Re: Anarcho-capitalism

6 Sep 2022

      Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 16
...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Anarcho-capitalism
Jump to navigation Jump to search
   This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents
of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old
one, please do so on the current talk page.
...
From the Dictionary of Marxist Thought (1992): "Although anarchism
rests on liberal intellectual foundations, notably the distinction
between state and society, the protean character of the doctrine makes
it difficult to disinguish clearly different schools of anarchist
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Jul 06 and Aug 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 17. Thank
you. --Rosicrucian 23:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contents

    1 Concerns about the lead
    2 Introductory paragraph
    3 Anarchism or Libertarianism?
    4 POV and OR
        4.1 Other-language Wikipedias
    5 Medieval Iceland
    6 Topheavy
    7 Improper Citations
    8 The sockpuppet straw-man
    9 citecheck
    10 medieval iceland
    11 Archived
    12 Lead sentence
    13 Lead paragraph
    14 My revert
    15 Modern Somalia
    16 Sidebars
    17 Templates
    18 Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit
        18.1 split1
        18.2 split2
        18.3 split3
        18.4 Can we stop joking around?
    19 First paragraph of intro
    20 Mediation
    21 Taking a break
    22 Stylistics

Concerns about the lead

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of
individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion
and fraud.

    Laissez-faire capitalism is arguably the most important aspect of
anarcho-capitalism (hence the existence of the term capitalism in the
name), so why is there no mention of laissez-faire capitalism in this
defining sentence? Why do I have to wait until the middle of the
paragraph to see a mention of capitalism? Moreover, I would like
someone to tell me the specific source(s) from which this definition
is dervied (in particular, the clause about "initiatory coercion and
fraud"); otherwise, there is no way for me to verify it and I will
have no other choice but to consider it original research. -- WGee
02:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary
exchange...a free market. Some people define capitalism in other ways.
I agree it needs a more definitional type intro sentence. Here is one
from a source: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime
tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention,
can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by
the state, including systems of justice and national defense.
Anarcho-capitalists believe that a system of private property based on
individual rights is the only moral system - a system that implies a
free market, or total voluntarism, in all transactions. (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.
(Article is a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an
anarcho-capitalist.)) TheIndividualist 02:19, 29 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph

I read the introductory paragraph three times, and I am still rather
confused at the exact definition of anarcho-capitalism. There needs to
be a solid definition, not the bs™ that's there now -
"Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea
of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory
coercion and fraud." - well it's interesting it's based on that, but
what is it? "Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising
from the right to non-coercively acquired private property and an
unlimited right of contract between individuals." - That doesn't help
define anarcho-capitalism either, and some individuals may encounter
difficulty even comprehending that sentence at all. In fact, this
entire article should be cut down and simplified a bit, and could
someone insert a solid definition into the first 2 sentences?
+Hexagon1 (t) 05:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I put a first sentence definition in there.
"Anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism that proposes
that all goods and services, including defense of liberty and
property, should be supplied in a free market rather than by the
state." TheIndividualist 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        That's a highly contentious claim. I removed it. --AaronS
15:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Yeah, looking like if you call Anarcho-capitalism a form
of anarchism, you get folks coming out of the woodwork. Wild stuff,
and this seems to be one of those topics that engenders a lot of
strong opinions.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            The sentence that is there now sounds about right -
Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls
for the abolition of the state and the coordinatation of all functions
of society, including justice and national defence, by the free
market.. It's a definition, at the least. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:51, 30 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism or Libertarianism?

While I can certainly see a case made for either, isn't two sidebars a
bit much? Unless we can move one of them down so they both occupy the
same space on the right, it really clutters up the article layout.
Personally I'd say Anarcho-capitalism has more in common with the
articles in the Anarchism series (particularly Anarcho-syndicalism)
than with articles in the Libertarianism series.--Rosicrucian 14:48,
29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and I just visited Template talk:Anarchism and figured out what
a can of worms I just opened. Wow. Guess this will have to wait until
the template debate is over (if ever).--Rosicrucian 15:05, 29 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that two sidebars is too much, but I haven't removed
either for the very reason you listed. They could at least be put one
after the other rather than side-by-side. I will try that, hopefully
it won't ignite passions. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:00, 29 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

        Layout looks much improved as a result. I suppose we could
have some contention over which one to put first, but I do hope we can
all agree that the new layout makes the overall article more
readable.--Rosicrucian 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            It certainly does, and I dearly hope we don't start
arguing about which comes first. That would be quite silly. =)
--AaronS 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Of course, the research is proving bewildering. Every
time I delve further and come closer to saying "okay, this is closer
to anarchism" or "okay, this is closer to libertarianism" I find
another passage that swings me the other way. Certainly Rothbard
believed this to be an anarchist philosophy, but so many of the ideals
involved are libertarian in nature, and it certainly doesn't clear
things up to find that the man also practically codified what we now
identify as libertarianism in the modern sense. Until I can wrap my
head around this better any edits and suggestions I make will be
procedural and layout oriented rather than
content-oriented.--Rosicrucian 21:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    That makes sense. One of the difficulties with
these articles is that it does require a lot of background knowledge.
I admit that my own understanding of all of the different anarchist
philosophies is elementary at best. --AaronS 21:33, 29 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

POV and OR

I added the tags, due to TheIndividualist's most recent edit. That
anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism is a highly
contentious claim that does not belong in the article lead. It's also
an example of WP:OR, becuase it's introducing a new synthesis of ideas
into Wikipedia. Further, the MS Encarta source is misattributed.
Finally, that "some people view it that way" is not enough
justification for it to be in the article lead; those are weasel
words. Please stop reverting. Thanks. --AaronS 16:41, 29 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    Saying "some regard as a form of individualist anarchism" is not
"weasel words" if they are sourced, which they are. It is a true and
indisputable statement that anarcho-capitalism is "considered by some
to be a form of individualist anarchism." Your complaint is off the
chain. TheIndividualist 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Off the chain? I'm not quite sure what that means. Read the
guidelines on weasel words. Sources can be found to justify just about
anything (especially primary sources). A while back, on
Talk:Anarchism, I showed how one could make Karl Marx look like an
anarchist simply by selectively citing the Communist Manifesto.
Whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism
is already discussed in anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. That's where
the discussion belongs. It certainly does not belong in the lead of
the article. --AaronS 20:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Aaron is saying that those statements don't belong in the
intro, i agree. they certianly should be included elsewhere, however.
Blockader 19:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                And certainly they are included elsewhere in the
article, complete with citation. Given that it is under dispute, it
certainly shouldn't be in the first sentence as that will only give
casual readers the wrong impression. The link between
anarcho-capitalism and individualism is not core to the definition of
the term, and thus should be left for later in the article where the
nuances of it can be properly explained.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 29 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Exactly. The core to the definition of the term is
that it is an anti-statist free market philosophy. Why not use that as
the lead, instead? Anarcho-capitalism might trumpet individualism, but
that doesn't make it individualist anarchism, because individualist
anarchism is its own philosophy with its own history and its own
sphere of influence, and so on. "Individualist anarchism" isn't just
an adjective-noun grouping -- it's a complete term, denoting a
philosophy. --AaronS 21:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        You are wrong. Individualist anarchism is a
broad school of anarchism. All individualist forms of anarchism are
individualist anarchism. Common sense. Individualist anarchism is not
a defined philosophy other than being an individualist form of
anarchism. Every individualist anarchist has his own idiosyncratic
philosophy. And there is not just one source but many sources.
TheIndividualist 23:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        Rothbard, who coined the term
"anarcho-capitalism," said that he wasn't an individualist anarchist.
Anarcho-capitalism may be individualistic, and it might possibly be
anarchism, but it is not individualist anarchism. --AaronS 01:16, 30
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                You're missing the point. What the
others are saying is that it doesn't belong in the lead sentence,
firstly because it is a highly contentious statement that makes use of
weasel words to create the illusion of neutrality, and secondly
because it is not the defining tenet of anarcho-capitalism. Keep the
defining sentence simple and concise, then explain these complex
nuances later, and in much more detail. To say that it is an
"individualist philosophy" is sufficient enough for the lead sentence.
However, are there any non-partisan, reputable sources to attest to
the assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a "philosophy"? If multiple
sources are not provided, we should change "philosophy" to "ideology".
                                Moreover, your edits did make use of
weasel words, which Wikipedia editors should avoid. You cannot say the
article "exemplifies our very best work" while it violates Wikipedia
guidelines in the first sentence.
                                -- WGee 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Yep. --AaronS 01:16, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

I changed the lead to this: Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist
economic and political philosophy that calls for the abolition of the
state, so that all goods and services, including defense of liberty
and property, may be supplied in a free market. It can probably be
improved, so tweak it as much as you want. I also removed the {{POV}}
and {{OR}} tags. --AaronS 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other-language Wikipedias

Non-English Wikipedias seem to place anarcho-capitalism within the
rubric of liberalism or libertarianism, not anarchism. See the
[Spanish article], for instance. The French Wikipedia places it in its
series on libertarianism. Its lead is: L'anarcho-capitalisme est une
théorie de la liberté. Combinaison du libéralisme et de
l'individualisme, c'est une philosophie du droit basée sur le principe
de non-agression. Rough translation: Anarcho-capitalism is a theory of
liberty. A combination of libertarianism and individualism, it is a
right-wing philosophy based upon the non-aggression principle. There
seems to be quite a disparity, here. --AaronS 02:07, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    Indeed there is a disparity. If people wish to assert as fact that
anarcho-capitalism is a strand of anarchism, they must support that
assertion with several reputable, authoritative sources. Saying that
anarcho-capitalism is a school of anarchism is to say that libertarian
socialism is a genre of libertarianism, an assertion that virtually
all political scientists rebuff. The two ideologies may share their
desire for utter liberty, but they fundamentally disagree about what
"liberty" should entail, or how to achieve this ideal. Ignore the
semantics of the term for a moment and ask yourself: Does
anarcho-capitalism share more in common with the pro-capitalist,
state-weary ideologies of libertarianism or with the anti-capitalist
ideologies of anarchism? The answer, I think, is clear. The fervently
capitalist ideals of anarcho-capitalism simply aren't compatible with
the vehemently anti-capitalist ideologies that comprise anarchism. --
WGee 02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm still mulling it over myself. The originator calls it
anarchism, and it calls for the abolition of the state which is a
common thread throughout anarchistic philosophies. Its notions on
government as a coercive control shew very closely to other anarchy
movements.

        However economically it walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck and the originator is one of the core theorists behind what
modern political scientists recognize as libertarianism. He also does
very little to distinguish it from his theories and musing on
libertarianism, and many of the American Libertarian Party claim to be
anarcho-capitalists.

        It's a damnably fuzzy line to me.--Rosicrucian 02:41, 30 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Well, the ideology of "anarcho-capitalism" is a relatively
new one. Although it derives ideas from ideologies that have existed
for centuries, it is fundamentally new in its organization of these
ideas. Usually it is the independent political science community who,
some time later, classifies an ideology; but here it is the
anarcho-capitalists who are classifying their own ideology right now.
The question in my mind is: how can and why would the creators of
anarcho-capitalism justifiably place it in a category comprised of
ardently anti-capitalist ideologies? Anarcho-capitalism is despised by
the anarchists and anti-capitalist anarchism by anarcho-capitalists,
so it does not make sense to try to unite the two under the same
category. The only connection between them is their support for the
abolition of the state.

            But does anarcho-capitalism's contempt for the state make
it an anarchist ideology? I don't think so. Anarchism, in its general
semantical meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are
undesirable and should be abolished. However, in its historical and
political meaning (which is what we should be discussing), anarchism
not only supports the abolition of the state, but full social,
economic, and political equality, as well. The first self-declared
anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, abhorred capitalism as a source of
hierarchy and oppression, and that tradition continued in the dominate
anarchist writers who superceded him, including Kropotkin and Bakunin.
That political tradition does not change merely because of some
20th-century anarcho-capitalists who wish to become members of the
anarchist clan.

