Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 2
>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.

There is no such thing as an "ansoc" that is a word made up by caps to
describe anarchists. All of the original anarchists considered
themselves socialist to one degree or another, and even those today
who distinguish anti-capitalism from socialism are still themselves
anti-capitalist.

Further, today it is a small number of people who call themselves
anarchists that support legal systems. Even amongst that minority,
none of them support prisons, none of them support police, and all of
them advocate that this "legal" system be entered into equally by all
participants, not some joke of a justice system which automatically
legitmates the position of private property claimants while
over-ruling any dissent against it.


Examples of straw-men engaged in this article:

"But individualist anarchists don't care for authorities who decide
who has the right to declare oneself an anarchist."

The implication here is that anarchists are relying on some authority
figure or institution to claim that capitalism is incompatible with
anarchism. But I have never seen any anarchist, prominent or not, make
any such claim. The arguments I have seen are all based on the
etymology of the word, the historical origin, the historical
precedence, the coherence of the philosophy, and the occasional
populist fallacy.

"For instance, left-anarchists consider all property as
institutionalized enforced privilege"

A number of individualists consider themselves to be on the left, and
some of those individualists advocate a form of possession that is
akin to or by some standards identical to a particular narrow kind of
property. Thus it is fallacious to claim that left-anarchists in
general consider all property to be institutionalized enforced
priviledge, even if most believe as much.


"More generally, when talking about governments, justice systems,
etc., left-anarchists often think in collectivist terms, and may not
understand the stance of anarcho-capitalists, who consider any kind of
collectivist decision as oppression of the political minority by the
political majority."

The implication here being that anarchists (what are misleadingly
refered to as left-anarchists) all support some kind of democratic
enforcement. However, the vast majority of anarchists reject
legitimate enforced group decisions, relying instead on consensus,
arbitration, disassociation, direct action, and dead-lock. Thus the
claim that "any" collective decision is the oppression of the
political minority is ridiculous, when such "decisions," if there are
any, are not necessarily even enforced.

"Anarcho-capitalist criticism of other views:

anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism"

This article is one gigantic straw-man, it shouldn't even be linked to
in its current state.

And then there are the representations of "anarcho-capitalism" that
are questionable in themselves:

"that considers all forms of express government unnecessary and
harmful, including (or especially) in matters of justice and
protection. "

Yet capitalists often do support governance institutions such as
courts, police, and prisons, even while claiming to be against
government. There should be an explaination about why one of these
governing bodies is considered to be government while the other is
not.

"They reject any kind of government control, taxation or regulation."

Which is entirely misleading, since they endorse the exact same
control mechanisms in the hands of businesses, including border
enforcement, rent, and policy enforcement. This is identical to
government, the fact that you call it a "business" doesn't change the
qualitative aspects of the institution itself. A society made up of a
series of mini-states, some of them fascist )private business), some
of them partially democratic or oligarchic (corporate business) would
be qualitatively identical to the "anarcho-capitalist" vision, yet few
would claim such states to be anarchist.

"Due to the rejection of any explicit state institutions,
Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism,"

Rather, anarcho-capitalism is claimed to be a form of anarchism.

"anarcho-capitalism is based on the notions of individual liberty
(including private property)"

This assumes that private property is compatible with individual
liberty. Many would claim that the opposite is true.

"Anti-statism is an essential part of the classical liberal tradition"

Not all classical liberals are against the state, even if they are
weary of it, so anti-statism can hardly be an essential part of the
theory.

"Anarcho-capitalists consider themselves as part of the individualist
anarchist tradition."

It must be noted here that a large number of individualists reject
this claim. This without mentioning the fact that all the original
individualist anarchists themselves explicitly rejected capitalism.

" and defends "negative rights" (such as the "right not to be attacked
by anyone else", the "right to not have one's food stolen by anyone
else", and the "right not to have any part of one's salary confiscated
by anyone")."

These "rights" are only defended insofar as they are in perfect
agreement with capitalist values. If an individual freely rejects
property relations, and in their free movement through a particular
geography they are forcefully restricted, no capitalist is going to
"defend their right not to be attacked by anyone else" if the
person(s) doing the restricting are themselves so-called legitimate
property owners. So it should be made clear that capitalists only
support negative rights insofar as the actors are themselves
capitalists or hold values identical to capitalists.


"Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think that
violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and
property."

"defense" of property is only self-defense according to a propertarian
ethic. To non-propertarians "defense" of property is often actually
aggression.

"They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal" way
to promote or impose their views"

Yet capitalists freely engage in violent enforcement to impose their
economic views on dissenters whenever that dissent clashes with their
property claims. Given that, the above statement is meaningless.

"However, even though they might approve of violence as necessary in
certain cases; even though they may concede that governments, having
monopolized the means of violence,"

This is also misleading. Within a capitalist system property owners
are given legitimate recourse to enforce whatever policy they dictate
within the sphere of their property. This is identical to having a
monopoly on violence in that sphere of control, thus identical to a
state.

"There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise, perpetrated
by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon others."

Shooting a non-propertarian "trespasser" is a form of violence used to
impose ones economic system upon others. Another meaningless claim.


Finally, I have no idea how the NPOV voting works, I have just seen it
done on other NPOV pages. Since you declared that you would simply
remove the dissenting notice full stop, I suggested a vote instead.
Contents

    1 Recent dispute
    2 Edit war
    3 Latest as of Nov 21
    4 Nov 30
    5 Dec 5

Recent dispute

First of all, I want to note that attacks on anarcho-capitalism belong
in the criticisms/arguments sections, not in the definition or
introduction, which should describe the beliefs of
anarcho-capitalists, regardless of whether you consider such views
incoherent or wrong. Besides this point, here are a few other
responses:

    See Landauer quote here for precedent on anarcho-capitalism as anarchism.

    I suspect most left-anarchists also favor violence in defense of
property. An outsider starts destroying the (collectively owned)
factory, what then? The notion of self-defense means different things
in different systems (e.g., in English common law one cannot use
deadly force to avert a minor beating, while some might think this is
"self-defense"). I think "self-defense of person and property" is a
fair description of ancap beliefs.

    "History of violence" refers not to the system itself but to the
behavior of its ideological adherents; your statement confuses these.

    Re: objection that a powerful business is like a government. Yes,
this is a valid objection to ancap, and similar objections can be made
to ansoc (a convenient abbreviation). But others have replies to this
objection. Your edits assume that you've won this argument.

I'm removing your inlined comments. Perhaps you could contribute to
the criticisms. -- VV 02:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not "attacking" anarcho-capitalism, I am asserting that the
descriptions of it should be honest, and that this page should not be
used as a covert attempt to attack anarchism itself under the guise of
a non-existent "branch" of anarchism.

