Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 17

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


This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 06 and Nov 06.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 18. Thank you. --Saswann 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)--Rosicrucian 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

The article states:

Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian. For example, individualist anarchists Kevin Carson and Ken Knudson argue that capitalism cannot occur without state power being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer. (emphasis added)

However, the article Kevin Carson states:

Carson has written sympathetically about several anarcho-capitalists, arguing that they use the word "capitalism" in a different sense than he does and that they represent a legitimate strain of anarchism.

-- 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. There is no contradiction there. Carson defines capitalism like this: "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist." Anarcho-capitalists are also opposed to state coercion. Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary trade. They both advocate market economies, but Carson thinks there would be no profit because he is still holding on to the labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists think there would still be profit and that Carson is a terrible economist. DTC 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this Carson Critique included when the title is about the debate as to whether ANCAP is a form of anarchism? As pointed out above, Carson believes that ANCAP is a legitimate form of anarchism. 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I guess it should be removed. Carson doesn't claim that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at that section "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" that section should probably be removed. It doesn't really make sense. If it's a criticism of anarchism capitalism arguing that it's not a form of anarchism then it should be in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism" section. Don't you think? DTC 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it should stay. Question whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is quite important for some people and deserves its own section. -- Vision Thing -- 16:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How about calling the section "Claims that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism" then? "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" is very vague. DTC 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey I just removed a source from this article. It said that Barbara Goodwin says in her book "Using Political Ideas" that anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. Luckily, I just happen to have this book and that is not what it says. I quote here:"Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs....." That is on page 137 in my 1987 edition. Maybe the rest of the sources should be checked up on.Anarcho-capitalism 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin was a blooming idiot. Disquietude 01:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


I was looking for a wikipage on Ancap, Uruguay's state-owned petroleum company, and I ended up here. Beats me, never had really heard of ancap to describe anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, I think we should take some steps aiming at disambiguating this issue. Regards, Lomibz 10:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Done - I just made a disambiguation page for Ancap. Hogeye 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


The last paragraph of the lead ignores the controversy surrounding anarcho-capitalism's classification as anarchist (not all definitions demonstrate that ancap is anarchist). It also tries to devalue anarchists' opposition to anarcho-capitalism, saying that it's merely because of a "sectarian bias", instead of explaining why they actually oppose it. It also cites Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. Overall, the lead sounds very tendentious, and it could be indicative of the bias throughout the rest of the article (I'll do a more thorough analysis later). A Featured Article Review is surely in order. -- WGee 03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's easy to fix. Just take out the claim that the reason is because of sectarian bias.Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Hogeye 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
My concerns have not been properly addressed. The last paragraph still says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism "by definition"—but by who's definition? And, you can't ignore the view of those publications that do not regard anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism. The former lead properly addressed the controversy in a neutral and effective way. So until that former lead is restored, I will continue to dispute the article's neutrality. There are also some other parts of the article whose neutrality I question. In the future, please don't hastily remove the POV tag without first consulting the one who raised the complaint. -- WGee 23:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
For some reason there is a section entitled "Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism". However, the purpose of this article is not to demonsrate that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism: it's not an essay. More importantly, though, the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section has been deleted—another attempt to hide the viewpoints of non-anarcho-capitalists. -- WGee 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's claimed that anarcho-capitalism is commonly considered a form of anarchism then it needs sources. One or two sources isn't going to back up a claim like that. Since the anti-capitalists try to take out claims that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then those sources are necessary. They try to push their minority viewpoint on the article. DTC 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, the lead states that "It is considered a type of individualist anarchism." Yet there are many people (anti-capitalists in particular) who deny this statement. (By the way, in a Featured Article, weasel words should not be used). -- WGee 23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It's true that it's considered a type of individualist anarchism. THat's the view of scholars. The sources are at the bottom of the article but you want to remove them. Of course some anarcho-communists are going to say it's not real anarchism, because they're communists. DTC 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there are plenty of sources at the bottom that seem to support the claim. I thusly removed the NPOV tag, since no sources are presented by you claiming otherwise. Intangible 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It is necessary to say who, exactly, made the statement, and then to provide sources. I have no problem with you saying that "so-and-so says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism." But you cannot use weasel words to suggest that the whole world believes that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. And if you refuse to rectify this problem and others in thier entirety, this article will have to be stripped of its FA status. -- WGee 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? The sources are right there. Those sources at bottom section of the article all say anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. DTC 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read my last few posts? I don't care how many sources you procure: that fact remains that anti-capitalists do not believe that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and that viewpoint is being hidden. Also, why did either you or Intangible insert a contraction into the lead? FAs are supposed to have "brilliant prose", not to mention that encyclopedic articles must never use contractions. -- WGee 00:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be disruptive here, this last edit by yours [1] was really uncalled for. Intangible 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It was perfectly called for, because you are on probation for tendentious editing. -- WGee 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You deleted a lot of progress this article has made.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Although I appreciate your good intentions, I feel that the article has degraded in quality since I last worked on it. An article doesn't always get better with time; sometimes it gets worse (see Nikodemos' user page for more information). -- WGee 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
How about you justify what you're doing? Tell us each sentence you have a problem with and we'll look at them one at a time. It seems to be that you're just being careless.Anarcho-capitalism 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the changes that I feel are necessary to effect neutrality: the restoration of the former, neutral lead (more or less); the restoration of the Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism section, which is an important section highlighting the ancap vs. anarchism controversy; the deletion of the contentious and biased Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism section. Vision Thing also helped to remove some instances of original research. -- WGee 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary, POV section

Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism

As a form of individualist anarchism

  • Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
  • Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21 & pp. 13-14, 2002
  • Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, p.21 1991.
  • Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1991, ISBN 0-631-17944-5, p. 11
  • Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
  • Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
  • Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
  • Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
  • Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications [2]
  • Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
  • Brooks, Frank H. (ed) (1994) The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908), Transaction Publishers, Preface p. xi
  • Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
  • Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
  • Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004, pp. 118-119
  • Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004
  • Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
  • Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4
  • Foldvary, Fred E. What Aren't You an Anarchist?, Progress Report, reprinted in The Free Liberal, Feb. 14, 2006
  • Levy, Carl. Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 [3] MS Encarta (UK).
  • Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61

As a form of anarchism in general

  • Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231
  • Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7
  • DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, John Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117 & 123
  • Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The * Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 99
  • Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336
  • Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11
  • Sanders, John T.; Narveson, For and Against the State, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1996, ISBN 0-8476-8165-3
  • Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, fourth edition, John Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137

I say that these sources are unnecessary because the purpose of this article is not to discuss whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism; that is not an important theme. I say that it violates WP:NPOV because it argues that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism while excluding the opposing view. Even if the opposing view was included, this whole section is unnecessary, as I said: the ancap/anarchism controversy is already well documented without it. -- WGee 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If the claim is made that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Don't you understand that?Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it follows from the definition of anarchism. It needs no source. But... that stuff should go into the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article if it's not there already. Hogeye 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That article is crap. I think that's what they call a "POV fork."Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a section entitled Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, the one that you keep trying to delete without reason. Read that section and its corresponding article before you make ridiculous accusations. -- WGee 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am deleting information out of that section for good reason. It's bad information. It's false. For example it gives a source of Barbara Goodwin as saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism but she doesn't say that. She says it is a form of anarchism. That whole little section there is pretty nonsensical.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not only Barbara Goodwin who interjects her opinion, but several other people, as well. You cannot delete all the other sources because you disagree with this one. Saying that the section is "pretty nonsensical" is no reason at all. -- WGee 17:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The other opinions are misrepresented as well. Kevin Carson, for example, doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That shouldnt have its own section anyway, because it's a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, so why not just delete that section and say what needs to be said in the Criticism section?Anarcho-capitalism 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are you reverting it back? It's full of false information. Look at what Goodwin actually says: ""Although many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism which demands that the state should be abolished and that private individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs." Please stop putting bad information back into Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Then remove that specific source, or re-word it. Don't delete the whole section and dramatically alter the lead to say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That's a highly contentious claim, not a fact; and in order to comply with NPOV policy, the opposing views must be included in a neutral manner. The way it's set up now is fine: several scholars classify ancap as a form of anarchism, but anti-capitalist anarchists believe that capitalism is authoritarian and thus incompatible with anarchism. Don't try to hide the viewpoint of anarchists, which is well documented. -- WGee 17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You also keep inserting the section Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism, even though this article is not intended to be a persuasive essay. You keep deleting my extensive copy-editing, as well—which is necessary if you want this article to remain featured. -- WGee 18:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't care whether it's "featured" or not. I care about whether it's correct or not. You're putting bad information into the article. That section is nonsense. It serves no purpose and it distorts what the source are saying. If someone is going to claim anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism then it needs sources. Nothing else in that section makes any sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would this sentence not belong in the Criticism section: "Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian." Why are there what amounts to two Criticism sections?Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This has been my belief all along. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is POV and it directs the reader to a POV fork. Any criticism of anarcho-capitalism should go in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism section." DTC 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The section is also WP:OR, synthesizing the idea that "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" based on statement "capitalism cannot occur without state power being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer." Intangible 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And it sources Kevin Carson. Carson defines capitalism as "It is state intervention that distinguishes capitalism from the free market." He's talking about capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism. Not to mention that he has a perverse definition of capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I would be a little bit conservative to just linking to website. I've not looked into Kevin Carson, but unless he has previously published on anarchism in scholarly journals etc., it is best to avoid the use of these kind of sources. Intangible 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Also it had Chomsky as a source that it is not anarchism, but Chomsky in "Chomsky on Anarchism" says it is "a strain of anarchism." He even says it is the only anarchist movement that has survived and the "left anarchism" has been killed off.Anarcho-capitalism 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are the alternate names for anarcho-capitalism being deleted? The reader needs to know straight out that he's looking at the right article. "Anarcho-capitalism" is just one term for the philosophy. In fact, for quite awhile I only knew it as "free market anarchism." "Anarcho-capitalism" is a term which only lately has started getting popular.Anarcho-capitalism 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

