Shunyata 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalist trolling

Hi there! If User:Anarcho-capitalism keeps trolling the articles on anarchism to bias them towards his own ideological POV, do you think a case should be made against him and brought to the attention of administrators? Full Shunyata 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I sourced my edits and they're all NPOV. My POV stays on the Discussion pages and my Userpage. There's absolutely no evidence of POV-pushing in articles. But, good luck trying to find some.Anarcho-capitalism 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

biblio & hegemonies of definitions

Hello there! I visited your user page, curious 'bout your name, and saw you were working on a bibliography project. That's not the quite the same thing, and you might already know this quite famous work - i didn't, but i'm not a specialist either - anyway, you might want to check out the Maitron dictionnary. Eletheria o Thanatos! Tazmaniacs

Sockpuppets

Hi there. I'm highly suspicious that User:Illegal editor, who's been baiting you at Talk:Benjamin Tucker, is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Billy Ego (aka User:Anarcho-capitalism, etc). I've submitted a checkuser request to confirm this. In the meantime, I wouldn't waste too much breath on him as I suspect he'll soon be exposed as yet another disruptive sockpuppet of this banned user. In general, if you notice new accounts trolling those pages (anarcho-capitalism, Benjamin Tucker, etc) feel free to let me know, as this particular disruptive banned user is a prolific user of sockpuppets, and it's probably not worth arguing with each new incarnation. Let me know if you have any questions. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Thing

Hello. I've done a bit of evidence collecting regarding Vision Thing as Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet. I've now identified five distinct cases where he was a suspected sockpuppet of RJ or Anarcho-capitalism by different editors. This includes an instance when his account was first created, and an accusation by myself. In case you are interested I have posted links to this evidence on the anarcho-capitalism talk page. As you can see from the evidence I collected the 2nd time he was suspected, his edits have on multiple occasions been identical to those of RJII. This is just a heads-up I'm sending out to folks who've been recently involved with his various sockpuppet incarnations. Etcetc 07:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]