The Landauer quote is irrelevant. Not only because Landauer is no
authority who decides for everyone else what anarchism is an is not,
but more importantly because all he was doing was distinguishing
between communist anarchism and individualist anarchism. But
individualist and communist anarchists have always done this. It is
Caplan that imports the assumption that this must be a distinction
between socialist and individualist anarchism, and it is Caplan and
you who mistake individualist anarchism for the misnomer that is
anarcho-capitalism. The individualists are not capitalists, they said
so themselves dozens of times, and a lot of modern day individualists
who have studied history will tell you this themselves. Don't believe
me? Ask Wendy McElroy.

The discussion of supposed violence in defense of property is also
irrelevant. First, because almost all anarchists oppose property, but
more importantly because this would at best be a criticism of attempts
at anarchism, not a reason to consider capitalists to be anarchists.
The most such a criticism could point out, assuming it was valid (a
big assumption imho), would be that many of those socialists who
consider themselves anarchists actually are not anarchists according
to their own assertions.

As to the history of violence, are you telling me that no one who has
considered themselves an anarcho-capitalist has ever used violence to
uphold their property claims?

My edits did not assume that I have "won" anything. I'm not trying to
win anything. I'm trying to clarify the issue and let capitalism be
portrayed honestly. To remove the points that I bring up about the
similarity between states and capitalist business is to simply pretend
that no such similitarity exists, or that it is irrelevant.

Oh well, it is clear that an honest portrayal of anarcho-capitalism is
not what you want. I will edit the page whenever I feel the urge, but
so long as the NPOV dispute warning remains it is not a priority for
me. I'm happy so long as visitors understand that the description here
does not stand undisputed in terms of its neutrality. - Kevin 11/12/03

    I already responded to most of these points. Anarchism means no
state. Self-defense almost always refers to the right to defend one's
home, and believing in this does not make one "pro-violence". Ancaps
do not favor corporate control; they do accept that hiring
corporations to provide self-defense service is a possibility. No one
is attacking anarchism; the articles makes it clear there are
different groups which oppose the state, and both views are described
on their respective pages. Using violence to uphold the property
claims is not the same as using violence to impose an ancap order; I'm
sure those who want to abolish property have also defended their
property while waiting for the Revolution. Your points about state vs.
business is a criticism of the position, not the position itself,
which does hold that there is a distinction. Adding in your own
opinion on these matters is not appropriate. -- VV 11:23, 14 Nov 2003
(UTC)

    (note this was written simultaneous with below, edit conflict)

I think the term leftist anarchist is POV - that is what anarchism is,
as far as I am aware. The only people who use the term 'leftist
anarchist' are those who think that the libertarian right are
anarchists and add the leftist to differentiate between the two. As
these libertarian rightists are a tiny minority (I think they only
exist in the US) could we use the normal meaning of anarchism?
Secretlondon 11:20, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

    I don't know much about the terminology debate (such as the
history of left-anarchist), but it seems both groups regard themselves
as anarchists (and this is consistent with the word's formal meaning),
so both claims should be respected. Adding "left-" as a specifier
allows us to be specific about which kind we mean in a certain
context, in the same way that saying (e.g.) "Russian conservatism" and
"American conservatism" might spare us from wars over which are the
real conservatives (or "neo-" and "paleo-", etc.). I will try to
accommodate this by adding more text to the intro about the
terminology issues. I think this is a reasonable compromise. -- VV
22:45, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"I already responded to most of these points. Anarchism means no state."

And you are just going to ignore my response? Anarchism from its
conception has meant more than just "no state," and anarchism
currently means more than just "no state" and the very root of the
word literally translates to more than just "no state." For evidence,
note proudhon's use of the word, modern dictionary definitions of the
word, and the greek basis of it. You didn't respond to any of these
points, you just glanced over them and edited anything that disagreed
with your position.

"Self-defense almost always refers to the right to defend one's home,
and believing in this does not make one "pro-violence"."

That is debatable, but also irrelevant. Property includes far more
than ones home. It can include a field of hay half way around the
world, a toothbrush in the sink, or a pound of titanium in a vault in
Switzerland. Obviously defending all of these things regardless of how
they were acquired is not considered by all people to be
"self-defense." Indeed, not even capitalists would view all property
claims as self-defense. These needs to be expanded or rewritten to be
accounted for. And I never wrote anything that suggested that
capitalists were pro-violent, only that they support violence to
uphold their property claims.

"Ancaps do not favor corporate control; they do accept that hiring
corporations to provide self-defense service is a possibility."

Clearly many capitalists do favor corporate control over the state. If
you want to include the fact that some of them prefer private control,
rent, and policy over corporate, then do so. That is not a reason to
delete my edits.

"No one is attacking anarchism; the articles makes it clear there are
different groups which oppose the state, and both views are described
on their respective pages."

If we accepted your definition of anarchism from the outset, then
sure, no one is attacking anarchism. But the whole point of dissent in
this case is that as anarchists we are under no obligation to accept
your definition. Anarchism does not mean merely what it is presented
to mean in this page, it need to be presented openly and honestly, and
that includes describing it as anarchists themselves would.

"Using violence to uphold the property claims is not the same as using
violence to impose an ancap order; I'm sure those who want to abolish
property have also defended their property while waiting for the
Revolution."

This is a non-sequitor. Just because individuals have upheld their
property claims using violence in both cases doesn't mean that doing
so is not imposing a particular economic order upon those who dissent.

"Your points about state vs. business is a criticism of the position,
not the position itself, which does hold that there is a distinction."

Then you have to explicitly tell what that distinction is. As it is, a
reader might incorrectly think that there is no similarity. There is a
similarity, and it is our burden to demonstrate the anarcho-capitalist
position on this matter.

"Adding in your own opinion on these matters is not appropriate."

Deleting everything that disagrees with your opinion is not
appropriate either. And lets be clear, you are the one deleting
passages here, I am merely adding to them or changing the wording to
provide a more neutral POV.

Secretlondon is correct to assert that left-anarchist is a misnomer.
However, it is obvious that the biased capitalists on this board will
not admit to such, and since this is their page I suggest that they be
refered to as libertarian socialists unless there are any anarchists
who disagree. Doing this will allow you to side-step the debate about
whether or not left-anarchist is an appropriate title for a group of
people who universally reject it.

Kevin 11/14/03

"(and this is consistent with the word's formal meaning)"

For the third time, the only way you can continue to claim that is by
ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, evidence which I have
supplied and you have ignored. It is not a compromise to refer to
anarchists as something they are not. What is your problem with
refering to them as libertarian socialists anyway? Most of them would
agree with that far more than "left-anarchis." Many of them in fact
refer to themselves as "post-left" anarchists, are you going to try to
claim that they are left-anarchists as well?