but there's a box in the first section with all of the different names. -- WGee 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then something in the first sentence needs to be pointed to that box, because not everybody knows it as "anarcho-capitalism." I think at least "free market anarchism" needs to be mentioned because that it a very popular name for it. which is an anarcho-capitalist site doesn't call it anarcho-capitalism, but "market anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"Market anarchism" is too vague a name because markets can exist outside of capitalism. Anyway, anyone will know that they've found the right page after reading the lead; if they're too lazy to do that, that's too bad for them. -- WGee 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point. The point is that it is a synonym. When anyone talks of "free market anarchism" they're talking about what is otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
And "individualist anarchism" is the same way. Most people who call themselves individualist anarchists are what you would call anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but this is where the ancap/anarchism controversy comes into play: most anarchists reject any conflation of anarchism and capitalism. As I've said before, this controversy needs to be documented in detail, and it was documented in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism section, until you deleted it. -- WGee 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, take out the sources if they're not what they claim to be; don't delete the entire section, thereby deleting the social anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If that section is about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then that's what I did. I took out the sources that have nothing to do with that.Anarcho-capitalism 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite what you said in your edit summary, several of the sources that you deleted do argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. All of the sources that I have restored in my last edit either say explictly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism or they say that anarcho-capitalism (or capitalism itself) is authoritarian and, therefore, not anarchist. Also, please note that the section is not only devoted to the labelling controversy, but also to describing the differences between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchist thought. -- WGee 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your notion is WP:OR. I can easily provide (see Talk:Anarchism archive) for a scholarly article that says that anti-authoritarianism is not central to anarchism. You are synthesizing all kinds of ideas here, based on your POV. Intangible 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Simple deductive reasoning is not original research. Anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian; therefore, an authoritarian economic system cannot be anarchist. Which do you disagree with: the premise or the conclusion? -- WGee 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Voluntary trade is the antithesis of authoritarianism. What are you talking about?Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the cited anarchists believe that capitalism is inherently authoritarian, they must also believe that anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian. They are not necessarily talking about trade, but about the corporate structure. -- WGee 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. A criticism of capitalism is not necessarily a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. The Kevin Carson source that is in there is criticism state intervention in the economy, which anarcho-capitalists also criticize. He's not criticizing anarcho-capitalism at all. Anyway, I correct his position in the article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The Ancap/anarchism section should remain until the fate of the main article is decided. Also, I removed Carson's opinions, which aren't directed towards anarcho-capitalism, as you pointed out through your edits (btw, don't edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.) -- WGee 02:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Both the criticism section and the ancap/anarchism section need to be expanded. -- WGee 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I could make an equally persuasive argument how other forms of anachism are not real anarchism, either. One's rational debates do not necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. All this article needs to express are the premises, history, etc, of anarcho-capitalism. Imagination débridée 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WGee, your premise that anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian is false. See the Anarchism article. Intangible 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that Anarchism can support authoritarianism? Full Shunyata 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The big problem is pleasing any anarchist with a definition of a concept that defines anarchy or any of its sub-philosophies. This is because any anarchist worth their salt would disagree with any attempt to define the subject, as to define it would place a concept inside the confines of a set border. It is best if the definition fits the broad philosophical and political definition as established by works on those subjects and is judged on those merits alone. Hotspur23 19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

External links - why removal?

Hi, I am hoping it was just a misunderstanding, but I have to ask to make sure:

There were a couple of recent additions to the "External links" that were even more recently removed. They weren't seen as POV issues (they are external links after all) but apparently it was because they were presumed to be not related to anarcho-cap thought. ???

I just re-added them ( and ) because both ARE definitely related -- they are VERY practical anarcho-capitalist resources, especially for those seeking to research/act on more than just abstract/economic theory.

I believe that labels are dangerous, and an easy way to dismiss logical analysis... but to humour the removing person and to clarify their applicability, I have added the anarcho-capitalism label ... However if in the coming days someone still believes they should be removed, please at least FIRST check out both resources for their theme/content and you will surely see that they are very much anarcho-cap promoting. :) And be decent enough to state (ha ha) in this here discussion page WHY they are re-removed. Please and thank you. 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: just found this other Wikipedia entry -- and it seems to confirm what I have personally found, which is that anarcho-caps and individualist-anarchists are equated more often than not. So again, AiLL/TOLFA do belong in the External Links here. 02:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's the dispute?