            -- WGee 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                You're wrong that all anarchism is about equality.
Individualist anarchists do not aim for equality other than equal
rights. Equal wealth is out of the question. Only anarcho-communists
want equal wealth distribution. TheIndividualist

                    You seem to be ignoring my main points, though—
one of which is that, throughout history, the dominate contributors to
anarchism and the overwhelming majority of anarchists were
anti-capitalist, even the individualist ones (though not necessarily
anti-market or communistic). In fact, no capitalist strand of
"anarchism" has ever existed, except since the 20th century in the
form of questionably-named anarcho-capitalism. It does not make sense
to dump anarcho-capitalism into a sea of vehemently anti-capitalist
ideologies; the historical precedent doesn't allow it. -- WGee 04:24,
30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        The historical precedent has already been
made. Anarcho-capitalism has been around for quite a long time
now...since the 1960's I think. The anti-capitalist individualist
anarchists (meaning anti-profit) were around first then the communism
anarchism showed up. The anti-individualist anarchists denied that it
was a form of anarchism because the communists wanted to abolish
private property, money, and markets. Then in the 1960's another new
form of anarchism showed up...anarcho-capitalism and of course there's
going to be anarchists denying it is "true anarchism." The
anarcho-capitalists are also individualist anarchists but they don't
think profit is exploitative. There's simply smarter individualist
anarchists than the anti-capitalist individualist anarchists because
of advances in economics. No serious economist today considers the
labor theory of value as valid. Because one painting takes more labor
to create than another, you're exploiting one of the painters unless
you pay them equal price for their paintings. Come on. Just because
you don't oppose profit it doesn't mean you're not an anarchist.
TheIndividualist 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        A historical precedent from the 1960's can't
really be compared to the historical precendent set by Proudhon in
1840. But lets not incite political debate and begin to denounce or
exhalt ideologies; that's just counterproductive and detracts from the
improvement of the article. Central to this whole thread is that the
assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism is disputed
(evidenced by the foreign language Wikipedias), and that any sources
asserting such a fact should be presented with this circumstance in
mind. Another central principle, true of any article, is that hefty
assertions require hefty sources; I don't believe your sources are
"hefty" or reputable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Let's use
them elsewhere, where the controversy can be discussed in detail. Do
you agree? -- WGee 05:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            It doesn't matter what the foreign
language Wikipedias say if they're not sourced. As you know anyone can
write anything they want in Wikipedia unless someone is making sure
everything is sourced. And no I do not agree that my sources are not
reputable enough to merit inclusion in the lead. Need a peer-reviewed
journal? Here you go: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism...contemporary anarcho-capitalists are descendants of
nineteenth-century individualist anarchists such as Josiah Warren,
Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Tucker" -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. (Article is a criticism of
anarcho-capitalism. Brown is not an anarcho-capitalist.) You cannot
get any more reputable than a peer-reviewed journal. Not only that but
the author is a critic of anarcho-capitalism. TheIndividualist 05:40,
30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Nonetheless, that is a hotly
disputed assertion evidently, and therefore should only be mentioned
in appropriate context, not as a mere one-clause weasel phrase. If we
were to state anything in the lead, it should be something to the
effect of: "Anti-capitalist anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and
political scientists frequently disagree as to whether or not
anarcho-capitalism is a subset of the broader anarchist movement." The
controversy has to be adequately documented. -- WGee 05:55, 30 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                History, through the writings of virtually all
self-declared and important anarchists to date, shows us that
anarchism is an ideology dedicated to aboloshing all forms of
hierarchy and coercion, including capitalism. It shows us that
anti-capitalist anarchism is the only form of anarchism to have really
existed, or at least the overwhelmingly dominate one. Any ideology
that espouses capitalism is therefore incompatible with this
historical precedent and should not be classified alongside the
egalitarian ideologies of anarchism. -- WGee 03:35, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                    It's patently false that anarchism is opposed to
all forms of coercion. Defensive coercion is fine. Even initiatory
coercion is fine for some such as anarcho-communists like Johann Most
who advocated terrorism. There is nothing that makes something
anarchism other than opposition to the state. TheIndividualist 03:53,
30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        That's not true, either, though. --AaronS
03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't anarchism it wouldnt have the prefix "anarcho" attached.
"There are several recognized varieties of anarchism, among them:
individualistic anarchisms, anarcho-capitalisms, anarcho-communisms,
mutualisms, anarcho-syndicalisms, libertarian socialisms, social
anarchists and now eco-anarchisms." -Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A
Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert
E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231.
TheIndividualist 03:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No offence intended, but that is a rather lame rebuttal to what
I've written. The semantical meaning of the term is irrelevant as I
have stated, nevermind that it was developed by 20th-century
anarcho-capitalists who have their own obvious biases. A reductio ad
absurdum easily nullifies your inference: if political classifications
were based solely on semantics, I could develop a communistic ideology
called "communo-capitalism" and correctly declare it a subset of
capitalism, even though it is actually contrary to capitalism. Absurd,
isn't it? Thus, the semantical meaning of the term, and essentially
the term itself, is irrelevant; what matters is its political and
historical similarity to anarchism, of which virtually none exists. --
WGee 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        The "rebuttal" was a quote from a mainstream political
philosophy source. You can argue until the cows come home but
mainstream sources consider it a form of anarchism and Wikipedia is
about sourced information, not your personal ideas. TheIndividualist
03:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                (Actually, your rebuttal didn't contain the quote when
I first commented; you added it later.) -- WGee 04:02, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

            Chill about a bit, there, dude. I wouldn't say mainstream
sources, but perhaps a mainstream source. --AaronS 03:57, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

        Anybody can right a book and assert a fact; what we need here
are well-established, highly-esteemed, reputable sources. Hefty
assertions require hefty sources, and a reference to a few unnotable
authors is not sufficient. Interestingly enough, I could probably find
various analyses of anarcho-capitalism which distance the ideology
from anarchism. -- WGee 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            The only writers you're going to find saying
anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is anti-capitalist writers. No
surprise there. TheIndividualist 04:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                On the Internet, perhaps, but not necessarily in
libraries. Unfortunately, though, I don't have access to such a
comprehensive library as you do, and am therefore not able to conduct
any meaningful bibilographical research right now. That does not mean
that your sources deserve mention in the lead (which would be an
instance of allocating undue weight to them), nor does it imply that
opposing views don't exist. Your suggestions that your sources are
mainstream are moot. -- WGee 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Another problem is that, because
anarcho-capitalism is a relatively new and absolutely uninfluential
ideology, there is not much disscussion of it amongst the more
reputable, well-known sectors of academia. Accordingly, it is
difficult to say that any source is "mainstream", as a mainstream
opinion on anarcho-capitalism doesn't really exist. -- WGee 04:10, 30
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        And collectivist forms of anarchism are
influential? I look around and a see the world becoming more and more
capitalist and away from communism...not the other way around. I am
not saying anarcho-capitalism is influencing this but to say other
forms of anarchism are influential is ridiculous. They are becoming
increasingly obscure by the minute and no one cares. TheIndividualist
04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I find that most general sources on anarchism don't even
mention anarcho-capitalism at all. --AaronS 04:13, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, unless you can find mainstream sources (non-rabid
anti-capitalist) that say anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism your
argument is just personal opinion and doesnt really matter for the
article. There are plenty of mainstream references that say that it
is. TheIndividualist 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit. Anyways, that
doesn't make much sense. The positive claim is that anarcho-capitalism
is considered to be a form of anarchism. Therefore, the burden of
proof is on you. You feel that you have provided that proof, whereas
others do not. If I wanted to show that anarcho-capitalism was not
considered to be a form of anarchism, I could let silence speak louder
than words. But, in this case, all anybody really needs to do is show
the myriad of "mainstream" sources on political philosophy that
include anarchism but do not mention anarcho-capitalism at all.
--AaronS 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        How many sources do you require saying that anarcho-capitalism
is a form of anarchism? TheIndividualist 04:40, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

Although you're right that my argument in thus far personal opinion,
it is intended to note that the insertion of a reference to anarchism
in the lead is an ill-conceived and conentious idea. My argument is
relevant to the use and placement of sources in this article, and so
does matter some. It's not as though I'm not trying to insert any
original research into the article.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily have to find a source which states
that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism. As Aaron point out, the fact
that many writings on anarchism don't even allude to
anarcho-capitalism is evidence enough that its classification as a
school of anarchism is contestable. And as I've said before, your
interpretation of what is "mainstream" is moot.

-- WGee 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Any text that about anarchism that doesn't mention
anarcho-capitalism is simply not an exhaustive source on anarchism.
There are LOTS of texts about anarchism that aside from not mentioning
anarcho-capitalism don't even mention individualist anarchism but that
doesn't mean individalist anarchism is not anarchism. It just means
that it's not a through text on anarchism. TheIndividualist 04:57, 30
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Any text that about anarchism that doesn't mention
anarcho-capitalism is simply not an exhaustive source on anarchism.
Yet there are several comprehensive sources that are exhaustive lists.
And when those non-exhaustive lists exclude anarcho-capitalism, it may
very well be because it has not been intellectually influential enough
throughout history to deserve mention.
        That brings me to my next point: when I spoke of influence, I
meant intellectual influence throughout history (although several
examples of anarchism in practice have been documented by academics).
Anti-capitalist anarchism has dominated anarchist intellectual
thought, insofar as to constitute the only credible, historical form
of anarchism. Out of all of the important anarchist theorists, none of
them claimed to be or are widely considered to be pro-capitalist. Its
this historical precedent, as I've stated before, that makes the
classifcation of anarcho-capitalism as "anarchist" hotly contested. --
WGee 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            I agree with Aaron that you should tone town the rhetoric,
some of which I consider incivil and all of which I consider
unnecessary. I'm not trying to insert original research into the
article, as you insinuate; I'm simply suggesting, through my argument,
a more enlightened placement, use of, and labelling of references
which consider anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism. Of course your
sources aren't irrelevant; my underlying point is that they are highly
contenstable and should therefore be presented as highly contestable.

            Remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground; Aaron and I
are not acting as POV warriors, and niether are you, I assume.
Likewise, remember to assume good faith; in other words, assume that
our intentions are to improve the encyclopedia, not harm it. Once that
mentality prevails, rather than the "us versus them" mentality, the
editing process will flow much more smoothly.

        -- WGee 05:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            What??? Where have I been uncivil? And when did I ever
claim you trying to put original research in the article? All I did
was point out that anything you put in has to be sourced, just in case
you wanted to put your own opinion in. Which is the same thing you and
Aaron have been saying to me, by the way. I provided a source and can
provide more. TheIndividualist 05:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                I said that you insinuated that I was trying to insert
orignal research. Perhaps "uncivil" was too strong of a word; to be
more precise, some of your comments, I feel, served to increase
tension and promote an atmosphere of heated contention. -- WGee 05:20,
30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    And I think you and Aaron have been insinuating
I'm putting original research in the article, when in fact I've been
putting sourced information in. TheIndividualist 05:28, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                        I think you've been putting exaggerated,
'ill-placed, and weaselly-worded information into the article, but not
original research. In fact, I acknowledged your use of sources,
stating: "Of course your sources aren't irrelevant; my underlying
point is that they are highly contenstable and should therefore be
presented as highly contestable." -- WGee 05:45, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                            Weaselly-worded? It's not weasel words if
it's sourced. And look at what I wrote. I didn't say it is a form of
individualist anarchism. I said "some consider it a form of
individualist anarchism" and attached like 8 sources. That is not
"weasel words." TheIndividualist 05:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Iceland

Is this section necessary? Does it conform to WP:NPOV? Is it original
research? Some people have expressed concern about it in the past.
What do you all think? --AaronS 01:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        All I can say is huh? How is it orgingal research when half
the section is an extended quote by a ancap writer, and the other half
is a heavily sourced respose to it? I can see an NPOV argument about
ancap/anarchist terminology, but this seems to be attacking the
article simply for the sake of attacking the article. I'm not going to
remove the tag, because I'm not really involved in editing this
article at the moment, but your issues with the section come across as
bizzare to me. (Oh and FWIW, the complaints about this had to do with
the Somolia part of this, which no longer exists-- I think the
consensus about that was the writing on anarco-capitalism in Somolia
never rose above the level of blogging.) --Saswann 02:25, 30 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

            Woah, there. Just throwing it out there. I wasn't
attacking anything, just asking questions. You're right that it
doesn't qualify as original research; I suppose that my point, there,
was that it doesn't seem to be a significant discussion, so selling it
as "anarcho-capitalism in the real world" might be a new synthesis.
But, you're right, it's more of a WP:NPOV issue. --AaronS 03:43, 30
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                On what grounds it's a NPOV issue? -- Vision Thing --
18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Undue weight. The section should exist, but should
be qualified and reduced. --AaronS

                        Undue weight says "that the article should
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published
by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence
of each." In that section equal weight is given to the claim that
Medival Iceland had some features of an anarcho-capitalist society and
to claim that it "was a communal rather than individualist society".
Section can be reduced but I really don't see a point in that. --
Vision Thing -- 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            You're giving undue weight to a minority
viewpoint. I think that you misunderstand the policy. All you did was
restate the gist of WP:NPOV. You didn't read the undue weight section.
If David Friedman, and perhaps a couple other people, think that
Medieval Iceland resembled an anarcho-capitalist society, then that's
a minority viewpoint. --AaronS 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                This is article about
anarcho-capitalism, so presenting anarcho-capitalist view on certain
things is not giving undue weight to that view. That (presenting a-c
theories) is the exact purpose of this article. If we were to add a-c
view to the article about history of Iceland, that would be giving
undue weight; here it's not. -- Vision Thing -- 20:50, 1 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                    That's probably true. Good points.
--AaronS 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Glad that we can agree on
something. -- Vision Thing -- 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the example of the Old West can be added in that section.
There is an article about that attached to this article.
TheIndividualist 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironic that the article comes from The Journal of Libertarian
Studies. I'm not really sure that one academic essay is enough,
though. --AaronS 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        The Journal of Libertarian Studies is a peer-reviewed journal.
It is enough. TheIndividualist 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        What is so "ironic" by the way? TheIndividualist 04:43, 30
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            This was also published in a peer-reviewed journal. But I
understand your point. If you want to include it, it would have to be
qualified, of course. I said that it was ironic because you have been
arguing that anarcho-capitalism belongs in the anarchist tradition
instead of the libertarian one, and here you present us with an essay
about anarcho-capitalism from an academic journal focusing on
libertarian studies. ;-) --AaronS 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                The Journal of Libertarian Studies was created with
the undertanding that libertarianism referred to individualist
anarchism in the US. Individualist anarchism in the 19th century and
early 20th century used to be called libertarianism. Old books about
Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner refer to them as "libertarians"
and anarchists interchangeably. Libertarianism and anarchism are
synonyms in old anarchist literature. Murray Rothbard and others just
continued the term for the pro-capitalist individualism.
TheIndividualist 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    That's probably because earlier books were
influenced by Proudhon and European anarchism, which was much more
significant at the time. In French, the dominant political and
philosophical language of the time, and the language of Proudhon,
"libertaire" means anarchist, whereas "liberal" means libertarian.
Confusing, yes. --AaronS 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        Exactly. Karl Hess founded with Murray
Rothbard Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought in 1965. I
think that may have been before the term "anarcho-capitalism" was
invented. They just considered themselves anarchists. TheIndividualist
05:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topheavy