Kevin 11/15/03
Edit war

Guys, please stop the edit war. And VV, I don't see what is wrong with
Anon's edits; they seem to be reasonable to me and in fact read more
NPOV than the version you keep reverting to. Please explain. --mav
03:15, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


I have to agree here. The edit war is dizzying, and the anon edits
don't seem so crazy as to be reverted completely. They seem to request
NPOV. --Kahn 08:18, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's more like he keeps making dozens of edits, most without merit. I
have kept the ones that were reasonable, but he keeps putting all of
them back in. That's why it's turned into reversion.

I'll take a few examples from the top:

    claimed... to be a synthesis. Why is this necessary? It can be
pretty clear where a movement originated. What is objectionable about
saying it takes ideas from two other viewpoints?

    express government regulation (etc.). What the hell does this even
mean? Versus implicit? It's clear what government means in this
context, and in fact the text does refer to "explicit state
institutions", which does mean something (institutions calling
themselves states). This objection can be in the criticisms section,
anyway.

    free market. Free market is a term in economics with a specific
meaning. The verbiage is unhelpful and pointless.

    corporate enforcement, rent, and policy etc. This is completely
wrong. Corporations are a possible place to get self-defense services
from, and it's possible you can rent a place, or not. And this is
redundant. The text already says, "Anarcho-capitalists promote
individual property rights and free markets, as a way to organize all
services, including all those that governments claim as their natural
monopoly, such as police, justice and the army.... They consider
capitalist corporations based on voluntary contracts as a legitimate
and efficient way for people to organize." This is a much clearer and
far more accurate way of giving this information. The other way is
screaming with bias (corporations instead of government, yuck!).

    individual liberty (with [sic] some claim includes private
property) vs. (including private property). The whole point of saying
"including" is to distinguish this interpretation from one where
liberty does not include private property. Cf., e.g., "all US states
(including the District of Columbia) have two senators".

    There is no history of violence -> There is a history of violence.
Are you going to defend this?

I could go on and on. The point about violence to defend one's
property versus to impose one's system (and is there any evidence of
the former among ancaps anyway?) is also a big one, covered in my
Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles blurb. And property as
aggression is a fringe view which does not need to be accommodated at
every single mention of violence; that view can get its say in the
objections section.

In summary, not one of these edits appears merited to me. -- VV 08:39,
16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You have not kept all the edits that are reasonable VV. You have kept
all the edits the you have personally deemed to be reasonable. Your
assumption apparently being that you are the ultimate arbiter of what
does or does not count as reason.

"claimed... to be a synthesis. Why is this necessary? It can be pretty
clear where a movement originated. What is objectionable about saying
it takes ideas from two other viewpoints? "

There is nothing at all objectionable about saying that
anarcho-capitalism takes ideas from two other traditions. Please, say
so. But just make it clear that not everyone agrees with this claim.
Most individualists themselves believe that capitalism is entirely
incompatible with anarchism, so we need readers to know that there is
more than one opinion floating about here. Obviously this is the
capitalist page, so the capitalist opinion takes precedent, but to
simply claim that "capitalism IS a synthesis" involving individualism
is to pretend like there is no controversy and no dissent at all. That
is hardly honest.

"* express government regulation (etc.). What the hell does this even
mean? Versus implicit? It's clear what government means in this
context, and in fact the text does refer to "explicit state
institutions", which does mean something (institutions calling
themselves states). This objection can be in the criticisms section,
anyway."

I don't understand. You are agreeing that capitalists reject explicit
state institutions, or institutions calling themselves states. So what
do you find objectionable with making that clear by pointing out that
capitalists object specifically to express government regulation?

"* free market. Free market is a term in economics with a specific
meaning. The verbiage is unhelpful and pointless."

Sure. It is also a term used by individualists to refer to an economy
in which usury is not present. Given that this is page is claiming to
be a form of anarchism, it is very important to take into account the
fact that most market anarchists (i.e. individualist anarchists) would
not consider a capitalist market to be "free." It seems clear that by
"free market" you mean a market that is not interfered with by the
state, so what is wrong with making this explicit to avoid confusion?

"corporate enforcement, rent, and policy etc. This is completely
wrong. Corporations are a possible place to get self-defense services
from, and it's possible you can rent a place, or not."

If corporate enforcement, rent, and policy is a possible outcome, then
why is this "completely wrong?" Perhaps you should mention that it is
not the only possible outcome, and I did that myself when I refered to
"corporate OR private" replacements for some state institutions.

"The other way is screaming with bias (corporations instead of
government, yuck!)."

Are you telling me that you do not seek private propertarian and
corporate propertarian alternatives to current government
institutions? If so, please just say so. I can quote from just about
every prominent "anarcho-capitalist" that I can think of saying
otherwise, if you would like evidence that this is in fact the case.

"* individual liberty (with [sic] some claim includes private
property) vs. (including private property). The whole point of saying
"including" is to distinguish this interpretation from one where
liberty does not include private property. "

Fine. Then to be neutral it seems to me it ought to read "which they
claim includes private property" rather than "which includes private
property." The second makes it sound like private property simply is
compatible with liberty full stop. This may or may not be the case,
but it is contested by many if not most of the people who call
themselves anarchists, so this should be reflected in the language by
removing the assumption that it necessarily is compatible.

"* There is no history of violence -> There is a history of violence.
Are you going to defend this?"

I already have. To claim that there is no history of violence by
anarcho-capitalists amounts to a claim that no anarcho-capitalist has
ever upheld their own personal property claims with violence. Given
that anarcho-capitalists endorse such uses of violence, and given that
anarcho-capitalists living and dead have owned property and many of
claimed to at some point in their life used violence or threat of
violence to maintain their claim to it, I find it hard to believe that
all of these individuals are lying or deluding themselves. As such, I
think that the claim "there is no history of violence on the part of
anarcho-capitalists to promote or impose their system" should be done
away with altogether. But out of respect for the position I instead
altered it repeatedly to "with the exception of private property
enforcement, there is no history of violence." Since you deleted that
several times with no comment, I simply reverted it to a more simple
claim "there IS a history of violence" because frankly my hands are
getting sore of constantly typing new edits in the face of your
cut-and-paste reverts.

"And property as aggression is a fringe view which does not need to be
accommodated at every single mention of violence; that view can get
its say in the objections section."

A fringe view? What, and anarcho-capitalists, or anarchists
themselves, are now mainstream? The merit of a position is not
determined by the quantity of its subscriptants, and it turns out that
the vast majority of anarchists today (libertarian socialists if you
prefer) believe that property as it is concieved by capitalists
amounts to legitimated aggression in certain instances. That hardly
makes it a fringe view in the context of anarchist discussions, and
that is the context we are dealing with.