Why is the article "protected"? What's it being protected from?Anarcho-capitalism 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is being protected from our edit warring, apparantly. I disagree with the protection, however, because we were actually making progress towards resolving our dispute, albeit gradually; this is my opinion, at least.
Now that the article's protected, though, could you take the time to precisely outline your criticisms of the current version of the article?
-- WGee 01:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the main synonyms for anarcho-capitalism should be listed right up there in the first sentence because it's not referred to as "anarcho-capitalism" by everybody. I don't understand why you're fighting that. And the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section should be deleted or started from scratch because it doesn't make sense. What is its purpose? If it has one, maybe it should be made more explicit by changing the title. I can't figure out what the theme is supposed to be as being distinct from "Criticims of anarcho-capitalism."Anarcho-capitalism 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 'Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism' section should either deleted altogether or, at least, should be in the criticisms section. It is out of place where it is. What is the purpose of it? Imagination débridée 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was me who asked for page protection. I will wait for the Afd to close down, before I'll ask for this article to be unlocked. Intangible 08:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My question was what is the purpose of 'Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism' section? But, then again, why did you ask for page protection, Intangible? Imagination débridée 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

From the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism AfD:
This article discusses the opposing viewpoints as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It also compares and contrasts traditional anarchism and this new anarcho-capitalism. There is enough information and controversy about these two issues to merit a separate article. What's in this article isn't criticism, but rather an important description of profound ideological differences.
Hopefully that answers your question, Anarcho-capitalism.
I'm opposed to including multiple names in the lead partly because I don't want to overwhelm the reader with anarcho-capitalist jargon early-on. Also, most articles at Wikipedia (and encyclopedic articles in general) only state the most popular name in the first sentence—which, to my knowledge, is anarcho-capitalism. You needn't be so worried, anyway; most readers will grasp the subject of the article after reading the lead, and I doubt that they'll completely miss the box of ancap terms.
-- WGee 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Anarcho-capitalism, your heading Criticisms claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism is not neutral. Please read WP:WTA, which specifically urges against the use of the word "claim":

The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation explicitly in their definition of the word: "To state to be true, especially when open to question".

Not only that, but your title is excessively long and too specific: the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article discusses more than "Criticisms claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism."
-- WGee 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section in this article, that you've now created, supposed to be about? You say that the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" article is more than just about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, but that is all that section in this article is about. So, you seem to be contradicting yourself by naming the section "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism."Anarcho-capitalism 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the actual title "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" as POV as it's suggesting that anarchism and ANCAP are two different things which is debatable. --Hixx 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.Anarcho-capitalism 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism" is not POV because so far there is insufficient evidence that anarchism and "an"-cap are the same thing. We're waiting for self-proclaimed "an"-caps to prove that capitalism can be anarchistic. Simply claiming to be a form of "anarchism" does not make one an anarchist more than standing in a garage makes one a Lexus. So far "an"-caps have simply applied the prefix to themselves simply because they are opposed to the public State. They haven't shown any similiarities with any other school of Anarchism (not even Individualist Anarchism) in any other area. Full Shunyata 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Your premise that to be a form of anarchism you have to have similarities with others forms of anarchism. That's just not true. I pride my philosophy on being different than all the other anarchist philosophies. I don't have to prove that anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. The article already contains sources from a wide variety of scholars (non-anarcho-capitalists) that say it is.Anarcho-capitalism 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism, do you have a reason for opposing the "Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism" section other than your personal beliefs that "true" anarchism is capitalistic? Full Shunyata 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Even if I was wrong that anarcho-capitalism was a form of anarchism, but title is not neutral and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It implies that anarcho-capitalism and anarchism are two different things. In addition, it doesn't make much sense because the section could be about anything as long as it has anything to do with anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. There is no focus.Anarcho-capitalism 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Market "failure"

Since there is no portal or to-do list for anarcho-capitalists, I'll make this brief mention. The article on Market failure needs some work, so for those looking to do some cleanup, you might visit there. --RayBirks 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral, controversial edits by User:Anarcho-capitalism