The introductory section of the article is rather dense with
information, perhaps needlessly so. If one can't see the ToC without
scrolling at 1024x768, I think things may have gone somewhat awry. I'd
favor coming up with a more concise introductory paragraph, with any
other information moved to the appropriate section of the article as
needed. It fits Wikipedia:Lead section better that way.--Rosicrucian
21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No thoughts on this? Surely we can be more concise than what's up
there right now.--Rosicrucian 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Your relevant and uncontroversial point might have been lost
in the bickering. ;-) --AaronS 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Upon further inspection, it does look like VisionThing
tidied it up a good deal, and I just missed it. Kudos, VisionThing,
that's definitely looking like a step in the right direction. I'll
give it another look in 1024x768 once I get back from work, as I don't
have local admin rights to adjust my workstation's
resolution.--Rosicrucian 23:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Citations

Many of the sources now being inserted into the article by
TheIndividualist were originally inserted by editors RJII and Hogeye,
who have now been banned and have a history of inserting sources that
do not back the claim or are not properly referanced (i.e. no page
number/chapter for entire books, referancing the editor of a
compilation of essays without mention of specific essay/author, etc).
Given that these referances were first inserted by dubious sources,
and given the high likelihood that theindividualist is a sockpuppet of
one of the aforementioned now banned users, I'm calling for a
citecheck for this article and several others which have been stuffed
with the same sources for the same claims. In particular, I would like
to know if the texts actually support the specific claims being made,
and will begin to visit my local university library in the coming
weeks to check them. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:32, 31 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    That's probably a good idea. It is true that most of RJII and
Hogeye's citations were selectively quoted. Sometimes they would be
contradicted on the very same page. --AaronS 13:26, 31 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]
    I would add that it does seem peculiar that TheIndividualist
appeared out of nowhere and is making the same arguments and using the
same sources in the same fashion and with the same tone as RJII, who,
last we heard, victoriously vanished in a cloud of smoke with a
maniacal, villainous cackle, after being banned. --AaronS 13:31, 31
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. Hogye is banned because of personal attack and
RJII for the way he left Wikipedia. Can you show some examples of
sources that do not back the claim? -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 31 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

        I removed several today from the individualist anarchism
article one at a time and indicated when the source did not support
the claim, the examples can be found in the history of the article.
Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What does it matter WHO inserted the sources? The article is well
cited. TheIndividualist 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        It matters because there is a necessity of trust involved in
sources that cannot be easily checked. If the individuals have a
pattern of behavior that suggests they include improper sources, and a
pattern of behavior of abusing wikipedia, then it becomes difficult to
check their sources. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:51, 31 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

            I haven't seen any pattern of such a thing. Have you? Can
you provide evidence? It seems you go around claiming that RHII and
Hogeye were putting in improper sources but it is just empty claims.
TheIndividualist 16:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Look through the edit history of the pages involved
and you will find dozens of instances of myself pointing out when and
where and how the referances were misused or improperly cited. If
someone who isn't clearly a sockpuppet of RJII/Hogeye asks for
individual examples I would be happy to provide them.
Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Well, I ask for individual examples of misused or
improperly cited sources in this article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 31
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        I suspect he won't provide examples with the
claim that you are a sockpuppet of RJII/Hogeye. That seems to be a
common tactic. If all else fails, accuse them of being a sockpuppet.
IndividualistAnarchist 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                This comment is really funny, now,
considering that you were a sockpuppet. Bye, bye. --AaronS 12:36, 1
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            You should probably note that you're a
sockpuppet of User:TheIndividualist on your user page,
IndividualistAnarchist. I'm not sure why you removed that note. Also,
the fact that you're using two usernames to edit the same article
might be in violation of Wikipedia policy. It certainly is needlessly
confusing. --AaronS 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                I'm not violating any policy. I'm no
longer going to use that username. That's why I removed the note. I
removed teh note by this usename so anyone could see the new username.
IndividualistAnarchist 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            These are a few that I've already removed
from the anarcho-capitalism article, they are also being used in this
article, as well as individualist anarchism and anarchism. [1], [2],
[3], [4]
                            As for evidence of VT being a
sockpuppet/meatpuppet of RJ/Hogeye, I already presented it. [5] The
commonality of the "tactic" of suggesting that individuals editing
these articles in similar ways to Hogeye and RJ may be sockpuppets is
seconded only by the number of sockpuppets they seem ready to supply
[6], many of which have already been banned. Blahblahblahblahblahblah
17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                LOL, so I'm a sock-puppet of RJII or
Hogeye? And maybe RJII was Hogeye's sock-puppet, or Hogeye RJII's?

                                I only see that you removed sources,
not that you showed that they were misused. -- Vision Thing -- 18:13,
31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    You asked for sources that were
improperly cited, the reasons for being improperly cited are in the
edit summaries. I've never claimed that Hogeye and RJ were the same
person, but you are a sock-puppet of RJII. This claim isn't anything
new to you, I brought this up on your talk page long before I brought
it to the admins, you just ignored it. Now you are trying to press the
claim to discredit it, but the evidence kinda speaks for itself. You
would have to be one hell of an obsessed meat puppet to go through
these pages and find so many of RJs edits and resurrect them word for
word, its much more likely that you simply are RJII.
Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    I've seen you deleting sources just because
RJII/Hogeye put them there. You're not checking the sources. You're
just outright deleting sources with the claim that RJII/Hogeye insert
bad sources. Then you come out and claim that RJII/Hogeye have a
history of putting in bad sources when you're the one starting the
rumour. TheIndividualist 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        To my knowledge in all cases I have removed
sources because they were insufficiently documented or misattributed
or ambiguous IN ADDITION to being inserted by RJII or Hogeye. If you
can point out any instances where I did not provide reasons to remove
the citations apart in addition to their dubious editors please do and
I will happily change them back myself. Blahblahblahblahblahblah
17:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thought. But one important distinction is between individualist
anarchism and social anarchism. The former emphasizes individual
liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, the importance of private
property or possession, and the iniquity of all monopolies. It may be
seen as liberalism taken to an extreme conclusion.
'Anarcho-capitalism' is the a contemporary variant of this school."
Intangible 17:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a page number? IndividualistAnarchist 17:20, 31 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Page 21, under the section "Anarchism". Intangible 17:23, 31
July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...
From "The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought" (2002),
edited by William Outhwaite: "At the other end of the political
spectrum, individualist anarchism, reborn as anarcho-capitalism, is a
significant tendency in the libertarian New Right." Page 14 -- Vision
Thing -- 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppet straw-man
I am extremely tired of hearing people revert edits and discrediting
editors on the basis that their arguments resemble the arguments and
edits of banned users. This is straw-man logic, and also a form of ad
hominem, appeal to motive and composition. If you cannot refute the
arguments and/or sources on their own grounds, then you haven't a leg
to stand on. I have tried to be extremely cooperative in the hopes of
forming a consensus by taking into account the opposing views, and
have even aided in editing of the article which inserts a questioning
tone into the article for the sake of trying to appease those who
claim the article is POV, but it doesn't seem like it's ever enough.

I hereby leave this article to the dogs, and hope that one day the
conflict will be resolved (hopefully not to the absolute detriment of
this article) and would like to return sometime to help patch up and
rebuild. Until then, farewell. Two-Bit Sprite 17:52, 31 July 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    Well, keep in mind that all of your edits -- which are much
appreciated -- have been countered by a few users who refuse to budge
an inch in the other direction. While I assume that they are acting on
good faith, and respect their opinions,
TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist and company haven't really
tried to reach a compromise at all, whereas a lot of other editors
have. The sockpuppet charge, while tiresome, is unfortunately
understandable, considering the proven and self-admitted harrassment,
disruption, and POV-pishing that has occurred on anarchism-related
articles on the part of RJII and Hogeye. Further, it has always been
added as an afterthought, and has never really been the meat of
anybody's claims. There are other, more important issues at hand. I
understand that you feel strongly about the subject of this article,
and I respect that. I certainly hope that you won't leave as a result
of the recent heated discussion. Your input is appreciated, and you're
welcome here.
    You're right that the sockpuppet argument is very, very difficult
to substantiate. But, like I said, I'm sure that, after thinking a bit
about the situation, you might understand where some people are coming
from. For years, we've dealt with sockpuppet abuse on these articles.
The people behind the abuse have no lives outside of Wikipedia and
troll it like an AOL chatroom. Sockpuppets are probably Wikipedia's
greatest weakness -- along with gaming the system. Both will probably
contribute to Wikipedia's demise, if nothing is done about it.
    Anyways, I hope that you decide to stick around and not let any of
the heated debate get to you. It doesn't need to be this heated -- I
agree with you on that -- so maybe we can work to calm it down a bit.
--AaronS 18:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm sure there are sock puppets on both sides. Obviously
Wikipedia was designed to allow sockpuppets. People may need to get
things done that they couldn't if they had to be traceable to the same
username all the time. Wikipedia is very anonymity friendly. I don't
see anything wrong with having sockpuppets at all.
IndividualistAnarchist 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Well, I know Blah from outside of Wikipedia, so he's
not a sockpuppet. Francis is an admin, and he's from the UK. I'm me.
That's leaves TUF, who is not a sockpuppet, by process of elimination.
But I think it's silly to break it down into "sides," anyways. The
issue was that sockpuppets have made the same edits that you have
made. Not damning evidence, but it is grounds for reasonable
suspicion. Everybody should probably just calmn down. --AaronS 18:37,
31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Being that I am a sockpuppet, I agree that they can be
legitimate. However, using a sockpuppet to avoid a ban on your IP is a
violation of wikipedia policy, and using sockpuppets to over-represent
your position or avoid the 3RR destroys the purpose of the project.
Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                The RJII account was blocked for being a multi-user
account. More than one person was using it. No specific user of the
account was banned from using Wikipedia. So it make no sense to call
anyone a sockpuppet of RJII. Who is RJII? Anyone who edited under that
account is free to come on and edit Wikipedia. I'm one of those
people. IndividualistAnarchist 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Thanks RJ. BTW - You never finished your
manifesto. Could you get back to it before you get blocked again?
Thanks. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                I was talking about abusive sockpuppets. --AaronS
18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't make reverts based solely on the belief that they were
made by sockpuppets, unless those sockpuppets have already been banned
themselves for being sockpuppets, in which case wikipedia policy calls
for it. Its not like sockpuppet use by previously banned users is rare
around here, as Lingeron and Drowner have very recently demonstrated.
If they had the decency to abide by wiki standards when they enter the
community, learn from their mistakes when they are temporarily banned
and come back ready to start over (or don't come back at all), then
things would be different. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:33, 31 July
2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another even more recent example of a banned sockpuppet editing
these pages Individualistanarchist.

citecheck

Some user has put a tag to this article again. What specific cites are
being questioned? Intangible 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As has been said -- although I have a fuzzy memory, but it's safe
to assume -- the ones placed by the aforementioned banned users, who
have been known to misattribute citations. --AaronS 12:35, 1 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Well, those couple of references that I could and did check
were ok. Such as The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought and
the Dictionary of Marxist Thought. There are other references on
Template_talk:Anarchism as well, which are not referenced here, but
could. Alas, I cannot attest to the older books, but I guess one just
has to assume good faith on those ones. I have no reason to believe
that those are incorrectly cited, since two have already been proven
correct. Intangible 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            I have no reason to assume good faith with any of those
users. They have shown, over and over again, that they are undeserving
of such an assumption. --AaronS

                I've cleant up the section that this was pertaining to
(at least I guess it was this section). Please refer to any other
specific reference that you think is unfounded. Otherwise I will have
to remove the citecheck tag from the article. Intangible 13:31, 1
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    I'm too busy to deal with the citecheck, but I do
believe Blah said he was working on it. Perhaps we should wait until
he satisfies his own curiosity with regard to the matter, before we
remove the tag. --AaronS 13:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        No, we should first have some evidence that
there are references which don't support some claims. -- Vision Thing
-- 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To best of my knowledge, RJII and Hogeye are not known to
misattribute citations. Do you have any exaples of that? -- Vision
Thing -- 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

medieval iceland

What's the NPOV tag about? The sources seem to be ok. Intangible
13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Undue weight, as explained above. --AaronS 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've
trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian
15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lead sentence

People keep on changing it with ostensive disregard for the sources
discussed on this talk page, and with ostensive disregard for this
talk page in general. The current sentence reads as follows:
Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that calls
for the abolition of the state, replacing tax funded defense of
liberty and property with with voluntarily funded private suppliers of
a judiciary, policing and defense. This definition is confusing,
grammatically awkward, and actually incorrect. It suggests that
anarcho-capitalists only advocate the privitization of jurisdiction,
policing and defense; in actuality, however, they advocate the
privitization of all functions currently carried out by the state.

Here's one verifiable definition: "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by
government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society
currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and
national defense."[7]

Based on this source, I will reinsert my original definition, with
some changes: "Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political
philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the provision
of all of its functions—including jurisdiction, policing, and national
defence—by the free market. In the future, I ask that people verify
their additions with sources.

-- WGee 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The changes, while perhaps less than perfect, did address a few
problems with the sentence as you reverted it:

        Not all functions of the state will continue under AC - some
are inherently coercive, and will be abolished
        Policing and military defence are not really the same
function, and the description doesn't make clear that "national
defence" covers defence against internal predators
        "Systems of justice" doesn't make clear that both civil courts
and criminal justice are included.

    Argyriou 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        I will address your assertions point-by-point:

            That anarcho-capitalists reject "initiatory coercion" is
well documented in the lead, so this first sentence will not be
misleading. The current wording, I feel, is the clearest and most
accurate way to define ancap in one sentence. Plus, it's sourced,
unlike some of the alternatives.
            These are just a few general examples intended to
emphasize the fact that ancaps promote laissez-faire capitalism in all
areas of society. Thus, we don't need to be utterly precise in these
examples. Remember: this is just the lead; more detail is provided
later in the article.
            I disagree: both civil courts and criminal courts are part
of the justice system, aren't they? This example is intended to be
inclusive, not exhaustive.