Out of respect to wikipedia, Maveric, and Kahn, I'm going to refrain
from editing this page further until I recieve a response from you,
assuming one is forthcoming. I don't want to disrupt wikipedia, and I
have had severe reservations about continuing to re-insert my edits.
However, I don't accept that my edits should be removed without even a
comment, nor that VV determines what is or is not acceptable on this
page. Finally, I honestly feel that I am morally obligated to contest
what appears to me as a heavily biased page which asserts anarchism to
be something it is not. And that is all I'm trying to do, contest it,
not dictate what the page may or may not be. Anyway, I do apologise
for the disruption and hope we can move forward on this VV. Kevin
11/16/03

"Left-anarchism" is a misnomer, and should not be used with regard to
traditional anarchists. The vast majority of people with a knowledge
of government and politics understand anarchists as being historically
socialist; usually, the term "left-anarchism" is used by
anarcho-capitalists to distinguish their ideology from opposing ones.
However, many traditional anarchists are by no means "Leftists," and
the left-right political spectrum is too far out of date to be used in
this fashion, especially with an ideology so unrelated to any form of
government.

The term "traditional anarchist" should be used so that people who are
knew to anarchism do not become confused - and so they understand that
anarcho-capitalism is still disputed as a form of anarchism. -AaronS
11/17/03

    Okay, this is a reasonable objection to the term left-anarchism.
It is not a reasonable defense of the edit removing the claim that
this view "may be known as left-anarchism or libertarian socialism",
since the former term is used, misnomer or no. The fact that it is
used by ancaps only makes it all the more relevant, since this is the
Ancap article. And my introductory paragraph that it was merely being
used to "avoid confusion" after mentioning the objection that most
anarchists have to this classification I think removes the assumption
that the term is a anything more than an article-wide shorthand. As I
said above (if anyone noticed), "Adding 'left-' as a specifier allows
us to be specific about which kind we mean in a certain context, in
the same way that saying (e.g.) 'Russian conservatism' and 'American
conservatism' might spare us from wars over which are the real
conservatives." But if left-anarchist is a misnomer, it should still
be noted in the intro as a term in use, but might defensibly be a poor
choice of shorthand. Traditional anarchism is I think too POV. My
objection to libertarian socialism is that it (the term) is not
derived from anarchism. Perhaps socialist anarchism? Or maybe
libertarian socialism cannot be improved upon. -- VV 05:56, 18 Nov
2003 (UTC)

"The fact that it is used by ancaps only makes it all the more
relevant, since this is the Ancap article."

Except that the article should be directed toward people who are not
familiar with anarcho-capitalism, or, more broadly, anarchism in
general. Giving such weight to a term that is clearly a misnomer and
is not used by the majority of anarchists or people familiar with
anarchism is misleading, and offers the wrong impression.

As for the shorthand argument, I don't think that "traditional
anarchism" is terribly burdensome.

"Traditional anarchism is I think too POV. My objection to libertarian
socialism is that it (the term) is not derived from anarchism. Perhaps
socialist anarchism? Or maybe libertarian socialism cannot be improved
upon."

Traditional anarchism is not POV, it is fact - much more so than
left-anarchism, which is a term used only by anarcho-capitalists,
usually as a means of disparaging or willfully misrepresenting the
positions of traditional anarchists. With that respect, left-anarchism
is much more POV than traditional anarchism could ever be, considering
that the former is a term that was literally invented by
anarcho-capitalists, whereas the latter is merely a modifier that is
both historically and factually accurate.

The same goes for socialist anarchism, and I agree that libertarian
socialism is not specific enough.

-AaronS 11/19/03

    The introductory comments should already make it clear to the
casual reader that terminology is a point of contention, and my
"confusing" sentence made it clear that left-anarchist was merely a
local convention. No, I'm not satisfied with traditional anarchism,
regardless of whether it is "better" than left-anarchism
(questionable, and I don't believe it's about "disparaging or
willfully misrepresenting"). Libertarian socialism may be the only
acceptable choice, despite its weaknesses. -- VV 06:39, 20 Nov 2003
(UTC)

        What is so unnaceptable about traditional anarchism, and why
would you not be satisfied with it if you yourself feel that it is a
better term? It is both historically and factually accurate, whereas
left-anarchism is neither, considering that traditional anarchists are
by no means leftists. Libertarian socialism is far too weak - I don't
see the reasoning behind the neutering of the term. -- AaronS 20 Nov
2003

    B/c anarcho-capitalists do consider themselves part of the
anarchist tradition, rightly or not. What's wrong with using a term,
even a temporary coined one, if it spares us having to make this
judgement? Perhaps anarcho-socialist, which is used too, might be
specific enough and useful for this article (with the caveat I had
before it was removed). -- VV 03:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


        They may consider themselves part of the anarchist tradition,
but that doesn't change the fact that people who are proponents of the
kind of anarchism that was espoused by the likes of Bakunin and
Proudhon are traditional anarchists, whereas the adoption of
anti-statism into classical liberalism is simply an example of a
political movement branching off of another. It's not like there's any
ambiguity, here. First, there were anarchists. Then,
anarcho-capitalists came along. The original anarchists are
traditional anarchists; members of the newer branch-off are not. They
may adhere to the anarchist "tradition," but that's something
completely different altogether. The adjective traditional is a
modifier that makes it clear that anarchism is traditionally a
socialist philosophy (actually, Marx developed his anti-private
property stance from anarchism's anti-property stance) and continues
to be so today. Anarcho-capitalists are part of the anti-statist
tradition, insofar as explicit government is conernced, by they are
not part of the socialist tradition, or the anti-property tradition.

        Where is the ambiguity?

        AaronS 20 Nov 2003

Latest as of Nov 21

In order to accomodate the concerns of others I have voluntarily
ceased to edit this page while awaiting VV's response to my own
objections. He has done nothing to move the discussion forward in that
time, yet continues to edit the page to his own personal tastes. As
such, I would like to reiterate these objections, and note that I my
concern for the stability of this page will not indefinately outweigh
my concern for sincerety and honesty in its presentation.

        And here are my responses, in most cases yet again, indented
thus. (I've been responding on various other talk pages, but much is
repetitive.) -- VV

The following are standing objections that have yet to be put to rest:

    "Anarcho-capitalism is a view that draw ideas from both
individualist anarchism and classical liberalism" Given that
individualists deny that any form of capitalism is compatible with
their theories, and given that "anarcho-capitalism" draws ideas from
many sources, the emphasis on individualism is bound to lead to the
misconception that "anarcho-capitalism" does in fact spring from
individualist ideology. Since this assertion is currently debated,
this sentence should be changed. "Anarcho-capitalism is claimed to be
a synthesis of individualist and..." would be one possibility, as
would "Anarcho-capitalism is held by its proponents to be..." I should
note that several people have made this edit throughout the history of
this page or brought up this concern in one form or another.
Furthermore, this is the language used elsewhere in the document, and
is thus consistent with the whole. Note for example this passage which
has stood uncontested this entire time: "Anarcho-capitalists consider
themselves as part of the individualist anarchist tradition."