(revert to anarcho-capitalism. i dont need to discuss non-controversial edits and adding sources to unsourced statements. if you dispute any particular edit, take it to the discussion page.) [4] You do not have the perogative to unilaterally decide whether or not your edits are uncontroversial; in fact, only uncontroversial edits are "minor edits". Neither do you have the right to violate WP:CONSENSUS whenever it's convenient. It is your responsiblity to demonstrate that your contributions comply with WP policies before inserting them and to ensure that your edits are acceptable to other users; it's not my responsiblity to spend hours on this talk page rebuking your edits "one by one" (and you know full well how prohibitively long that would take). -- WGee 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I have to discuss my edits before I make them. I do not believe they are controversial edits at all, so I see no need to do so. I just greatly improved the article by sourcing statements that were unsourced, and adding better explanations of things. Then you come along and revert everything. I'm sorry, but that just won't do. If you have a problem with any of my edits, then discuss them here one at a time. So far, you haven't pointed out anything that you believe were bad edits. You apparently just don't like the idea that I edited the article, so you reverted all my edits. If you don't have time to "spend hours on this talk page rebuking [my] edits one by one", then what are you doing on Wikipedia? Wikipedia takes time and patience. Just demolishing a whole series of edits made by someone else is disruptive.Anarcho-capitalism 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Read my edit summaries. Not only do your verbose contributions merely restate what has already been said succinctly (i.e. they are redundant), but they are written using poor, if not incorrect, syntax and informal language: Need I remind you that featured articles must be "Well written", meaning "that the prose is compelling, even brilliant"? Moreover, you deleted several instances of the anarchist's viewpoint, thereby circumventing WP:NPOV. -- WGee 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more.Anarcho-capitalism 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your edits, so you think have the right to insert them anyway? Do you think that your opinion outweighs mine? That's a flagrant violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Once you ignore that guideline, the process of collaboration comes to a halt, edit wars ignite, and Wikipedia ceases to function as intended. Thus, since you reject this cornerstone of Wikipedia, the only way to resolve this dispute seems to be through the dispute resolution process—maybe mediators can explain to you the fundamentals of Wikipedia better than I can. That said, will you agree to resolve this dispute through the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee? -- WGee 00:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I won't. I don't see any reason to. I haven't violated any Wikipedia rules. My edits were NPOV and sourced. You haven't been able to point out anything speficially wrong with my edits (other than you say you don't like my grammar).Anarcho-capitalism 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And grammar would be easily corrected. What is the idea behind the NPOV banner?? Intangible 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted several instances of the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby violating WP:NPOV: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Also, most of your edits are either verbose; redundant; written in an unencyclopedic, informal tone; and syntactically incorrect and awkward. I will, therefore, insert a "cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt seem those edits were POV. For example, Colin Ward is an anarchist of the socialist kind, who is not a neutral observer. What Joe Peacott and individualist anarchists think about capitalism should be written about in individualist anarchism, not in anarcho-capitalism. Just my 2 cents. Intangible 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. 5 The Colin Ward source doesn't says capitalism is different from a free market. I have that book and I don't see it. That's why I deleted it. There was not even a page number for the alleged citation.Anarcho-capitalism 22:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. 6 I removed that because it says that it is controversial that anarcho-capitalism was influenced by 19th century individualist anarchists. That's not controversial at all. It's well known that Rothbard studied Tucker and Spooner. I put a source there just to be sure, and I have more sources if anyone needs them.Anarcho-capitalism 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. 7 I moved that out of there to another section because it's already stated in that section that the 19th century individualists anarchists thought that competition in a free market would make it impossible to profit.Anarcho-capitalism 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. 8 I deleted what I moved to that section in the step above, because this section is not for that kind of information. Again, it's already talked about that the 19th century individualists thought profit couldn't happen, so it's just redundant.Anarcho-capitalism 23:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. 9 It's true that profit is not defined in mainstream economics as individuals receiving less pay than the labor theory of value says that they should receive. That's not there anymore anyway. I took it out because it's not necessary.Anarcho-capitalism 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please demonstrate, moreover, that the yellow and black flag is a mainstream representation of anarcho-capitalism, or else it will be removed. -- WGee 22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it is or not. I didn't put it there.Anarcho-capitalism 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A characteristic of a problem editor: "You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it." (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing) So please roll-back your edits and justify them on this talk page first, or else I will have to report you to the administration for violating offical policy. -- WGee 05:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't violated any policies. I cite my additions. So, report away.Anarcho-capitalism 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. -- WGee 07:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate it.Anarcho-capitalism 07:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like the flag there than take it out. I thought someone had a source for it. Like I said, I didn't put it there, and I don't care whether it's there or not. But don't take out my sourced additions, and don't put back in unsourced comments that I removed.Anarcho-capitalism 05:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to remove the POV banner soon. User:Anarcho-capitalism appears to have sufficiently justified his changes. MrVoluntarist 12:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned with User:WGee's actions though. In general, you do not have to justify your edits on the talk page before making changes. And just putting someone on AN/I is totally uncalled for here. Intangible 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank Kev or Aaron (whoever WGee is) for growing up and removing the tag. MrVoluntarist 14:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither Kevin nor Aaron; and please refrain from making personal attacks (i.e., thanking people for "growing up"). Anarcho-capitalism is required to discuss his edits and formulate a consensus before making contributions; the involved editors must mutually agree on what information should be inserted into the article, or else seek a form of dispute resolution. By the way, I still dispute the article's neutrality. -- WGee 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL!!!! I said "Kev", not "Kevin", genius. How did you know "Kev" was short for "Kevin", rather than, I don't know, "Kevehs" (the original name I've known him by)?
And I stand by saying that you "grew up". Putting an POV tag on without, you know, explaining what's POV so people can fix it is childish. Moving from childish acts to non-childish acts is "growing up". Get it?