        -- WGee 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your sentence is bad, just as the source's sentence is bad. "All"
of the functions of states would not be replaced. Taxation is a
function of the state. Censorship is a function of the state.
Prohibition of drugs is a function of the state. Banning private
ownership of the means of production is a function of the state. What
the state's functions are depends on what state you are talking about.
The only functions that would be left to the free market would be
provision of non-aggressive functions that states have been known to
perform, such as protecting individuals from violence perpetrated by
other indivduals.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by O-boy
(talk • contribs) (O-Boy).

        I agree, but your propagation of that was ineffective,
confusing, and mired by anarcho-capitalist jargon and technicalities.
The basic idea of ancap was well-conveyed in my original sentence, no
matter how imprecise you believe it was. In any case, I altered the
lead sentence to reflect your concerns and the concerns of Argyriou.
The result is a slight increase in vagueness; nonetheless, the
definition is still factually accurate and as precise as we can muster
in one sentence. -- WGee 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I was the one who started chaning the intro some short time
ago, I will say this:

    The essential services are recognized as such by
anarcho-capitalists. They want these to be provide for by the free
market. Anarcho-capitalists do not see them to be essential functions
of the state.
    civil defense vs. national defense. The latter is confusing, since
the concept of nation is highly similar to state.
    jurisdiction vs. judiciary. The latter is necessarily provided for
by a government

    Intangible 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        My suggestion for the lead paragraph:

            Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political
philosophy that calls for the abolition of the state and the provision
of legitimate services usually provided by the state - a judicial
system, protection from criminals, and protection from foreign
aggression - by the free market. Central to the philosophy is the idea
of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory coercion and
fraud, including the tax function and monopoly of force of the state.
Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the
right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited
right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists,
property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned
resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving
goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject the state as a
systematic aggressor that should be eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists
assert that each individual "has the right to own the product that he
has made."[1] and that profit is a natural occuring and non-coercive
part of trade. This embrace of capitalism leads to considerable
tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the
rejection of capitalism as being essential to anarchist philosophy,
tantamount with rejection of the state.

        Here are my reasons for the changes:

            There needs to be a distinction between legitimate
functions and non-legitimate functions provided by the state. ACers
believe that a judicial system, police protection (only against what
ACers consider crimes), and national defense, so long as there are
still states, are legitimate services, but that a monopolistic
government cannot legitimately provide those.
            Some functions of the state which are considered
legitimate by nearly all non-anarchists are not considered so by ACers
- taxation and maintaining a monopoly of force.
            The sentence which began Anarcho-capitalists reject the
state ... was overblown and redundant, so I trimmed it.

        Argyriou 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the concept that needs to be put across. Individualist
anarchist Benjamin Tucker (predecessor of anarcho-capitalism) explains
it like this: "defense is a service like any other service; that it is
labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity
subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this
commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that,
competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the
best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this
commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like
almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices;... and, finally,
that the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent of its
villainy because it enjoys the unique privilege of compellhlg all
people to buy its product whether they want it or not" (O-Boy)

I'd rather give a different description. Instead of political
philosophy, I'd say philosophy or philosophy of the individuum,
because it certainly is not only a political philosophy - M.S.

    But is that an accessible definition that belongs in the lead
sentence?--Rosicrucian 02:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

Here is the lead paragraph as it stands now:

    Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that
calls for the abolition of the state, and the provision of all goods
and services—including essential services such as jurisdiction,
policing and defence—by the free market. Central to the philosophy is
the idea of individual sovereignty and the rejection of initiatory
coercion and fraud, including state-imposed restrictions on commerce.
Its proponents see the only just basis for law as arising from the
right to non-coercively acquired private property and an unlimited
right of contract between individuals. For anarcho-capitalists,
property may only be acquired by mixing one's labor with unowned
resources (either previously unoccupied or abandoned) or by receiving
goods by trade or gift. Anarcho-capitalists reject "the state" as an
unjustified, monopolist thief and systematic aggressor that should be
eliminated. Anarcho-capitalists assert that each individual "has the
right to own the product that he has made."[1] and that profit is a
natural occuring and non-coercive part of trade. This embrace of
capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists
and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being
essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the
state.

I tried to incorporate the concerns of Argyriou and others into the
paragraph without making use of anarcho-capitalist terminology, which
can be confusing and off-putting to the uninitiated. For example, what
exactly is the "monopoly of force of the state"? What are "legitimate
services" in the eyes of anarcho-capitalists? What does "the rejection
of initiatory coercion and fraud" entail in the eyes of
anarcho-capitalists (I've tried to explain in laymen terms that it
entails an opposition to all restrictions on commerce imposed by the
state, which seems correct from what I've read in the rest of the
article). These vague terms and phrases should not be utilized in the
lead, although they may be acceptable in the main body, where they can
be explained in detail.

Some constructive input on my edits, and on the lead in general, would
be appreciated, as I hope to reach a consensus on the lead sometime
soon. But please keep in mind my primary concern while offering a
critique: that we should avoid vague terminology in the lead and
simply "tell it like it is".

-- WGee 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My revert

The current version is fine the way it is for the most part, and there
are a lot of POV problems with the old version which have already been
rectified in recent versions. Editing of the intro by several editors
is not signs of controversiality, but most are minor fixes and
clarifications. If resurection of the old intro can be justified here
on the talk page, please do so; until then we will continue to work on
the existing version. Two-Bit Sprite 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    However, I must say, seeing the size contrast between the old
version and new version, I do have to admit that the new version has
grown substancially, and has a lot of specific information which is
later repeated in other sections. I.e. For anarcho-capitalists,
property... might be a bit too much detail for and intro? And the last
paragraph I think is well covered already in the History and
Influences section... Two-Bit Sprite 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the old version which has been resurected:

    Usage of language like "private property norms" which implies that
a) anarcho-capitalists aim for the status quo in terms of property,
which is definately not the case, they instead wish to establish much
simpler conceptions of property. The "norms" of property involve
states and include such things as imminent domain, search and seasure
(occasionally without warrent), etc.
    "unlimited right of contract" — this is disputed even among
anarcho-capitalists. Some ancaps argue that, i.e., one cannot contract
oneself into slavery.
    "aggressor against sovereign individuals" — uses ancap lingo in
the voice of wikipedia, implies that wikipedia assumes that
individuals are indeed soverign without question.
    "laissez-faire" — does not preclude all forms of state
intervention, i.e. from the laissez-faire article, "It is generally
understood to be a doctrine opposing economic interventionism and
taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary
to maintain peace, security, and property rights." (emp. mine).
    Talk of a "government monopoly" in the voice of wikipedia — some
would argue that the government does not hold strict monopoly as
courts, defense and property enforcement are still offered
suplementarily on the free market. Again, ancap lingo.
    "involuntarily funded through taxation" and "private, competing
businesses that provide voluntarily-funded services" — Again,
libertarian/ancap jargon, greatly begging the question.

I do agree that the recent versions are getting a bit long (see my
comments above) but replacing the current version with an older more
slanted version is not the solution. Please try to work with the other
editors who have spent time and energy attempting to correct instead
of going back to those things which we have intentionally removed.
Two-Bit Sprite 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Unlimited right of contract" before that it is stated that each
individual is sovereign, which implies no one can own someone else.
    "laissez-faire" is indeed correct. Since anarcho-capitalist reject
the state, your definition is wrong.
    A government is indeed a law monopolist.
    I see nothing wrong with the intro, except that it might need some
wikifying.
    Intangible 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        "an older more slanted version is not the solution". This is
an unfair rule. The older version was a feutuered article. You should
be careful before you edit this version as you want. For example, it
is no political philosophy. Abolotion of the complete state is no
political goal per se. --Uiofvnondc 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            How is not wanting 'older more slanted' versions of an
article an "unfair" rule? As for featured status, this does not mean
the article could stand improvement. Featured status is not
immortality, if it was, the page would become locked to edits as soon
as it got the status. Two-Bit Sprite 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                There were more deliberate editors at the older
version. Should we always start to discuss a new version to correct
the old version? --Uiofvnondc 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        The article states that anarcho-capitalists believe that
individuals are sarcasm. I realize that one could argue that this
implies the prohibition of signing oneself into slavery, this is not
for wikipedia to judge. This is original research, drawing conclusions
in the article which are not backed by sources other than by
direvation. Wikipedia does not form conclusions like this, but merely
documents the theories and conclusions of others. The language in the
old version makes it sound like wikipedia believes that individuals
are soverign and that "obviously" this means that one can/cannot sign
oneself into slavery.

            No this is simple logic. Individual sovereignty implies
that no one can own someone else. Your notion "of signing oneself into
slavery" is irrelevant to the anarcho-capitalism article. Intangible
19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Now we're into a discussion of the logical coherancy,
which is not appropriate on wikipedia, no matter how 'simple' the
logic is. The point remains the using the voice of wikipedia to make
that connection makes it sound as though wikipedia endorses the
premiss. Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        That fact that anarcho-capitalists reject the states does not
imply that laissez-faire automatically means non-state. If you have
source which say otherwise, perhaps you should edit laissez-faire.

            There is a difference between a positive and negative
definition of laissez-faire. Intangible 19:27, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                Care to explain? Are you trying to make the argument
that "true" laissez-faire is "naturally" anarchistic? Two-Bit Sprite
19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        As for government being a law monopolist, while it is true
that most (perhaps all) ancaps believe this, the old version of the
article makes it sound like a matter-of-fact. Two-Bit Sprite 18:59, 3
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Law is meant here in a greater sence, namely that the
state can dictate a certain social order. Intangible 19:27, 3 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                This isn't made clear, and is still using the voice of
wikipedia to present this. Two-Bit Sprite 19:52, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

There has been significant progress on the article since it gained its
featured status. Let's not get into the old argument of "well it was
featured once, so we should revert it to its featured status." It
wasn't cute when Shannon did it, and theres' really no justification
for it.--Rosicrucian 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. Two-Bit Sprite 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        I have had some concerns about how topheavy the intro is
getting though, as stated above. VisionThing did some good work on it
to trim it, so it's certainly gotten better since I originally brought
that up.--Rosicrucian 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Then tell me why it should be a political philosphy? This
is wrong or at least overweight in the first sentence. --Uiofvnondc
19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)--Uiofvnondc 19:27, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                Per Wikipedia article political philosophy:

                        Political philosophy is the study of
fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty,
justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by
authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government
legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what
form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens
owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be
legitimately overthrown—if ever. In a vernacular sense, the term
"political philosophy" often refers to a general view, or specific
ethic, belief or attitude, about politics that does not necessarily
belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.

                        Three central concerns of political philosophy
have been the political economy by which property rights are defined
and access to capital is regulated, the demands of justice in
distribution and punishment, and the rules of truth and evidence that
determine judgements in the law.

                Seems accurate to me.--Rosicrucian 19:31, 3 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism kinda
undercuts the argument for it to be a political philosophy. Intangible
19:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        Heck, even if you're one of the folks that say
it's a form of libertarianism, it's still squarely a political
philosophy.--Rosicrucian 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            Indeed. It is a philosophy about
concerning politics, thus a political philosophy. The fact that
anarcho-capitalists sit around and think about/discuss political
institutions like government makes it fairly identifiably political.
Two-Bit Sprite 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                Then look to politics. "Politics is a
process by which decisions are made within groups." "It is the art or
science of government." This is no issue of anarcho-capitalism.
--Uiofvnondc 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Considering that Anarchism is
described in its article as a political philosophy, you are perhaps
putting the cart before the horse here.--Rosicrucian 20:08, 3 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Classical Anarchism is
something treated in political philosophy because it has positive
approaches to a kind of politics. But not anarcho-capitalism.
--Uiofvnondc 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                            Calling something a
political philosophy is not a value judgement as to whether it is
statist or anti-statist.--Rosicrucian 20:19, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                                Fine. And why should
one call it "political"? --Uiofvnondc 20:30, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                                    Why shouldn't one
call it "political"? Under what non-POV definition does "political"
not apply to an article that is part of the "Politics Series" under
both the Anarchism and Libertarianism templates?--Rosicrucian 20:37, 3
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                                        Categories and
so on are only for order and organization. --Uiofvnondc 20:54, 3
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                                            You are
talking in circles. Yes, categories are for order and organization,
mentally as well as on wikipedia. You still have not shown why
wikipedia should not consider anarcho-capitalism as a political
philosophy? What's your agenda, what are you trying to get at, it is
hair splitting. I understand that maybe some nut job libertarian might
say that it is "anti-political", but that should be sourced and
attributed, not in the voice of wikipedia. The average person is going
to consider this a political philosophy and this is what the wiki
should reflect regardless of your (or someone else's) personal
philosophies on "what is politics, really", etc... Two-Bit Sprite
22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                                                The
editor must deliver the evidence for his knowledge. But you have no
knowledge as you are stating yourself. You want to use vernacular
weasel terms to serve an "average person". Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia and no soap box. --Uiofvnondc 07:05, 4 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                                                    My
point is that the average person defines "politics" in such a way that
it would include anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy and we
have no reason to break that convention other than your
"philosophical" musings about "no wait, I think politics really means
this". The point remains that the primary focus of anarcho-capitalism
is the abolition of political government, meaning ancap is a
philosophy which concerns itself with politics (it just so happens
that it's philosphy on politics is that it should be abolished)
therefore it is a political philosophy. Two-Bit Sprite 13:20, 4 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political philosophy makes only positive approaches about politics and
"fundamental questions about the state, government, ... blah blah".
You can prove this easy. Anarcho-capitalism isn't listed in almost no
reference book and is not content of the curriculum in any political
philosphy course. --Uiofvnondc 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was formulated by political philosophers. It is primarily
debated by political philosophers. It seeks to answer fundamental
questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice,
property, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. How is it
not a political philosophy?--Rosicrucian 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"enforcement of a legal code by authority." Sure not! --Uiofvnondc
20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact the it isn't mentioned in most text books simply prooves
that it is a fringe movement, not that it isn't political, your logic
is flawed. Two-Bit Sprite 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        How can you prove that it must be a political philosophy? And,
how can you claim that it would be important, when it is not treated
as political theory by political philosophers? Not even ancap scholars
are decribed as "political philosphers". --Uiofvnondc 20:18, 3 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Murray Rothbard is a "political philosopher" and he
formulated the philosophy.--Rosicrucian 20:21, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                    Where is he called "political philosopher"?
--Uiofvnondc 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        See here Two-Bit Sprite 20:34, 3 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                            mises.org is writing about political
philosophy. This does not mean that it is. Search yourself.
--Uiofvnondc 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                You tried to argue that "Not even
ancap scholars are decribed as 'political philosphers'." and I'm
showing you a source which is very ancap-oriented having pages upon
pages talking about political philosophy. Two-Bit Sprite 22:27, 3
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    So what? I write also comments
about political philosophy. I am no political philosopher. And even if
I would be one then it wouldn't be clear which kind of a political
philosopher. You are poking in the fog. --Uiofvnondc 07:13, 4 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        You are setting yourself up as
a straw-man. Rothbard is a published political philosopher. You are
fogging up the room with your abstract musings about the definition of
politics (which you can't provide sources for) and then accuse people
of poking in the fog when they are making strong points (how far can
we stretch this analogy? :P). Two-Bit Sprite 13:45, 4 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