        The objection to both the "synthesis" claim and now this even
weaker one is incomprehensible. It does draw ideas from anarchism.
Maybe you don't think it takes all of anarchism's ideas, but if it did
it would just be anarchism and not a different view. The New Left
draws ideas from the Old Left, but can still be hated by the latter.
In this case, this is completely clearcut because it synthesizes or
draws ideas from two different views and thus cannot possibly mean has
all the same beliefs as. The "consider themselves as part" claim is
different; you can draw ideas from a viewpoint but (by your admission)
have radically diverged from it.

    "which considers all forms of government unnecessary and harmful,"
At some point in the article, not necessarily here, there should be an
explaination of how institutions of enforcement such as a judiciary,
penal system, and police enforcement, which are all supported by many
"anarcho-capitalists" are considered different from "government" or
"governing institutions." Without such an explaination, there is no
way to know how such a claim could be valid, and absent any
explaination it should be changed to "express government" or "which
considers some forms of government." Similarly: "They reject any kind
of government control, taxation or regulation." requires an
explaination of how rent is qualitatively distinct from taxation, or
how regulation is qualitatively distinct from corporate/private policy
enforcement.

        Everyone knows what a government is. The article already
explains the alternate vision ancaps have. If you wish to expand on it
in a neutral way, do so, although probably an actual ancap should do
so. In the case of police, they think people should defend themselves
or hire someone to defend them. This is not the same. Several
different defense firms could provide services in a given area. This
is not government in any normal sense. There is no need to explain the
difference between rent and taxation, this distinction is already
familiar to the entire non-cave-dwelling world.

    "They consider capitalist corporations based on voluntary
contracts" At some point in the article it should be made clear what
is considered voluntary in this context. The contracts which
"anarcho-capitalists" support are involuntary by several standards, so
until this distinction is made the claim should be changed to
"ostensibly voluntary" or just drop the "voluntary" part altogether.
This problem also occurs further down in the article, "born out of
voluntary contracts." However, this problem was avoided in this case,
which might point to a good solution, "To anarcho-capitalists,
contracts in general, and employment contracts in particular, are but
a particular case of voluntary exchange of property." Note that the
claim is "to anarcho-capitalists" thus NPOV.

        They do not consider corporations based on ostensibly
voluntary contracts legitimate, they consider corporations based on
actually voluntary contracts legitimate. Yes, defining voluntary is
tricky, as is defining truth. But I think the account given makes it
clear: you have certain rights, and you may act within them. That is
basically a feature of all systems.

    "Due to the rejection of any explicit state institutions,
Anarcho-capitalism is often considered a form of anarchism" "Often" in
this context is POV, it should be changed to "sometimes" or
"considered by some" or "claimed by anarcho-capitalists to be" in
order to remove this bias.

        How many times does it have to be so considered to constitute
often? More than a hundred times a year? Often does not mean usually,
mostly, primarily, or almost always.

    "claiming that the historic use of the word anarchist is
inconsistent with this or even any form of capitalism" This or even?
The anarchists who claim that capitalism is incompatible with
anarchism do so universally, so it should be changed to simply
"inconsistent with any form of capitalism"

        This makes the connection to anarcho-capitalism. It's strange
you oppose this slight softening but want to heavily handicap often.

    "some even count Lao Tse and Aristotle as early classical
liberals" Given that VV required evidence that Caplan was in fact a
capitalist before allowing the claim to stand, I now require evidence
of anyone claiming that Lao Tsu was a classical liberal. Again,
libertarian sure, anarchist even, but I've never heard of anyone
claiming he was a liberal.

        I did not put in the Lao Tse claim, but whoever did must
believe that some do count him as a classical liberal (possibly the
author), and I have no reason to disbelieve them over you.

    "and that individuals should be free from any form of collective
coercion" Just to be clear, is corporate enforcement of local policy
being claimed not to be a form of collective coercion? If so, then
what kinds of collective coercion is this being constrasted against?

        Clear from context. And it's what they are "convinced" of, not
what you are.

    "In any case, they agree that in a free society, people should be
free to organize in any economic way they like, whether in capitalist
businesses or in collectivist cooperatives" So those who choose to
organize in a way that violates capitalist claims will not be put down
with force? This should also be made clear, that capitalists will not
enforce their claims against counter-claims. (though, I have never
heard of a single prominent capitalist who has said this) This problem
also applies to this passage, "but won't impose upon others"

        Presumably, "free to organize in any economic way they like"
is meant to preclude death squads.

    "Many traditional anarchists and individualists consider the
socialist views of some individualist anarchists as essential to
individualist anarchism, and reject anarcho-capitalist claims to
belong to the individualist anarchist tradition" To be clear, ALL of
the original thus traditional anarchists considered the socialist
views of all the individualists of that time to be essential to
individualist anarchism. "Many" and "some" are in fact "the vast
majority"

        Again, it's odd to oppose softening here. What's wrong with
many? It means a lot, and saves us from having to rely on surveys.

    "Individuals may take any legitimate steps within their property"
This needs to be explicated, what is considered legitimate in this
case?

        In any legal system, legitimate means within one's legal
rights (or something nearly that). Thus, its meaning is understood
within the system being developed. This sentence could probably be
made clearer (probably not by you), as now it seems redundant, but
anyway the whole thing is in the context of "To anarcho-capitalists"
anyway.

    "Anarcho-capitalists, like classical liberals in general, think
that violence should be reserved purely for self-defense of person and
property." Until some argument is offered in the context of the
article that posits property as a part of the self, this claim needs
to be changed to "defense of person and property."

        Self-defense is a legal term which applies to just this situation.

    "They tend to loathe violent action and revolutions as a "normal"
way to promote or impose their views" So capitalists would not enforce
their property claims unto those who do not hold capitalist views? If
not, then this passage is A-ok. If so, then this claim is bogus.

    "There is no history of violence, terrorist or otherwise,
perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system upon
others." It is clear that many "anarcho-capitalists" acting in full
accordance with their express beliefs have in fact enforced their
particular brand of property claims onto others on an individual
basis, thus this claim is also bogus. If it is meant to express that
"anarcho-capitalists" have never engaged in a revolution, then that
should be said instead.