Funny! Sorry, but if you'd actually take the time to read this thread rather than spew insults (which is very childish—how ironic!), you would know that I have explained which of Anarcho-capitalism's violate WP:NPOV. -- WGee 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You have listed. You have not explained. See below, Kev/Aaron. MrVoluntarist 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Intangible -- you don't always have to justify changes on the talk page. Major changes, esp. deletions, sure, but I'm not impressed by charges that someone edited without discussing on the talk page. MrVoluntarist 17:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read this discussion page thoroughly; otherwise, you would know that Anarcho-capitalism did not discuss any of his recent contributions in advance, yet he demands that I discuss my deletions. That's ridiculous, illogical, and contrary to policy. Controversial edits, especially in such a controversial article, must be discussed before they are inserted; that is the basis of WP:CONSENSUS. "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it." (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing) -- WGee 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I obviously have read the talk page, and I obviously made those comments with the content of the talk page in mind. You listed what you thought were POV edits. You didn't give a reason they were POV. And I don't see how they were major enough to justify discussing before editing. Plus, the little quote you dug out on the false suspicion it helped justify your position is irrelevant: the fact that he has to defend the change doesn't mean he has to post on the talk page before making it. That's not how Wikipedia works. MrVoluntarist 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't need your permission to edit the article. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I need your permission before I make any changes to the article. Who do you think you are?Anarcho-capitalism 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. "Anarcho-capitalism is required to discuss his edits and formulate a consensus before making contributions" Are you required to discuss your edits and formulate a consensus before making contributions as well? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Intangible 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Intangible. WGee, I would like you to point to the Wikipedia policy that says an editor needs to gain consensus before making edits. Can you point to the exact policy please? I find your activity here highly disruptive, WGee. Especially in the light of this edit:
[10] "You might want to take a look at this article. The lead, in particular, has been gradually POV'd by anarcho-capitalists. I think another FAR is in order; perhaps I can start one this weekend, unless you beat me to it. -- WGee 22:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)"
It looks like you are only here to cause trouble, WGee. This is the worst kind of pov pushing I've seen. Doctors without suspenders 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice of you to drop by TheWolfstar/Maggie/Lingeron/WhiskeyRebellion/etc. It's only a matter of time until you are banned again; your removing those banners will only speed up the process by making your disruptions more conspicuous. -- WGee 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm the one being disruptive here. And consensus seems to be against you, Blockader, AaronS, Kevehs, WGee, BlahBlahblah,etc. Doctors without suspenders 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you honestly suggesting that we're all the same person? -- WGee 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted several instances of the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby violating WP:NPOV: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Also, most of your edits are either verbose; redundant; written in an unencyclopedic, informal tone; and syntactically incorrect and awkward. I will, therefore, insert a "cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet you still claim that I haven't explained my concerns. If my explanation is not to your satisfaction, that's too bad. The banner says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Do you think that you have the perogative to decide whether or not I'm disputing the neutrality of the article? Thus, if any one of you removes the banner again, I will report you to the administration. -- WGee 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I gave the reasons for those edits above. I even numbered them for you. You haven't rebutted my reasons for those edits. Report me to administration all you want. I'm not doing anything wrong. You are. Either explain your reasons for disputing my edits or don't put a tag on the article. Just putting a tag on the article solves nothing if you're not going to explain yourself. About the cleanup banner, I already "cleaned up" things, so I took the tag off. What more cleaning up do you want? Can you point out any specific sentences that needs "cleaning up." Any "cleaning up" I do, you revert. What you're doing here is totally irrational.Anarcho-capitalism 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would I waste my time by rebutting your reasons? You never moderated your position in the past, and the article is now comandeered by sympathizers to anarcho-capitalism, who form the majority of the involved editors right now. I'm just warning people that I dispute the neutrality of the article, as I'm entitled to do. I cannot even attempt to resolve this problem because you refuse to compromise and you refuse to discuss your edits in advance; moreover, my earlier attempts to effect neutrality have been reverted on sight. -- WGee 03:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Your first complaint was that I edited the article without getting your permission. None of us need to get your permission before editing the article. Who do you think you are? I don't need to discuss my edits in advance. It's perfectly legal to discuss them afterwards if anyone happens to question them. After pressing you to explain if you had any complaints about the edits themselves, instead of just being upset that I edited the article without your prior permission, you came up with a few complaints about some specific edits. I explained the reasons for them, and you haven't explained any disagreement with those reasons. You claim here that I won't "compromise." Compromise what exactly? I'm here asking what you think is wrong with my edits, so that if you're right then they can be fixed. You don't seem to be willing to engage in any real discussion of the issues. But, then you go complaining to adminstrators that I won't discuss my edits which is not true. The reverse is true. You don't want to discuss your deletions and my edits. Here I am, and here I've been waiting to discuss, but you won't do it. Instead of discussing the issues, you stick a NPOV tag on the article. You put a "cleanup" tag on the article, but then why I "clean up" you revert that as well. Either you want the article "cleaned up" or you don't. Which is it? You're being irrational.Anarcho-capitalism 03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm being perfectly rational: I refuse to argue endlessly with an editor who has a history of intransigence and ignorance of my opinions. Since we can't come to an agreement amongst ourselves, some form of third-party dispute resolution is in order; but you've refused mediation. Thus, the only remaining option is to open an arbitration case, as recommended by administrator Daniel Bryant. -- WGee 03:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Then don't ever claim again to administrators that I refuse to discuss my edits. What's really happening is you don't want to take the time to discuss. And, yes I do refuse mediation. I refuse arbitration as well. I've done nothing wrong. Rather, some kind of action needs to be taken against you by administrators for being so disruptive.Anarcho-capitalism 03:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I said that you refuse to discuss your edits in advance, which is an integral part of WP:CONSENSUS. And by accepting mediation, you are not admitting that you are doing something wrong; you are admitting that there is a dispute that needs to be resolved. Arbitration is compulsory, by the way; if you are notified of the case but refuse to defend yourself, you may be blocked or lose your case by default. -- WGee 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no such rule that anyone has to talk about their edits before they make them. Talking about them afterwards is fine. Go ahead and try arbitration then. I can't imagine any administrator taking what you're saying seriously. Humor me.Anarcho-capitalism 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If you would have payed attention, an administrator, Daniel Bryant, actually recommended arbitration. And I'm sure there are several editors who would attest to your disruptive behaviour. Further, the core of WP:CONSENSUS is that editors must come to a consensus as to what information should be included in an article and how; that logically requires preemptive discussion. -- WGee 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, WGee, I don't know what your problem is. The consensus seems to be that Anarcho-capitalism's edits are just fine. You are the one who is going against consensus. He has tried repeatedly to discuss what your problem is with his edits and you refuse to state one damned thing. You are acting irrationally - he's right. You are only here to cause trouble with this article because you don't agree with it's phiosophy. That much is clear. I suggest that you might benefit from psychiatric help, WGee. Jesus, you're only 16 years old and you're acting like a mean cynical old man. Get some help before it's too late. Doctors without suspenders 05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that explains a lot.Anarcho-capitalism 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