@Two-Bit Sprite You don't work for a consent. This is unacceptable. I
don't speak with you. Deliver references for your controversial edits
or hold your horses. --Uiofvnondc 16:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree entirely with Two-Bit-Sprite that we should restore the
former introduction, for all the reasons he stated. The current
revision is confusing, off-putting, and tendentious because of its
heavy use of anarcho-capitalist, idiosyncratic jargon, as
Two-Bit-Sprite noted. The former lead, which I and others had worked
on extensively, is a better platform for improvement and can
eventually be modified to everyone's liking, I'm sure. The restoration
of the current lead was unnecessary and actually degraded the quality
of the article. It may have a place in anarcho-capitalist literature,
but not in a neutral encyclopedia that's intended to appeal to a broad
array of users. -- WGee 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        By the way, I think you ought to calm down, Uiofvnondc. Please
remember to be civil. -- WGee 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You are new to this article and have no place to be critisizing my
edits, if you were to look at my edit history and my comments on not
only this talk page, but my talk page and the talk pages of other
users you will see that I have been fighting for consensus for weeks!
Please to not blindly accuse me of not attempting to make consensus
when you yourself have just plopped yourself right in the middle of it
out of nowhere and started making outragious, counter-consensus edits
without discussing them on the talk page. The version you want in
place reads like a libertarian panphlet and confuses the reader with
jargon and rhetoric. This is not only counter-productive for
wikipedia, it also gives anarcho-capitalists (I am assuming you are
one based on your (albeit, short) edit history) a bad name for
refusing to be self-critical and rational about the subject. Please
stop. Two-Bit Sprite 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        You put POV without any reference into the article. I warn
you. --Uiofvnondc 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Please assume good faith, Uiofvnondc.--Rosicrucian 20:11,
4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Then deliver references for your version. This is good
faith. How much time should I give you? --Uiofvnondc 20:34, 4 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Idle threats aren't advancing your position at all
and only serve to make you seem like a spastic nut-case. Your edits
are no more referenced than mine, so you haven't much of a leg to
stand on, but I will oblige you. What would you like references on?
Two-Bit Sprite 05:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        I'm not trying to be inflamatory, I'm merely
suggesting that you calm down a bit and attempt to discuss this with
us rationally instead of ignoring my points (as I have several above
which you have not responded to) or making vague threats about "I warn
you" or "How much time should I give you?"... This is not productive.
I am very happy to discuss this with you openly, but only so long as
you are willing to be civil and open to my input and ideas. You speak
of consensus, yet I see only one other person agreeing with you and
several disagreeing with you, yet you refuse to discuss the issue
rationally accusing others of not forming consensus with you. Two-Bit
Sprite 05:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Two-Bit Sprite Your personal attack: "Idle threats ... make you seem
like a spastic nut-case" Thanks.

Your are not willing (and not able, of course) to deliver a reference
for "political philosophy". This is the first point in the first
sentence. I have still not started to discuss much about the second
and third issue but you are already making trouble at the first one.
It's no problem when you have different opinons or that you claim that
my arguments are not better but you are deteriorating the article with
POV or wrong weighted opinions. So, you ignore Wikipedia NPOV
policies. --Uiofvnondc 08:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've already stated, I feel you need to present a well-founded
argument for how AC is not a political philosophy as it seems you are
the only one who seems to hold this position. What definition of
"political" are you using which excludes AC. Anyways, I said I would
indulge you, so here it is:
    Miriam-Webster defines politics as "5 a : the total complex of
relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in
a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from
a political point of view"
    here is Rothbard talking about political philosophy specifically by name.
    "Murray N. Rothbard, a scholar of extraordinary range, made major
contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal
theory." David Gordon, here.
    "Rothbard's evolving political views..." Justin Raimondo, "An
Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard", p. 33
    "Other differences, which also still exist, are more
philosophical: should we be Lockians, Hobbesians, or Burkeans: natural
rightsers, or traditionalists, or utilitarians? On political
frameworks, should we be monarchists, check-and-balance federalists,
or radical decentralists?" (em. mine) Murray Rothbard, "A Strategy for
the Right" in "The Irrepressible Rothbard" p. 5
    Two-Bit Sprite 16:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        You are not familar enough with basic wikipedia polices:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by
reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable
source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors
wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

        Your "references" are all no proof. You have only bad
indications. I need only one reputable source. Which one should be
one? Which one should I confute? --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    I think the trouble is we're just not operating on the same
wavelength here. We don't really understand why you're objecting to
calling it a political philosophy, when 90% of anarchist and
libertarian movements are political philosophies, and your
explainations for the objection have been rather vague, even after
we've explained that calling something a political philosophy is not a
value judgement on whether it is statist or anti-statist. Especially
in the case of anarcho-capitalism, its view that the preservation of
public order should be provided by private means is a view on "the
enforcement of a legal code by authority." Anarcho-capitalism has
strong views on what is and is not a legitimate government, and where
a government derives its authority to do what. That makes it a
political philosophy by most definitions. You seem to be operating
from a different viewpoint, but have taken little time and words to
actually explain that viewpoint so that we may debate and achieve
consensus.--Rosicrucian 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            I have explained this. Ancap is no subject of political
science because there is almost nothing political. And there is no
"politics" in this movement. The only thing which could be political
is an "public right" to "ignore" the state. That's all. This is far
away from the whole history of political philosophy. The second claim
"that calls for the abolition of the state" is also misleading. It is
not the intension of Ancaps to take away the state from the whole
world or a whole country because it is a individualist ideolgy. But
your phrase implies a collectivism. This is wrong. --Uiofvnondc 18:18,
5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Sidestepping your usual vague argument about "it's not
political," let's take a look at the abolition of the state argument.
The article repeatedly reiterates that "Anarcho-capitalists reject the
state as a coercive monopoly that derives its income from legal
aggression (i.e. taxation) and thereby violates the non-aggression
principle." Which means that anarcho-capitalists are calling for the
abolition of the state, or at least the abolition of the state as we
know it. This is a common thread running throughout the article, and
thus deserves to be summarized in the lead sentence or at the least
the intro paragraph because it is so entwined with the article
itself.--Rosicrucian 18:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    What you reiterate about the article is an
ethical/ideological consequence. What the article's intro describes
could be a political doctrine. When you blame me for "vague arguments"
then you should not defend them yourself. --Uiofvnondc 19:20, 5 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Indeed. What I really want to know is what motivates you to
oppose its being called a political philosophy. -- WGee 17:04, 5
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            NPOV, and you? --Uiofvnondc 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Somalia

We have to add something to this example, because it doesn't hold to
truth anymore. Since the uprisings of the Islamic Court Union in early
2006, the anarchism in Mogadishu (were it was most prevalent) has
almost ended. We now have a situation of crisis between the "federal
government" and the ICU. Mogadishu is more of a theological
dictatorship than anything comparable with anarchism. I think we
should therefore add this to the column to prevent misunderstandings.
- --Moddy 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Somalia reference has always been invalid, for how on earth
can it be cited as an example of a stateless capitalist society when
Somalia itself is a state? The recently-unfolding events in Somalia
make the reference even more unwarranted. If this were the
laissez-faire article, then perhaps the reference would have merit. --
WGee 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Additionally, I think the reference was skewed to make Somalia
seem like a real-life example of anarcho-capitalism; I doubt the book
even mentioned the word anarcho-capitalism or said that Somalia was a
"stateless" society. Note that an unregulated market economy is not
necessarily an anarcho-capitalist one. -- WGee 17:18, 5 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

            I have read the book. The authors didn't write about a
state. Governments are far away of peoples live in wide regions of
Somalia. Of course, an unregulated market economy is necessarily an
anarcho-capitalist one. What else? --Uiofvnondc 18:30, 5 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                Anarcho-capitalism takes great pains to avoid coercive
practices of any type. Somalia was ruled by brutal warlords, and
stumbled upon an unregulated market economy more or less by accident.
I would say it falls well short of the anarcho-capitalist
ideal.--Rosicrucian 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    1. When Somalia was ruled by brutal warlords, what
is your problem with Somalia today. 2. There are many states - if not
all - far away of a democratic or constitutional ideal. Should we say,
there are no really states? --Uiofvnondc 19:31, 5 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                        Somalia is ruled by warlords who murder their
opponents and loot and destroy their property, thereby violating the
non-aggression principle. The country is also ruled by Islamic clerics
who impose strict Sharia law in their strongholds. The militias of the
Islamic Courts Union and the warlords do not operate out of contract,
as they would in anarcho-capitalism; rather, they oppress their
subjects with physical intimidation and local hierarchies. Moreover,
albeit it a very unathoritative one, Somalia does have an
internationally-recognized national government and that does legislate
beyond the bounds of natural law. Thus, there can exist a free market
economy that is not anarcho-capitalist; your suggestion otherwise is
ludicrous, because anarcho-capitalism is much more than an economy, as
evidenced by this article. -- WGee 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            The U.S. are ruled of a warlord.
Somaliland and Puntland are not ruled by "warlords". Every crime
violates the non-aggression principle. Must an "ancap society" be
without crime? Anarcho-capitalism is not only made by libertarian
thinkers but also by economists without NAP-doctrination. And Somalia
isn't ruled of Islamic leaders. The Islam is a strong holded religion
in Somalia. This is no rule of authoritative people but it is
costomary law enforced by private arbitrators. Every Somali may become
a private arbitrator but he must seek confidence. This is often near
by private property law. Your "internationally-recognized national
government" is not present anywhere in the north. Puntland and
Somaliland have also sockpuppet "governments" with a laughable budget.
A Somali told me something about 15 million $ per annum. I am not
clear about this. Probably from international fonds. But interventions
of a government is not noticeable in the north. Your governments are a
bad joke. Of course, anarcho-capitalism is much more than an economy.
I don't deny this. So what? Democracy is also much more than an
economy. But when you search a comparison then Somalia is an example
(well or not) of a currently stateless society as so much as the U.S.
are an example of democrazy society, isn't it? --Uiofvnondc 06:37, 6
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                Although I'm having much trouble
understanding your argument, I can say for sure that your
understanding of Somalia is skewed, to say the least. Somalia is ruled
by a combination of Islamic militiamen and secular warlords, and their
strongholds are not bound by political borders (e.g. Somaliland and
Puntland). These two hetereogeneous groups have de facto replaced the
government as the rulers of the nation. Much like an authoritarian
government, they physically intimidate civilians who oppose them, and
through this intimidation they pillage homes as they wish and impose
idiosyncaratic laws (such as Sharia law) in their strongholds. Just
because a "government" doesn't practically exist, it does not mean
that other oppressive rulers have not assumed power. Somalia thus does
not resemble an anarcho-capitalist society. Why would any
anarcho-capitalist want to associate their ideology with the
humanitarian distaster that is Somailia, anyway? -- WGee 21:04, 6
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    I can't help but think a great
many anarchists of varying flavors have gotten a disproportionately
rosy look at the "anarchism" of Somalia out of wishful thinking and a
desire to say "Look! Anarchism works!"