        We've been through this. First, one usually defends property
to keep it, not to create a new world order. And anyway protecting
property rights already protected in the current legal system cannot
possibly be imposing one's views, since that particular view already
reigns. Again, by this reasoning you can derive anything: proponents
of tort reform can be accused of using violence to impose their views,
because under their proposed legal code they would also have the right
to defend their property.

    "Also, misunderstanding about the nature of private (or public)
protection" The critics in this case have a different understanding,
not a misunderstanding. This is POV and should be rewritten.

        I agree this should be changed. In fact, I thought I had done
so myself but apparently not.

    "and may not understand the stance of anarcho-capitalists" Another
POV. Many of them do understand quite well, and still disagree. Should
be rewritten to "and may not agree with the stance..." - Kev 11/21/03

        "May not" seems NPOV; misunderstanding is a possible source of
disagreement. -- VV 20:09, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kev 11/22/03 My responses follow:

        The number of personal attacks has reached the point where I'm
considering not responding, but I'll add some brief counters here to
the non-insulting parts anyway, indented thus and marked. -- VV 22:55,
23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"The objection to both the "synthesis" claim and now this even weaker
one is incomprehensible. It does draw ideas from anarchism."

    No, it doesn't. It draws ideas from another parallel field called
classical liberalism, and arguably libertarianism. But anarchism is an
offshoot of libertarianism, not the other way around, and since one of
the main distinctions between libertarianism in general and anarchism
is anti-capitalism, to claim that it draws ideas from anarchism rather
than libertarianism is simply false. Again, this would be more clear
to you if you bothered to learn about the history of anarchism before
changing edits just because they "don't sound right" to you.

        VV How do you know they don't draw any ideas from anarchism? I
don't find this claim credible; your only evidence is that they
believe different things than "anarchists", but that is not the same.

"Everyone knows what a government is."

    Then it must be clear to you that these are governing
institutions, and the claim is without merit. If not, then obviously
not everyone has the same conception of what is or is not a
government.

"The article already explains the alternate vision ancaps have."

    Not explicitly enough.

        VV Perhaps you should encourage ancaps to come and elaborate.
Your "elaborations" are all just not-so-subtle broadsides.

"In the case of police, they think people should defend themselves or
hire someone to defend them. This is not the same. Several different
defense firms could provide services in a given area."

    This is true in a state, where private firms operate under the
jurisdiction of public firms. If you mean that no single firm will
have a monopoly on defense of a given locale, then you are simply
wrong. The claim to a given piece of property is a claim to exclusive
control of it, the firm that directly controls it or is hired to
control it would be the final authority of that property, even if
smaller firms were allowed to operate under its jurisdiction. I would
be happy to quote Rothbard himself on the subject, since you obviously
haven't read him.

"There is no need to explain the difference between rent and taxation,
this distinction is already familiar to the entire non-cave-dwelling
world."

    Please forgive me then, if a complete lack of an argument from
someone who admittedly isn't very informed on this subject does not
convince me. If the differences are clear, then they should be easily
explicated by anyone, even you.

        VV As in government, rent and taxation are standard, familiar
words. There is nothing wrong with using them in the summary. Later
paragraphs do elaborate on the ancap vision.

"They do not consider corporations based on ostensibly voluntary
contracts legitimate, they consider corporations based on actually
voluntary contracts legitimate. Yes, defining voluntary is tricky, as
is defining truth. But I think the account given makes it clear: you
have certain rights, and you may act within them. That is basically a
feature of all systems."

    You make my point very well. Currently this could easily entail a
justification for fascism or state communism, but that is clearly not
what is intended. As such, it is imperative that a definition of what
they consider to be voluntary is offered. Lacking that, these
contracts are nothing more than superficially voluntary at best, we
might as well call a man with a gun to his head to be making voluntary
decisions (and in a purely existential sense, without defining our
terms carefully, he is).

        VV This does not answer my point as to what ancaps "consider".

"How many times does it have to be so considered to constitute often?
More than a hundred times a year? Often does not mean usually, mostly,
primarily, or almost always."

    No, but it does mean often, and there is no reason not to change
it to the more neutral "sometimes," unless you prefer the bias. You
made this exact same change yourself in modifying a number of other
pages from political viewpoints you obviously disagree with, I would
be happy to cite the examples for you as your double standard in this
case is telling.

        VV This claim has already been substantially weakened from the
original "is a form of anarchism". I don't see further demotion as
helpful, especially when the present one is accurate.

"This makes the connection to anarcho-capitalism."

    Fine, then I only need evidence of a single anarchist who has EVER
objected to anarcho-capitalism but embraced some other form of
capitalism for this counter to stand up to scrutiny. One example VV,
that is all.

        VV My understanding is most that would tolerate smaller forms
of trade (of personal possessions or services).

"I did not put in the Lao Tse claim, but whoever did must believe that
some do count him as a classical liberal (possibly the author), and I
have no reason to disbelieve them over you."

    You are going to feel pretty damned sheepish about this if you
ever educate yourself on the matter. Heh. Don't you even know that
fascists and state communists are currently intentionally trying to
misrepresent anarchism on wikipedia? I can give examples if you'd
like. I've talked with far more anarcho-capitalists than you, and none
of them would let such a claim stand given the overwhelming evidence
against it, and given that it could in fact have been made for any
number of purposes. Regardless, your ignorance of the subject is not a
compelling reason for me to allow a false claim to stand, if the
author of that claim wants to step up to bat then let them, I see no
reason for you to play as a blind proxy when you don't even know the
truth behind the matter and are only making more obvious your personal
grudge.

        VV The false claim that some count him as such? I'll pass the
personal grudge accusation, although it's true you have in my mind
tarnished your credibility badly with some of your edits (the American
Revolution and history of violence ones particularly), which makes me
inclined to side with the status quo.

"Clear from context. And it's what they are "convinced" of, not what you are."

    So it is clear from the context that they are convinced that
corporate enforcement of policy is not collective coercion? Then why
not just say so, we don't have anything to hide right?

        VV The imagined role of corporations is already explained
earlier. The collective coercion claim is about what they are
convinced of, and does not require another inserted discussion of
corporations. You want to mention "corporate control" over and over
(usually misleadingly) to make it sound as bad as possible.

"Presumably, "free to organize in any economic way they like" is meant
to preclude death squads."

    I see no reason to presume when the answer can be stated directly
and clearly. If they are not going to use force to impose their
claims, then using force against those who hold different claims is
not an option. If they are going to use force to impose their claims,
then the page should say so.

        VV Any economic way means within property rights.

"Thus, its meaning is understood within the system being developed.
This sentence could probably be made clearer (probably not by you), as
now it seems redundant, but anyway the whole thing is in the context
of "To anarcho-capitalists" anyway."