What's the TAG for? The article doesn't seem to be POV. Just putting a POV tag to a FA without explanation on the talk page is bordering on vandalism. Intangible 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. WGee is threatening to report any of us who dare to remove the tag to the administrators. Yet he won't say what his specific objections are. Doctors without suspenders 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have listed and explained my objections, as both of you know:

Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted several instances of the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby violating WP:NPOV: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Also, most of your edits are either verbose; redundant; written in an unencyclopedic, informal tone; and syntactically incorrect and awkward. I will, therefore, insert a "cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive, especially you, Intangible. You're very close to being reported for violating the terms of your probation. -- WGee 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but it seems that those sources where from highly partisan writers. There are enough credible neutral sources saying that individual anarchist are in favor of free markets. Somehow Ward takes the marginal view that somehow this not the case. The only POV comes from Ward being used as reference here, for saying individualist anarchists don't believe in free markets. Please Comment on content, not on the contributor. Intangible 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I responded to his objections but he hasn't responded back. As he said above, he refuses to. He'd rather just put a POV banner on the article. Again, the reason I removed the Ward source is because there was no page number to verify it. I have the book and I don't see him saying anywhere that capitalism isn't a free market. Why would he? Capitalism is defined as being a free market.Anarcho-capitalism 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you should have just removed that one clause rather than the whole thing. But it seems that you will use any excuse to delete the anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the rest of the sentence was wrong too. Not all of the 19th century individualists were mutualists. Secondly, because there was no page number. I would think a featured article should be of high quality, which would include the sources having page numbers. I don't know what you're talking by saying I'm deleting an anarchist viewpoint.Anarcho-capitalism 15:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what he means by deleting an anarchist viewpoint either. I'm an anarchist and I don't have that viewpoint. WGee is not an anarchist and yet he claims to know what anarchist viewpoints are. Doctors without suspenders 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
But do you have a source, anarcho-capitalism, saying that individualist anarchists did not "mistrust capitalism"? If so, that would still not be a legitimate reason to delete the source; you should merely juxtapose the two. Moreover, that there is no page number does not make the reference invalid or nonexistent. The proper solution, rather than deletion, would be to ask the editor who originally inserted the reference to reveal the page number. -- WGee 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
What does "mistrust capitalism" mean? I don't know what it means, and I doubt anyone else does either. All in all it was a meaningless sentence. Again, I have that book and there are only a few pages devoted to anarcho-capitalistm, what that sentence said is just not in there. As I said, it's already explained what the difference is between 19th century form and the anarcho-capitalist form of individualist anarchism. I actually rewrote much of that section in order to clarify what the difference is. You know, I find it really strange that you're condemning me from removing a sentence that was incoherent and was not sourced properly, but then you deleted my well-cited edits in your massive reversion. So, let me ask you, why did you delete, for example, this sentence: "The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants." (Razeen, Sally. Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History, Routledge (UK) ISBN 0-415-16493-1, 1998, p. 17)??? Any other reason besides I didn't get your permission first to put it in the article? Anarcho-capitalism 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Image

Whatever happened to the opening image with the dollar/yin-yang? The top part of the article looks extremely dry and would benefit from the image's return. -- WillMagic 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