                                    Which ultimately is a pitfall of
any political philosophy that doesn't have a real-world counterpart to
point to as a proof-of-concept.--Rosicrucian 21:25, 6 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                This is no rule of authoritative
people but it is costomary law enforced by private arbitrators. That's
an oxymoron: arbitrators are necessarily authoritarian. (Though maybe
this oxymoron stems from the fact that English is not your first
language?) In any case, the militias are not operating out of
voluntary contract, as would be necessary for anarcho-capitalism to
exist; rather, they are violently imposing their will upon various,
often unconsenting populations. In other words, nobody is voluntarily
paying the militias to protect "natural rights"; the militias have
arbitrarily decided to rule, with no limit to the extent of their
authority. Surely that cannot be compatible with the anarchist ideal
that anarcho-capitalism claims to espouse. -- WGee 21:04, 6 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you want to discuss with me you have to accept some prepositions

    There is no "the one Somalia" with struggling (islamic) "warlords"
everywhere. The North is quiet and peaceful. When you make all in one
judgements without any proof then I must dismiss you. When you say
that "Islamic militiamen and secular warlords ... are not bound by
political borders" then just this is an image of "private security
agencies". They are defending their property (rightful or not). So
they are "property owner" with the same right for correctness.
    Nobody says that Somalia, resp. the quiet and peaceful part, is an
ideal of an anarcho-capitalist image or that it is an
anarcho-capitalist society. But the comparsion is allowed in the same
way as democrats would claim that the U.S. are a democracy. In your
understanding, the U.S. is no democracy since it doesn't fullfil the
ideal of a democracy. Furthermore there is no democracy in the whole
world because all states with "democratic" governments fail in to be
rightful democratic. So, what's wrong with your understanding? Quite
simply, anarcho-capitalism is only a meta-system of thinking like
perfect democracy is only an theoretical ideal which can never be
reached.
    The fall of government is no "humanitarian distaster" in Somalia.
Obviously you are bad informed.
    When disputing parties voluntarily agree to an arbitrator then
this is not "authoritarian". Please stop with telling your private
wisdom.
    One of the strengths of Somali law is that it is close to natural
law as Van Notten says in his book. You must not agree. I tell you
only a fact of an imho reputable source.
    Last but not least. Conventionalism to the NAP in a ancap society
is desirable in the libertarian impact. But there is no requirement in
a stateless society to an "anarcho-capitalist" to act on NAP. The
anarcho-capitalism of Freedman doesn't need any NAP. --Uiofvnondc
09:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebars

Earlier, we'd moved the Libertarianism sidebar down because having it
right beside the anarchism one squishes the layout terribly. The
discussion is above. I don't mind moving the Libertarianism sidebar up
a bit, but I do think we can't have them right next to each other.
It's just messy. Perhaps put Libertarianism on top, and anarchism
below?--Rosicrucian 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh... I didn't realize someone else had already talked about
this, anyways, I have more comments below. --Two-Bit Sprite 20:20, 5
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        That was my original goal: to have libertarianism on top and
anarchism below. I just didn't know how to effect that change and
ended up inadvertently placing the templates side-by-side. -- WGee
20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

While I agree that both libertarianism and anarchism play a very large
role in anarcho-capitalists theories, I have to object with both
templates being at the top for asthetic reasons. I think we need to
pick one, and move the other down. In 1024x768, having both templates
at the top squeezes the intro such that it doesn't all fit in the
first screenful. I feel the intro is perfectly sized as it stands, and
could withstand any reduction, so I say the only option is to move one
of the templates... Thoughts? --Two-Bit Sprite 20:19, 5 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit

Firstly, there are several spelling and grammatical errors, but those
are minor slights. Primarily, the problems are, in contextual order:

    Confusing the reader by lack of explaining the theory as a
political philosophy, and then immediately discussing politics.
Reference to "the state" outside of the context of politics is
confusing as it has multiple meanings. State of mind? Is it refering
to the phyisical concept of state?
    Immediately explaining the ideology in negative terms (i.e. what
it rejects).
    "The free market ideal of a stateless society..." sounds like
wikipedia is claiming the the ideal free market is a stateless
society, when plenty of people disagree (see most economists).
    "profided by an economy and social system of privacy of all goods
and services..." — mispelling of the word "provided" and misuse of the
word "privacy". Also, undue weight with the italics; "all" means all,
no need to over-stress it, you are not argueing with anyone in this
article (which is what it sounds like you are trying to do).
    Makes reference to mysterious "Rothbard" figure without
explanation or even a full name or wikilink. Even if this were
provided, it is a bit early to introduce historical figures until the
concept itself is fully explained.
    "Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require collective
regulation to be successful..." — still has an antagonistic tone, as
though the article is a rebuttle to something, which it isn't supposed
to be. Sounds like Wikipedia is preaching to the "evil collectivists".
This is not encyclopedic.

—Two-Bit Sprite 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start any discussion about the edit style and issues of taste
- this is not the main point in Wikipedia - you have to deliver a
reputable source. See above. Moreover you have more changed than "my
last edit" and you have removed more than my work. --Uiofvnondc 15:48,
7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning "political philosophy", both Anarchism and
Libertarianism are defined as a political philosophy and
Anarcho-capitalism as a form of both can't be nothing else but a
political philosophy. As for the sources, here and here
anarcho-capitalism is referred to as a political theory. -- Vision
Thing -- 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Concerning "political philosophy", both Anarchism and
Libertarianism are defined as a political philosophy and
Anarcho-capitalism as a form of both can't be nothing else but a
political philosophy. -- is a new syntesis. See W:NOR. (It is also
wrong but it is the same.)

        As for the sources, here and here anarcho-capitalism is
referred to as a political theory.

        -- You need a reputable source that ancap must be a political
philosophy. Your 2 references don't tell anything about it. On
Rothbard: "His areas of interest were economics, history and political
philosophy and he has written works on economic history," So what? I
am also interested in political philosophy. "Perspective on the
History of Economic Thought26; a history of the American colonies from
the 17th century to the American Revolution, Conceived in Liberty27;
works on economics, Man, Economy and State28 and Power and Market,29;
works on political philosophy," So what? Rothbard commented historical
and contemtorary political philosophy.
        "political theory" in the title of a essay. -- So what? One
may quest what should it mean? The word "political" is often used in a
vernacular sense. --Uiofvnondc 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Sources or not, I don't see how it is not a theory
concerning politics. The fact that it is against politics is proof
that it concerns itself with politics thus making it a philosophy of
politics. I don't see how this can be questioned. Saying I need
sources to "proove" this, is like saying I need sources that say it is
a theory. It simply is so by definition of the term "political". It is
a philosophy that criticises politics, therefor it is a philosophy
about politics, plain and simple. --Two-Bit Sprite 18:19, 7 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                I haven't the slightest clue why you think referring
to anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy is an NPOV violation.
It certainly is not orignal research or a "new" synthesis, either,
because a referenced article on political philosophy already exists.
If you keep objecting to the term, we may have to replace it with the
generic, broad term ideology, whose pertinence to anarcho-capitalism
is indisputable. -- WGee 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                @Twobitsprite: This is your new synthesis. This new
synthesis is not allowed by W:NOR. It is nothing more to say. And I
have no problem with "anti-political philosophy". --Uiofvnondc 21:02,
7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        @WGee: In your "referenced article" is a list
of "Influential political philosophers". For example, Hayek shall be
one but Rothbard not. Or Friedman: Friedman has coined his important
part to anarcho-capitalism. How can Friedman be a political
philosopher? When anarcho-capitalism must be a political philosophy
then every person coining the term must be anyway a political
philosopher or there must be at least an other way to coin the term
but which one? There is no remark about it but political shall be so
important that is must be noticed. Why? To speak with your words: I
haven't the slightest clue why you think referring to
anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy. I have no POV-problem
with "ideology". The only thing of anarcho-capitalism which could be
"political" would be a public right to ignore/leave the state to an
own sovereignty. (And this is now my unreferenced sysnthesis of
"political".) The rest is absolutely apolitical. You can say it is
also a "social theory". Ok. I would agree. But a social theory must
not be political. To say, it is political, is far away from of a
neutral tone and far away of the actually practise in political
science. --Uiofvnondc 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    By the way, I unequivocally agree with
Two-Bit-Sprite's Critique of Uiofvnondc's last edit. -- WGee 19:49, 7
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        Wikipedia is no democracy. --Uiofvnondc 21:02,
7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            Wikipedia is not a battleground, either,
though your defensive and sometimes aggressive tone suggests
otherwise. In any case, to say that anarcho-capitalism is not
political is abosultely ludricrous: anarcho-capitalism intends to
radically restructure the entire political system as we know it.

                            To say, it is political, is far away from
of a neutral tone and far away of the actually practise in political
science That is such an outrageous, groundless, and ridiculous
postulation. I encourage you to read any scholarly political science
text, or even to just read some Wikipedia articles: socialism,
anarchism, communism, fascism, conservatism, liberalism, social
democracy are all political ideologies—anarcho-capitalism is no
exception. You insist on impeding progress in this article over one
word; what's worse is that your arguments make utterly no sense and
are not supported by a single source or precedent (because none
supporting your argument exist). I'm convinced that your opposition to
the word "political" is a corollary of your unfamiliarity with some
conventional English semantics. -- WGee 22:37, 7 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                How am I aggressive? Are your
arguments dieing down that you need personal reviews? At first you
have to deliver a reputable source for your edit. This couldn't be so
hard if you would be right, isn't it? --Uiofvnondc 23:14, 7 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Our statements of fact are based
on the most simple deductive reasoning:

                                            Premise: Political
philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state,
government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the
enforcement of a legal code by authority.
                                            Premise:
Anarcho-capitalism studies fundamental questions about the state,
government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the
enforcement of a legal code by authority.
                                            Conclusion:
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy.

                                    To which one of the premises do you object?

                                    I assure you that no native
English speaker would consider the word "political" a tendentious one:
the word "political" merely means "relating to politics". You have
failed to present a coherent argument as to why the use of the word
"political" is an NPOV violation and why anarcho-capitalism is not a
political ideology or philosophy. Please read Ideologies of parties,
for example, where you will find that anarcho-capitalism is defined as
a political ideology. Please briefly read also the articles on
politics, political science, and political philosophy.

                                    --WGee 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Very well put. --Two-Bit
Sprite 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are unnecessary for things that are god-damned obvious. That's
why we don't have to sprinkle the ghosts article with sources from
scholarly journals repudiating the existence of ghosts. --AaronS
03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was obviously no "political" philosophy during years in
Wikipedia and a featured article without it. But now, surprisedly,
some people will hoick it with all power. Why? --Uiofvnondc 09:58, 8
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        The article's FA status is moot, because it is currently under
review, and as comments have shown, it probably should not have ever
been accorded such status. We're working towards that goal, now, but
it will be impossible as long as this discussion is occurring. If you
do not think that anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, then I
invite you to write a treatise on how a philosophy can discuss
politics without being political, advocate altering politics without
being political, and so on, and then have it be published. I think
that you may be confusing a notion (which, I believe, probably does
not exist) like politicist with a descriptor like political. The
former would denote advocacy, whereas the latter simply informs us
that it deals with questions of politics. For anarcho-capitalism to be
anti-political, it would have to advocate the rejection of politics in
favor of I do not know what. Even then, it would simply be an
anti-political political philosophy. --AaronS 13:02, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

            on how a philosophy can discuss politics -- Which
politics? The NAP is no politics. To reject the state is no politics,
economic theory is no politics and so on. without being political --
What is political? What do you mean exactly? advocate altering
politics without being political -- Only a small and inapplicable part
of all ancap theories advocate anyway an "altering" of politics.
Anarcho-capitalists wouldn't longer write critics on the state when
they could simply secede. And when they could secede then they
wouldn't make any critics about the state or any artful suggestions
about politics because it wouldn't be their matter. It is only a
statist view that anarchists are involved into politics. --Uiofvnondc
13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                As a problems of political philosophy Rothbard saw:
"nature and role of liberty, property, and violence." (The Ethics of
Liberty) -- Vision Thing -- 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    What's your argument? --Uiofvnondc 19:29, 8 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        Those are the problems on which
anarcho-capitalism tries to answer. Political philosophy doesn't need
to have anything to do with government, elections, parties, etc. --
Vision Thing -- 08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Specifically, it (Crusoe economics) can aid greatly in solving such
problems of political philosophy as the nature and role of liberty
property, and violence.[2]" A comment about political philosphy. The
same is when I say: "Political philosophy need more accuracy and
thruthfulness." This is no politcal statement. It is only a statement
about political sciences.--Uiofvnondc 15:29, 9 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what are you trying to prove but here is one clear
definition from Rothbard: "Political philosophy is that subset of
ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is,
the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication
of such concepts as crime and property)." -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 9
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        This defintion is onesided. It is correct that politics is the
proper role of violence in human life. But to say that property comes
from the proper role of violence in human life depends on the term
property itself. Rothbard used consequently in this book his natural
law persepective to declare universal public rules. But many
anarcho-capitalists don't follow natural law rules. For example,
property is a voluntary treaty within two parties without violence.
Nobody calls this "politics". It is not a treaty and it is not
allotted property for the thirth and forth party or person. So, this
property is no public rule for all and it so no deal with the proper
role of violence because it is voluntary. You may say that Rothbard's
theory is a natural law political philosophy. OK. But is
anarcho-capitalism a natural law philosophy? Or is anarcho-capitalism
a political philosophy by Rothbards controversial natural law part?
No. No. No. This is much too easy. This leads to wrong assumptions and
therefore it is POV. --Uiofvnondc 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split1

@WGee

    about "political" and "related to": Please, look to the
connotations of "political" on M-W. or answers.com and then say me
which connotation you mean.
    deductive reasoning: Your premise is wrong or at least inexact.
Political philosophyAnarcho-capitalism is not the study of ... "law
and the enforcement of a legal code by authority." Nevertheless it
would be a new synthesis. This is forbidden by W:NOR.
    Rothbard made an important comment about political philosophy
which is not evaluated in Political philosophy. Rothbards effort and
intension was always to establish a "philosophy of liberty" which
would be pertinent to the political scene. Of course, his wish was to
construct a political philosophy of liberty because this would mean at
least that his ideas of liberty would be affiliated anyway in the
political sciences. His work "Ethics of Liberty" "attempts ... to set
forth a systematic ethical theory of liberty. It is not, however, a
work in ethics per se, but only in that subset of ethics devoted to
political philosophy." So, he wanted that other people would
assimilate his ideas into contemporary political philosophy. This had
not happened because political philosophers in whole history have made
only positive approaches of any political systems or hierachical
public orders. Also the classic anarchist philosphers like Prodhun
aimed to an authoritative political order. Rothbards work is until
today absolutely not compatible to political philosophy. To claim it
would be purely political now is a new and unusual thesis in the
political scieces. If you reflect to a vernacular sense then it would
be a weasel term. --Uiofvnondc 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Other source says "Rothbard's political theory of
anarcho-capitalism", but I agree with AaronS and WGee, sources are
really a non-issue here. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                "Other source" is no reputable source. And agreements
to mysticsism is no Wikipedia like behavior. But I see you want to
enforce this opinion against my reasoned arguments. Then I add a
section in the article reflecting how ancap is a political philosophy
and how not. Maybe for your disgrace. --Uiofvnondc 12:32, 8 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    What will the new section say? "Uiofvnondc has
argued (poorly) that Anarcho-capitalism should not be considered a
political philosophy.[1]" ???