    Great, good, fine. It needs to be explicated. If you don't like my
edits, go educate yourself or find a proxy to replace you. Right now
I'm arguing about the color blue to a person who admits he is blind,
you need to take the time to step up properly, find someone else to do
so, or simply realise that you are not the designated "defender of
truth even when he doesn't know what the truth is" on wikipedia. This
page doesn't need you to survive VV, there are lots of anti-state
capitalists on wikipedia and they would be far better suited to
respond if you only gave them the time to do so.

"Self-defense is a legal term which applies to just this situation."

    Then refer to it as "legal self-defense" as the law does not yet
have a monopoly on the use of the term, and the use is actually
currently contradictory to philosophical self-defense.

        VV The "of property" part makes clear the intended scope.

"We've been through this. First, one usually defends property to keep
it, not to create a new world order."

    I've never claimed otherwise. But you are assuming that the claims
by the capitalists are necessarily valid, that the case is open and
shut right here in the context of this page. It is not, and "defending
property to keep it" for one value system is in fact the same act as
"violently enforcing property upon the unwilling" to another. Both are
ideological filters placed over the actions themselves, so we should
make it clear that we are talking about an ideological filter, or
simply refer to the actions themselves without the bias. I do not
propose that we endorse either viewpoint in the concept of a neutral
page, I propose that we remove the bias that claims that capitalists
will never impose their system (which again, assumes their position).
This can be done easily by writing it as "capitalists claim that they
will never impose" or "according to capitalist standards their actions
will never impose" or "capitalists will use force to uphold their
claims, but they believe this force is justified according to the
rights of self-defense." All neutral language, all stuff that I'm
blown away you object to so vigorously, especially given your similar
edits on dozens of other pages (mumia, fox news, cambodia,
anti-americanism, etc, etc). The difference here being, seemingly,
that this neutrality doesn't agree with your explicit bias.

"And anyway protecting property rights already protected in the
current legal system cannot possibly be imposing one's views, since
that particular view already reigns."

    This is the worst argument you've made yet. You are saying that
the status quo is neutrality by definition, you might as well be
making the argument that it is neutral to claim all jews should die
because we happen to live in the middle of Nazi germany. If so, then
how could anyone, wikipedian or not, stand by neutrality in good
conscience? But there is no reason to worry, because that isn't the
neutrality that wikipedia claims.

"Again, by this reasoning you can derive anything: proponents of tort
reform can be accused of using violence to impose their views, because
under their proposed legal code they would also have the right to
defend their property."

    This is misleading. Proponents of anarcho-capitalism are directly
making claims to the legitimate ability to enforce their claims with
violence, even right here on this page, and as an essential part of
their philosophy. To call them on this in such a context is completely
relevant.

        VV But they are the same as rights they already have, and so
can't be seen as part of a scheme to change the system of rights.

""May not" seems NPOV; misunderstanding is a possible source of disagreement."

    A different understanding is also possible, far more likely even
in my experience, so why is one suggested in the absence of the other?
The context is what makes this a NPOV violation, not the statement
taken in a vacuum.

        VV As you'll note, I changed this anyway. Yet another
compromise for which I've been called names.

"Again, it's odd to oppose softening here. What's wrong with many? It
means a lot, and saves us from having to rely on surveys."

    As if anyone is going to pretend that it isn't the vast majority.
Fine fine, if it means so much to you I won't try to give a more
accurate picture here so that you can pretend that neutrality is
actually your interest.

        VV I'll note in comparison that I've tolerated the "most
modern-day anarchists" claim early on, in addition to all the other
weakening. But even that seems not enough to spare me these sorts of
accusations.

My God. The changes that you made, VV, have made the entry more biased
than I have ever seen it before.

"arguably traditional form of anarchism also known variously as
libertarian socialism, left-anarchism, or anarcho-socialism."

It isn't arguably traditional - it's traditional, plain and simple.
This is ridiculous. Rather than discuss a compromise, you went and
edited everything to your tastes. Reading back in the discussion on
this page, I can see why people have become frustrated with you.

1. The anarchism of the 19th century precedes the anti-state
liberalism of the 20th century. This is a fact, for Christ's sake, not
a point of view. In this respect, the anarchism of the 19th century is
traditional - there is no room for any ambiguity.

2. Anarchism is not known as left-anarchism or anarcho-socialism,
except by proponents of anarcho-capitalism. They are misnomers, and
they are misleading.

This sort of unilateral editing ruins the very premise of Wikipedia.
It's sad and childish.

-AaronS 11/23

    What's wrong with "arguably traditional"? It keeps the recent
addition of the word "traditional" while being neutral as to its
applicability. Are you denying that it's arguable that it's
traditional? As for the names used, yes, those are used, by your own
admission by proponents of anarcho-capitalism. Thus, mentioning these
terms is completely appropriate in this article. The hated (by you)
left-anarchism is not used anywhere else except for to note its
meaning. And of course I included considerable caveats about the
terminology issue, giving both sides. I also don't see why
anarcho-socialism is misleading. And anyway people claim
anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer, so these misnomer arguments can't
really be relied on in this entry. "More biased than ever", how? -- VV
21:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

    As for "sad and childish", and "edited everything to my tastes",
my effort was in fact yet another attempt to compromise, giving more
ground on several points. If you have indeed read back in the
discussion and history, you should recognize this. -- VV 22:22, 23 Nov
2003 (UTC)

Insults? This from someone who has refered to my edits as "absurd"
"ridiculous" "idiocy" and so forth when he doesn't even know the
subject he is editing so extensively?

As to the points, which you don't even seem interested in giving
proper objections to anymore:

First, I know that "anarcho-capitalism" does not draw ideas from
individualist anarchism because all the ideas it draws are founded in
classical liberalism and at most arguably identical to those of
libertarianism with one exception: that of anti-capitalism. Given
that, it would be appropriate to say that "anarcho-capitalism" is a
minsomer altogether, and that it is actually neo-classical liberalism
or even anti-state capitalism. But "anarcho-capitalists" refuse this
on the grounds that "they should be able to call themselves whatever
they want, regardless of the contradiction present in the label."
Thus, a compromise, in the context of their page they can call
themselves whatever they want, monkeys from mars for all I care, but
to claim to draw ideas from individualism when they are actually
drawing those ideas almost exclusively from liberalism with a sprinkle
of libertarianism is just plain false.

Second, I have invited several caps to come here. They have for the
most part refused because this encyclopedia is open to the public and
represents for them "the tragedy of the commons." They demand the
right to dictate the status of this page and refuse to "waste time" on
a page where people who know nothing about anarchism or disagree with
them can change their edits. Others have said that they will when they
have the time, still others have said that they will once folk like
you stop reverting any and all changes that don't meet your
misconceptions. But all of this is a side point, if you don't know the
answers, then you shouldn't be editing this page at all VV, regardless
of how wrong the answers might sound from your uninformed POV.