The protection tag reads This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.) Aren't we supposed to be resolving this issue now? If we don't resolve it the article will just stay protected..right? Doctors without suspenders 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. It's been very difficult to get WGee to respond above, and he's the only one disputing anything.Anarcho-capitalism 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe he's satisfied and that's why he hasn't responded.Anarcho-capitalism 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is bullshit. Complain about it..get the page protected..then walk away with no attempt to resolve the issue..whatever the heck that is. Doctors without suspenders 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've given up dealing with you myself because you are being so intransigent, disruptive, and tendentious. Thus, the only way for this dispute to be resolved is through arbitration, as I've said before. I will no longer waste my time unfruitfully debating with you. -- WGee 03:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unlocking this page, as five days on full protection is simply not warranted (and besides, the irony of locking down an anarchy page.... but I digress). You can arbitrate the issue, but in the interim, I'm going to make a stab at moderating this. Discuss all significant changes here on the talk page, rather than edit-warring. All additions of new substantive content need sources, of course. Readysetgo. JDoorjam Talk 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to moderate this dispute, but I'm going to have to take a break from this article for a while. I'm very busy in real life and don't have time to become entrenched in such lengthy disputes; plus, I believe I can be more productive elsewhere, where I don't have to deal with disruptive editors. I'll check back once in a while, though, to make sure that the POV tag is still there and to monitor the article's progress.
What triggered the protection (the straw that broke the camel's back) was Anarcho-capitalism' persistent removal of the POV tag. It is nobody's prerogative but mine to say whether or not I dispute the article's neutrality. All that is required in good faith is that I justifiy my reasons for disputing that article's neutrality, as I did. My reasons do not have to meet two editors' definitions of "good" or "legitimate" in order for the tag to remain. As I've said, I'll monitor the article's progress intermittently to see if the POV problems have been corrected, but, in the meantime, the tag should remain as a warning to newcomers.
-- WGee 04:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, disagreeing with the neutrality of an article is actually not sufficient for maintaining an NPOV tag on the page. Actively discussing disagreement is necessary, but not sufficient, for keeping the banner on the page. You need to make a good-faith attempt at reach consensus on this article. If you cannot or will not engage in discussion, and no one else disputes the neutrality of the article, the article is no longer disputed, and the tag ought come down. There must be discussion, give and take, etc., on ways to move the article to neutrality — positive forward motion, and if you're not here, there can't be any! JDoorjam Talk 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Further, WGee has presented no actual passages that he recommends fixes to in order to move towards neutrality. Given this and his continued unwillingness to debate the topic, I have removed the NPOV tag. --WillMagic 10:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got the wrong person. I might have removed the POV banner in a revert inadvertantly when you reverted a large number of edits to the article, but other than I didn't remove the POV banner. I was trying to discuss any problems you had with the article because you put a POV tag there and was content to leave it there while we were discussing, but you weren't able or weren't willing to take the time to discuss. But, JDoorjam is correct above. You can't just stick a POV banner on an article and walk away. If you're the only one that has disputed anything then you need to actually dispute. You need to take the time to discuss any POV issues, so that if they are real, they can be remedied.Anarcho-capitalism 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

-- 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

anarchist symbol

I've removed the "anarchist symbol." Although the intro might seem dull like that, I don't this one was particularly neutral or even much used among ancaps. I like the amagi symbol instead, but its use is too prominently linked to Liberty Fund, alas. Intangible 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it either. I think it's ridiculous to associate anarcho-capitalism with the ying yang.Anarcho-capitalism 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Said symbol always seemed anti-anarcho-capitalist, as it includes the symbol for the dollar, which is a state-sponsored fiat currency. Silver or gold maybe, but never the dollar. -- RayBirks 16:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs)

A conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment all you want, but you're not going to be able to get me kicked off Wikipedia because I haven't committed any of the crimes you and your anti-capitalist cohorts have claimed.Anarcho-capitalism 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
IMO this is ridiculous. He's a solid editor of this page, and it seems like WGee et al. have something of a vendetta against him. --WillMagic 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-Capitalism believes in an oxymoron he should read some Proudhon or Bakunin if he wants to see what real anarchy not fake in other words capitalist anarchy

market anarchism =

I copy-pasted the article on market anarchism here, with a redirect on the original page, because the concepts are too related to warrant their own entries. -- 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Though most market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, not all are. So I'm not sure that should be directed here. Those contents you put in certainly don't need to be here.Anarcho-capitalism 01:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Then you must restore also the old version of Market anarchism see: --NimNick 09:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Anarcho-capitalism: market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are definitely not synonymous. Market anarchism, or free market anarchism, is a much more broadly used term and includes mutualist anarchist thought such as put forward by Proudhon and contemporary Kevin Carson as well as individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and contemporary Wendy McElroy. Market anarchism is a label encompassing different thought traditions, which have in common their understanding and advocacy of the free market--both as a means for equality, justice, and freedom, and an end (anarchism). I mentioned this point, which I find extremely valid and important, on the talk page for market anarchism as well, but it seems it was disregarded. Per Bylund

NPOV issue?

"...they believe the only just way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud." in the introductory section, may not be NPOV. Anarcho-capitalism advocates acquisition of property only through the free market in the ways listed; this sentence makes all other ways of acquiring property that may not fall under this definition seem synonomous with "aggression" or "fraud". Since this is controversial, are any users willing to comment on or dispute this before changing it? The NPOV tag should not be necessary. --Sgutkind 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say... But Anarcho-capitalists see no moral justified way to aquire property but through volountary means or homesteading. The whole idea is built on property which stems from self-ownership. Any initiation of force which includes of course such natural aggresions such as tresspassing, stealing or damageing someone else's property is wrong and a obvious violation of property rights and hence self-defense against such agression is justified. I don't see any NPOV sign and I have a hard time remembering it ever being a controversy. Lord Metroid 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)