                        At first, your POV statement in the intro is
poor. --Uiofvnondc 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            You're dodging the question... I'm asking
you what your new section would say. —Two-Bit Sprite 13:09, 8 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                Only some facts in relation to
political philosophy and political science. You have started this
topic as to be so important. --Uiofvnondc 13:46, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

You say that:

        "Political philosophy is not the study of ... 'law and the
enforcement of a legal code by authority.'"

If you're contesting another Wikipedia article's definition of a term,
that argument would be better made on that article, rather than
attempting to redefine it without consensus for this
article.--Rosicrucian 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I've read your correction. However, anarcho-capitalism does
have a view on "law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority."
That view is that the state does not have any special authority to
enforce a legal code, and that its practices in doing so are
illegitimate and monopolistic. As we've been stating all along, even
being antipolitical is a political viewpoint.--Rosicrucian 16:25, 8
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Ah, now you mean, "a view on" is "the study of". Which sense
shall it make in our discussion when you bend the terms as you need
it? The view that the state would have no right to enforce a legal
code is no study of law and the enforcement of a legal code by
authority. The task of political philosophy was always to develop
political theories of law and law enforcement to justify and establish
public rules. Anarcho-capitalism cannot deliver any contribution to
this because it would be a contradiction in itself. When you agree
that this is an anti-political view why do you not write that it is
anti-political? --Uiofvnondc 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Again, this is a problem with your understanding of
English. Anti-political is not the same as un-political or
non-political. Two-Bit Sprite 23:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                What again? I answered to Rosicrucian. He had used the
term. Read this before you turn on me. --Uiofvnondc 07:26, 9 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    I understand that Rosicrucian used the term, I am
merely giving my input. He used the term 'antipolitical' and you
distorted that term to mean 'nonpolitical'. You are dodging my point.
Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        You are confused. I have not used the word
non-political. --Uiofvnondc 15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            But that is what you are saying, that
anarcho-capitalism is non-political, i.e. is not political. Two-Bit
Sprite 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                I have used clearly the word
anti-political. One time more, then I become abusive. --Uiofvnondc
08:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Then you have used it incorrectly,
is what Sprite is saying.--Rosicrucian 15:35, 10 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]
                                    Your entire argument is that
anarcho-capitalism is not political, therefore you are saying that it
is non-political, yet now you change your argument such that you
assert that it is anti-political, which is not the same thing.
Anarcho-capitalism is not a philosophy the criticizes the study of
political philosophy, instead it is a political philosophy that
criticizes most other philosophies of politics. Also, are you
attempting to make threats at me with you "then I become abusive"?? If
so, you will not get anywhere with your idle threats, except maybe
banned. Two-Bit Sprite 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split2

@Uiofvnondc You earlier said that: "Not even ancap scholars are
decribed as "political philosphers"." However, in introduction of The
Ethics of Liberty it is said: "Accordingly, Rothbard saw himself in
the role of a political philosopher...".

Also, "Libertarianism as developed in The Ethics of Liberty was no
more and no less than a political philosophy". -- Vision Thing --
18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Political", in this context, means "Of, relating to, or dealing
with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state."
[8] You said: The task of political philosophy was always to develop
political theories of law and law enforcement to justify and establish
public rules. That is utterly wrong. The task of political philosophy
is to merely study and postulate on fundamental questions about
political authority, not necessarily to justify the existence of
authority. That statement of yours proves that you don't understand
what political philosophy/politics/political science is; that is why
you have been unable to present a sensible argument. Just because the
ideology wants to abolish legal authority and the state, it does not
mean that it is not a political ideology. Honestly, your argument is
ridiculous and senseless, and the fact that you are impeding the
article's progress over this is frustrating. -- WGee 18:52, 8 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have already answered to this at 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2.
libertarianism and political philosophy - what a hard and overweight
word! Walter Block (scholar, Austrian School) writes exceptionally:
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It concerned solely with
the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal
to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property
without his permission; force is justified only in defense or
retaliation. That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation,
elaboration, and qualification and answering misconceived
objections."--Uiofvnondc 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        "To reject the state is no politics. . ." Erm, yes it is.
Refer to the definition above. -- WGee 18:55, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

            I have asked you for the connotation of "political" on
M-W. or answers.com. Answer this! --Uiofvnondc 19:05, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                OK, but it seems odd that you'd want to confine me to
the use of two dictionaries. . . According to Webster's dictionary,
political means "of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics
and especially party politics" or "of or relating to government, a
government, or the conduct of government." Both of those definitions
are applicable to anarcho-capitalism. In any case, Vision Thing has
already presented sources attesting to anarcho-capitalism's status as
a political philosophy, and I have directed you to Ideologies of
parties, which lists anarcho-capitalism as a political ideology. Your
argument is inherently flawed because it is based on an incorrect
notion of English semantics. -- WGee 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    political means "of, relating to, involving, or
involved in politics and especially party politics" - Anarchists don't
relate to politics. They want only their freedom. (Example: "Voting is
a political act")

                        Non-voting can also be a very powerful
political statement/act. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]
                        Only when it shall transfer a political
demand. But powerful? That would be new to me. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            The act of open and vocal non-voting has
been used by anarchist for decades. Demonstrations outside of voting
centers, etc. I suppose 'powerful' would be subjective, but
nevertheless it has been used. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                Most ancaps who I know say only that
it makes no sense to vote. That's all. --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    'Most ancaps who I know' is not a
varifiable ro reliable source. Two-Bit Sprite 21:06, 9 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                                        What do you kow what I can
support? Look to your own sources. --Uiofvnondc 11:50, 10 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                    or "of or relating to government, a government, or
the conduct of government." -- Ancaps are not the government. Could it
be possible that you have not understand the meaning of these
dictionaries? For example, when you say: "taxation is political
crime". Then you relate to politics of government or state but not to
yourself.

                        Again, I think you are misinterpreting the
nuances of the English language. I think you are interpreting the word
'relating' to mean 'associated with', instead of 'relative to' or 'in
terms of' as it actually means in this instance. I'm not even sure I
understand what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Two-Bit Sprite
23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            No, on answer.com are examples for the
connotations. --Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                You tell others not to use the
vernacular meaning of the word, and then continue to refer to a single
dictionary as though it were the end-all-be-all of the english
language. But I will play your game. Answers.com under 'political
philosohpy' immediately cites Britanica, which says: "Branch of
philosophy that analyzes the state and related concepts...". Yes,
Anarcho-capitalism analizes the state and related concepts and it's
analysis is that states are intrusive and unnecessary. So, according
to your chosen source, a/c is political. Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                I said already that political
philosphy makes only positive approaches to politics. This is an
empirical fact of the political sciences. A fast defintion doesn't
take this into account. And, the only relation is that it is a counter
philosophy. --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    This is the historian's fallacy,
saying that in the past all Xers have always done Y means that Y is
inherent to X. This is the same argument that claims that
Anarcho-capitalism can't be a form of anarchism because anarchists
have traditionally been anti-capitalist. This is like saying that
Pragmatism is not a true epistemological philosophy because it breaks
the traditional idealism of previous epistemologists. Two-Bit Sprite
15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Therefore ancap is no
classical anarchism and contemporary political sciences doesn't speak
about anarcho-capitalism as philosophy (if at all). --Uiofvnondc
15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                            You concede my point, then
attempt to argue as though it supports yours. My point is that just
because most political philosophers ponder how a state should operate
does not mean that it is forbidden for another political philosopher
to contemplate the justification of the state, and further to conclude
that it is not justified. Two-Bit Sprite 19:55, 11 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                    Quite simply, there is no suited connotation.
                    I don't know any anarcho-capitalist party. I
think, you are making jokes. --Uiofvnondc 22:12, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                        I don't know of any anarchist party either,
yet you earlier were talking about how anarchism is political in
contrast with anarcho-capitalism. The lack of a party does not mean
the lack of a political theory. Two-Bit Sprite 23:29, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

                            One small "political" "theory" doesn't
make yet a "political philosophy". These terms are very inexact.
Philosophy should be a "field of study". Anarchocapitalism is quite no
political field of study except of the legitimacy of the state.
--Uiofvnondc 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                The theory about the legitimacy of the
state is the core of a/c theory, so how can you accnowledge that that
core is political, and then claim somehow that a/c is not political?
Besides, your understanding of the word 'philosophy' is a bit odd. I
would say that 'science' is a "field of study", but philosophy is
"Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral
self-discipline."[9] Two-Bit Sprite 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    The theory about the legitimacy of
the state is only political by the fact that one can deduce a public
right to secede. The core is much more. Economics, social theory,
ideology criticism, private law enforcemnt, private security, private
money, ethics, classic liberal history and so on. (I have only used
the defintion of the wikipedia article. I am not sure if it is
correct.) --Uiofvnondc 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        You are still argueing in
circles. You admit that there at least some political aspect to it,
yet reject the whole thing as non-political? The economics, social
theory, etc all stem from this political insite of the right to reject
coercive institutions, plus some abstract theorizing about how society
would evolve to deal with the lack of a state. Two-Bit Sprite 15:12,
10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                            On the whole it is
non-poltical. How can you deny this? You have a statist view. The
anarcho-capitalist social and economic theory is also valid when there
would be no state. Maybe nobody would have constructed such theories
without states or other mafias but something is not political only by
the fact that it probably wouldn't exist without a state. For example,
a book about the history of U.S. governments is only a bibliography.
It wouldn't exist without states. But it is absolutely non-political.
--Uiofvnondc 16:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                                Anarcho-capitalists
postulate on how a state-less society would operate, but the primary
arguments of anarcho-capitalism are its criticisms of the state; the
rest is orthogonal. Ancapism is not in and of itself an economic
theory — most anarcho-capitalists embrace Austrian economics, but this
does not make it the core of ancapism. Look at the majority of
Rothbard's books, most of them are about the state, and are criticisms
and attacks on the state. Two-Bit Sprite 19:53, 11 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

split3

Well I think User:Uiofvnondc is claiming that anarcho-capitalism might
not in itself give rise to political actions, but that is not wholy
correct. Rothbard would argue that there exists a political philosophy
within libertarianism (and thus anarcho-capitalism), that would entail
a strategy that holds liberty as it highest political end, and
searches for means that will give rise to liberty in the quickest
possible way. In an anarcho-capitalist society this question of course
cannot exist, since everyone will live in complete liberty, with no
political ends that come to mind. Intangible 19:03, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    I know that Rothbard followed a strategy to construct a "political
philosophy of liberty" in his book "Ethics of Liberty". But if you
call this a "libertarian political philosophy" or if you call this the
attempt to establish the right thinking into contemporary political
philosophies is a point of view, either. I prefer the latter view.
--Uiofvnondc 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        I don't understand what you're trying to express. If
anarcho-captialism seeks to, in your words, "establish the right
thinking into contemporary political philosophies," it is a political
ideology. -- WGee 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            This was only an approach of Rothbard. There is no need to
accomplish his political affairs as anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc
22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        From book's description: "The Ethics of Liberty
authoritatively established the anarcho-capitalist economic system as
the most viable and the only principled option for a social order
based on freedom." Libertarianism, as developed in The Ethics of
Liberty, is anarcho-capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:59, 9 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Maybe this book is a little bit political. This doesn't
make Rothbard to a political philospher, not to mention complete
anarcho-capitalism. --Uiofvnondc 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                It's rather reaching to try to claim Rothbard isn't a
political philosopher. The man was a founding member of the American
Libertarian party.--Rosicrucian 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    So what? He left the party after he saw that the
party couldn't help him.

                Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the introduction of The Ethisc
of Libery said that Rothbard is a political philosopher. That's a
reliable source and I don't know why are you fighting with windmills
here. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    This is not true. Hoppe writes: "Rothbard was the
creator of a system of social and political philosophy based on
economics and ethics as its cornerstones." ... "Rothbard's unique
contribution is the rediscovery of and philosophy, and the systematic
reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist
economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral
science: libertarianism." ... " Accordingly, Rothbard saw himself in
the role of a political philosopher as well as an economist
essentially as a preserver and defender of old, inherited truths, and
his claim to originality, like that of Mises, was one of utmost
modesty. Like Mises, his achievement was to hold onto and restate
long-ago established insights and repair a few errors within a
fundamentally complete intellectual edifice."
                    As I statet above, you may say that Rothbard's
theory is a natural law political philosophy. Not more. --Uiofvnondc
12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        Then it is a political philosophy, what is
your boggle? Two-Bit Sprite 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            A cup of tea doesn't make an ocean.
--Uiofvnondc 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                And clever saying don't make an
argument, please don't sideline my points with your witty aphorisms.
The rejection of the state is at the core of Anarcho-capitalism, all
other points are merely postulations on how a society without
centralized government would operate. Two-Bit Sprite 19:46, 11 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop joking around?

