This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
That isn't quite true. While anarchism has many diverse strains of thought, it doesn't reach into the dozens. Really, there's anarchism without adjectives, anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-primitivism, Green Anarchism, queer anarchism, black anarchism, and anarcha-feminism. Then, there's Agorism, Egoism, Panarchism, Mutualism, and Voluntaryism. Then, Christian Anarchism, Zenarchism, and other religious anarchisms. Well, maybe it reaches two dozen, so this would technically apply, but it's still a bit misleading. There are certainly not three dozen anarchist strains of thought, especially when you cut out the ones that aren't anarchist, the ones that call themselves anarchist but aren't in a historical context, or consolidate the very, very similar ones together. Ejdoyle (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the inclusion of this section is dubious at best, but having it privilege direct democracy makes no sense. The logical conclusions of the non-aggression (against non-aggressors!) and voluntary association principles is that under an anarchist legal regime people are going to decide, within their own associations, to use all kinds of decision-making processes -- including delegated and representative ones. The fact is that consensus has all kinds of its own problems and even at its best only works in certain contexts. There is nothing more inherently anarchist about direct democracy. This is either biased, illogical, or both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzoliche (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that the Non-Coercion section should either go or be edited rather than the Decision making one, as The Non-aggression principle is more of a concept by non-anarchist thinkers that are more against government intervention than any of the other ideas presented. Actually this entire article needs someone more informed to look at it, as every section has its own problems and difficulties connecting to Anarchist Theory. Social Contract Theory is from John Locke which is more of an argument for the State so clarification is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)