Uiofvnondc has gotta be yanking our chains. How else can he claim, on
the same day, that anarcho-capitalism is anti-political, not
non-political,[10] but non-political, not anti-political?[11] His
sense of indignation is growing inauthentic. I say we cap this
discussion soon and move on to more important things. This isn't
serious. --AaronS 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SIC. But your are serious?! Laughable. --Uiofvnondc 16:26, 10
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph of intro

My suggestion:

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist political philosophy that
embraces stateless capitalism, and calls for the provision of all
goods and services—including systems of jurisdiction, policing, and
territorial defense—by the free market. Anarcho-capitalists believe
that markets don't require regulation to be successful and reject the
state as an illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange. They
assert that that each individual has the right to own the product that
he has made and that property can only be legitimately derived through
trade, gift, or original appropriation. This embrace of unfettered
capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists
and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being
essential to anarchist philosophy, tantamount with rejection of the
state. -- Vision Thing -- 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, we have a hard struggle about a correct intro with more than 3
wariers, all with different aims. Even if we would have a consensus
about it then the next editor would change it in one week or two
months. But I can agree with this version as a basis except for
"political". --Uiofvnondc 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is still rather unencyclopedic:

        Anarcho-capitalists believe that markets don't require
regulation to be successful and reject the state as an illegitimate
intruder into natural human exchange.

I think the following might be a better way to put it:

        The philosophy posits that market regulation is not a
requirement for economic success, and rejects the state as an
illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange.

Less redundancy, and a more neutral voice.--Rosicrucian 21:43, 7
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s ok, but "posits" is not correct. Maybe something like this:

        "This philosophy argues that unregulated/unhampered markets
can do a better job than government in providing economic and social
success, and rejects the state as an illegitimate intruder into
natural human exchange"? -- Vision Thing -- 12:26, 8 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

Kind of getting onto a different approach there. Perhaps:

        The philosophy argues that the open market can provide social
services and personal security more efficiently and effectively than
government, which it views as having an unjustified monopoly on these
commodities. It asserts that market regulation is not a requirement
for social and economic success, and rejects the state as an
illegitimate intruder into natural human exchange.

Breaks it down into two sentences, and avoids confusion.--Rosicrucian
15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would replace "open" with "free" and "commodities" with
"services", but that's about it. Are there any other objections to
this intro? -- Vision Thing -- 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Well it sounds a little bit utilitarian to me. That "the open
market can provide social services and personal security more
efficiently and effectively than government" seems to be a consequence
of economic thinking, not of any ethical consideration of
anarcho-capitalism. Intangible 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            It is consequence of economic thinking; both Rothbard and
Friedman are economists. We can't circumvent that. -- Vision Thing --
19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            How about this: "The philosophy argues that the free
market should provide social services and personal security rather
than government, as it views forced funding through taxation as
counterproductive and/or immoral." That way you can get rid of the
jargon about "monopoly" which doesn't make much sense, because
obviously government doesn't have a monopoly on defense since there
are private security guards. It certainly doesn't have a monopoly in
providing food, etc. That'sHot 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                First part is already said in the first sentence of
introduction, so it's redundant. -- Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                What about the current intro? What do you folks find
disagreeable about it? -- WGee 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                    Again: I find disagreeable "political philosophy"
and "calls for the abolition of the state". See above. But why do you
ask at all? --Uiofvnondc 07:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    Regarding your edit, I didn't find anything in the
works of David Friedman about non-aggression axiom and individual
sovereignty. So I would rather put that in the second paragraph. --
Vision Thing -- 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                        This is also a strong argument against
"political" philosophy. What is so important that you must call it
"political" philosophy in the first sentence without ifs and
buts.--Uiofvnondc 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                            Well, first and foremost you seem to be
the only one pushing for its removal, and the remainder of the
participants on this talkpage seem to feel its inclusion in the first
sentence is merited as the philosophy deals with fundamental political
questions such as the legitimacy of governmental rule rather than more
general philosophical ones. While you wheedle and ask us to source
this, the evidence is in the article itself, as well as the
correlations that it bears to the article on political philosophy.
Bear in mind that there really is no "consensus of one," and the only
real requirement for the rest of us to move on with the article and
consider the dispute finished is a rough consensus, not a perfect
consensus.--Rosicrucian 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                Your artifical and makeshift term of
"rough consensus" is as licentious as "political philosphy".
--Uiofvnondc 16:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                    My "artificial and makeshift term"
is the same language Wikipedia uses regarding consensus. While
Wikipedia can often be subject to the tyranny of the minority, it
doesn't have to be.--Rosicrucian 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        I also think that our friend
forgets that one of the basic tenets of those who support
consensus-based decision-making is that compromise is necessary;
otherwise, consensus will never be reached. --AaronS 16:43, 10 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                            Nay, a compromise can mean
half true and half false. But where is your compromise? For example
"anti-political philosphy" or "in some parts a political
philosophy".--Uiofvnondc 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Ah, you mean that Wikipedia
couldn't often be subject to the tyranny of the majority. No, your
argument is only of pragmatic kind to enforce your position. It is
just easier to form a majority power against a minority than to
deliver a reputable source for the own POV. --Uiofvnondc 16:56, 10
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I say "monopoly" I'm using the actual phrasing the article
uses later on, which is why I included it.--Rosicrucian 22:43, 8
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did some research and according to Murray Rothbard, it doesn't
have to have a coercive monopoly on defense services to be a state. It
can simply be something that taxes. Here is a quote: "Let me say from
the beginning that I define the State as that institution which
possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following
properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known
as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced
monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over
a given territorial area. Any institution, not possessing either of
these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my
definition, a "State"." (Society without a State) [12] That'sHot
23:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this version? -- Vision Thing -- 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm liking your current revision on the article, Vision Thing.
It's nicely tight, and fairly informative. I think it passes
Wikipedia:Lead section swimmingly.--Rosicrucian 15:18, 10 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

        Thanks! -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        This clause is false: "Anarcho-capitalists assert that that
each individual has the right to own the product that he has made. .
." Rothbard's pertinent quotation says: ". . .if every man has the
right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material
natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the
product that he has made." In this quotation, he is referring to
natural resources that were previously unowned. In other words, if one
mixes one's labour with unowned natural resources, then, and only
then, does it become his property. If one is under the contract of a
corporation and manufactures a computer, however, that computer does
not become his property, even though it is the product that he as
made. Thus, the clause is false or, at the very least, terribly
misleading.

        Moreover, we already mention the homestead principle in the
lead, so the clause "Anarcho-capitalists assert that that each
individual has the right to own the product that he has made" (which
is essentially a reference to the homestead principle) is superfluous.

        --WGee 18:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            As it was said in the same sentence, property can be
legitimately obtained through trade, gift, or original appropriation.
Work contract is a form of trade; one trades future products of his
labor for money (wage). Nobody has stolen product of his labor from
him, he simply traded it for money. -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 11
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superflous perhaps, but I'm not seeing it as false per
se.--Rosicrucian 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, one could be conservative and say that it is misleading; but
if it is misleading, it is inherently false (my logic being that if it
is only "half-true", it is essentially not true, i.e. false). We
cannot make such general statements about anarcho-capitalism in this
case; we must clarify what Rothbard means when he says "he has the
right to own the product that he has made."

    Mutualists, other individualist anti-capitalist anarchists, and
some socialists believe, unconditionally, in "the individual's right
to possess what he or she produced." [13] Anarcho-capitalists, on the
other hand, believe in the individual's right to possess what he or
she produced, only if the product was made using previously unowned
natural resources. And to address your point, Vision Thing, (assuming
I understand it correctly) trade does not necessarily imply a
contractual division of labour, for trade is possible in anarchist
economic systems such as mutualism, which do not recognize a division
of labour. Even if your statement were true, Vision Thing, we
shouldn't be confusing or misleading readers with vague implications
or paradoxes.

    Thus, to say, unconditionally, that "Anarcho-capitalists assert
that each individual has the right to own the product that he has
made" is essentially false, because anarcho-capitalists only believe
this to be true in a particular case: when one mixes one's labour with
an unowned natural resource. (Note that in the paragraph from which
the quotation is derived, Rothbard was specifically talking about the
appropriation of "material natural objects in order to survive": that
is, natural resources. In other words, "product", in that context,
means "that which is made using unowned natural resources.")
    --WGee 03:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        What socialists are you talking about? The anarcho-communists
don't think "the individual's right to possess what he or she
produced." They say an individual has a right to be provided what he
"needs" by the community. There is no right to individually own what
you produce in anarcho-communism. If you're talking about the
self-proclaimed "socialist" Benjamin Tucker, he is the same as the
anarcho-capitalists as owning what you produced from the earth's
resources or recieved through trade. The exception is on land, where
if you stop using it, you don't own it anymore. That'sHot 03:36, 12
August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            I will clarify then: mutualists, other individualist
anti-capitalist anarchists, and some socialists believe in the right
of the individual to own the product that he has made. -- WGee 03:44,
12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Right. That's what seperates individualist from
collectivist anarchism......the right to individually own what you
produce instead of it going into a collective pool where it is
distributed according to need. That's why anarcho-capitalism is
considered an individualist form of anarchism. All individualists
oppose the authority of the community to decide (such as through
democratic process) who needs what. If you produce it, you own it,
until you decide to trade it for something else. I don't know why you
say it's a false statement for Rothbard. Neither Rothbard or Tucker
would think that if you take someone else's property and produce
something out of it that it's yours. It only applies if you're working
with materials that haven't already been turned into property by
someone else. That'sHot 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        You didn't understood me correctly, I'm not saying that trade
necessarily implies a contractual division of labor. I'm saying that
contract between employee and employer is a form of trade. But I agree
that that statement is superfluous since it's already covered with
original appropriation/ homestead principle. -- Vision Thing -- 13:51,
13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            To say that a contract between an employee and an employer
is a form of trade is to say that trade entails a division of labor,
which is not necessarily true. In any case, the statement is
redundant, as you said. -- WGee 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                Believe it or not, speaking as a former entrepreneur,
telling people what to do is labor. People need others to tell them
what to do or little gets accomplished on the job. A lot of people
choose to work for others exactly because they want someone else to
tell them what to do instead of taking their own initiative to create
their own jobs and tell themselves what to do. Most people prefer to
have their hand held and be guided around, and that is the job of the
manager or business owner. When people go to work for another, an
exchange is made. "You perform the labor of telling me what to do, and
I perform the labor of doing it because I don't know what to do and I
need someone making sure that I don't slack off." If the business
owner/manager doesn't peform the labor of guiding and pressuring the
employees to produce, they will slack off, the business will fail, and
everybody will be out in the street. Not everyone has the initiative
and discipline to keep themselves from slacking off and not everyone
knows what to do to make a living. That's where the employer comes in.
A trade is made. Both parties labor in different ways. Besides
managing the employees, you have to manage the cash flow and make sure
the business stays liquid, you have to manage inventory, you have to
negotiate with suppliers and merchants. Sometimes you even have to
haggle and bribe government officials in order to get around
oppressive regulations that interfere with the free market, especially
here in Brasil. Anyone who thinks running a business with employees is
not labor intensive is living in a fantasy world. When smoeone goes to
work for an employer they are relieving themselves of a lot of labor
and headaches. It is a trade. Like VisionThing said, it's a division
of labor. DTC 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I see that Anarcho-capitalism is listed as needing a mediator. I am
willing to mediate this case, as I have familiarity with (I think) all
political and economic systems, including the variants of anarchist
philosophy. Please leave a note if this is acceptable or not. Thanks.
- MSTCrow 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your talk archives indicate you have recently been removed from
the Mediation Cabal. Is it really appropriate to offer
this?--Rosicrucian 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            Well, if you notice, you don't actually have to be part of
the Cabal to mediate. Not going to stop working simply because of
politics. The users decide who mediates. So whether it's "appropriate"
or not is rather subjective, policy-wise, it's fully appropiate. -
MSTCrow 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

        Now that the trollish sockpuppets are gone, do we really need
mediation? -- WGee 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

            I think one might actually be back. See DTC's contribution
history. He arrived over the weekend and began a flurry of familiar
edits. I may be jumping the gun, but there's nothing wrong with some
extra caution, considering the history of these articles. --AaronS
14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

                I'd say this is a different person, the writing style
is much different, and a bit better. Also, the focus on labor in some
of thier comments is a bit different. Although the user is still a bit
suspicious in being a new user that seems so familiar with wikipedia
and has a single directed goal. Two-Bit Sprite 21:26, 14 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

Taking a break

I'm taking a break from these articles. There is far too much sock
puppetry going on. Those involved might find it amusing, for whatever
reason, or might believe that they're spreading the Truth, but it's
actually quite silly. I've never understood why so many evangelicals
were attracted to Wikipedia, as if people came to Wikipedia to do
scholarly research, rather than the leisurely perusal of articles for
their own enjoyment. But, people are strange. I had my fun with this
article, but I feel no need to engage in the kinds of games that some
people here, and their sock puppets, seem so fond of. Engaging in
arguments for the sake of argument, or to keep track of points, and
engaging in hot-headed Internet disputes, are two things that I grew
out of at the end of high school. --AaronS 19:22, 16 August 2006
(UTC)[reply]

    Your temporary leave of absence is well warranted. I, too, have
grown annoyed by the fanatical polemicism of the sockpuppets, which is
why I've decided to stop editing this article for a while.
Unfortunately, articles related to political science attract the most
die-hard and ardent editors, who detract from the liesure of editing.
-- WGee 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistics

I think that the list of thirteen sources one after another in the
Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism section is a little ugly... Maybe
this could be fixed up to look better? Supersheep 20:39, 22 August
2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anarcho-capitalism

grarpamp