Third, yes government and rent and taxation are all standard words,
that is why it is so easy to see the qualitative similarities between
the standards being contrasted. You claim that later paragraphs
elaborate the "ancap" vision, but none of them explain what makes rent
qualitatively different from taxation in a capitalism system, or what
makes corporate policy enforcement different from state policy
enforcement. When they do, since that is all I have asked, I would
happily drop the objection.

I DID answer your point as to what ancaps consider. What they consider
should definately be on this page, in as simple and explicit
terminology as possible, but it should not be presented in such a
fashion as to make it appear that what they consider is in fact the
case.

The use of the term "often" is not accurate, it is ambiguous.
"Sometimes" is accurate and leaves room for either interpretation.
Sometimes is neutral, often is not. This is not a "further demotion"
it is a necessary clarification.

"My understanding is most that would tolerate smaller forms of trade
(of personal possessions or services)."

This is entirely irrelevant. Individualists support trade but reject
capitalism, because capitalism is more than simple trade (or if it is
not, you should make this somewhat silly claim explicit and watch
yourself as anarcho-capitalists remove your edits for misrepresenting
them). You have yet to give me a single example of an anarchist, even
one, who claims to reject anarcho-capitalism but support some other
form of capitalism. By your own standards, that means I'm well within
my scope to remove your edit.

And yes, it is false to claim that anyone counts Lao Tsu as a
classical liberal in the absence of a shred of evidence. At least, it
is false until someone can offer evidence of such, and you have
apparently refused to even try. It will be changed until it can be
supported, again this is according to your own editing standards.

"The imagined role of corporations is already explained earlier. The
collective coercion claim is about what they are convinced of, and
does not require another inserted discussion of corporations. You want
to mention "corporate control" over and over (usually misleadingly) to
make it sound as bad as possible."

No, I want to limit the claims that they object to collective coercion
when coercion by a corporation would actually entail a form of
"collective coercion." The fact that they don't consider it coercion
should be noted and even emphasized, the fact that they don't consider
it coercion should note be expressed in such a way as to imply that it
isn't coercion in fact, as that is explicit bias.

"Any economic way means within property rights."

Given that many people propose systems of economics but reject the
application of "rights" or even "property" this claim is not some kind
of universal truth that you can use to over-ride any dissent. So the
objection remains.

"The "of property" part makes clear the intended scope."

No, it does not, because there are many conceptions of property in
which the property is not considered to be some meta-physical aspect
of the self, thus not considered to be self-defense.

"But they are the same as rights they already have, and so can't be
seen as part of a scheme to change the system of rights."

The fact that there are currently existing "rights" does not mean that
they are not upheld and imposed in order to maintain their
applicability and broaden their scope. Another irrelevant tangent you
are going off on.


If you are now going to argue that capitalism is a traditional form of
anarchism, then please tell me which of the original anarchists were
capitalists, or even felt that capitalism was remotely compatible with
anarchism, or even refrained from flat out rejecting capitalism. If
you can't demonstrate this, then I have no idea how you can claim that
it is a traditional part of anarchism, the most that you could claim
is that it has its own tradition, which is an entirely different
subject. - Kev 11/23/03

VV has tried to make the entry more fair, certainly more than kev.
there's a difference between presenting a different pov in an article
and turning it into a forum for enemies of the ideology to criticize
it.

    Then please, by all means, address my concerns. Show me where any
of the points I brought up above actually criticize the ideology
rather than try to explicate it. Do you think it is "fair" that VV has
reverted several neutral edits that are identical to the neutral edits
he imported to other pages himself? Do you think it is "fair" to
remove edits when one doesn't even know the truth value behind them,
simply because they "seem wrong?" As I was from the start, I am open
to discussion, but I won't be dictated to by someone who doesn't even
know the matter well enough to properly explicate the philosophy.
Again, please point out which of my standing objections would be a
critique of the ideology itself, rather than a further explaination of
it. -Kev 11/23/03

Several people have now made the same edits that VV consistently
reverts. I have done everything in my power to explain and uphold the
legitimacy of those edits, VV doesn't even seem to care about the
explainations at this point. I have also put on hold all of my own
edits for 2 weeks to discuss this issue and educate VV on that matter,
and instead of respecting this VV simply used that time to revert back
to all of his edits in my absence. As such, I feel justified now in
moving forward on one of my above points, which I will do in the next
day or so. I will edit the page in accordance with an objection
brought up by myself and several others, and while I will remain open
to discussion with anyone, I will not allow VV to dictate this page
anymore. After that point has stood for a few days, I will move onto
the next and repeat the process, until all the points have been put to
rest on the discussion page or adequately accounted for on the
encyclopedia page itself. If anyone has any suggestions for how the
concerns of many on wikipedia can be addressed without devolving into
the editwar that VV is already engaged in, please take the time to
offer up such suggestions here. - Kev 11/29/03
Nov 30

Most of your responses are the same as before,

    Yes they are, that is because they were sufficient to begin with,
and your only arguments against them amounted to a declaration of your
ignorance of the subject. - Kev

with new broadsides against me thrown in.

    Please A, point out these "broadsides" so that I can apologise for
them if they are not in keeping with your own admissions and B, tell
me how this is relevant given your direct insults to me long before I
even became frank in this discussion.

Your objection to the "draws" claim is still between incomprehensible
and bizarre.

    That isn't an argument VV, it is a personal opinion. I have
explained it several times, that you don't understand it even now is
not something I feel responsible for. And bizarre is all a matter of
perspective, it certain doesn't invalidate a given viewpoint.

The "almost exclusively" part of what you say seems to concede this,
as ancaps do draw at least one idea from anarchism, abolishing the
state.

    No. They almost exclusively draw their points from liberalism. The
one idea they draw of abolishing the state is from libertarianism
(many libertarians have suggested that the state be abolished), not
anarchism.

They do consider themselves anarchists for this reason, and the
rejection by others is irrelevant.

    Irrelevant? So it doesn't matter at all how we represent
individualists in the context of this article? Remember that whole
neutrality thing?

Misnomer talk is pointless. Are Protestants not real Christians?

    I dunno, do you have some kind of argument to back up such a
claim, or do you just want to throw about specious analogies as some
kind of scare tactic so you don't have to address the matter at hand?

This will go nowhere.

    Indeed it will. Are fascists now anarchists? When they claim as
much on wikipedia, can we not even demand that they use neutral
language to make it clear that their claims are disputed? That is all
I'm asking for, neutral language. This is not a huge request, unless
we are trying to give a blatantly biased representation.

They do draw ideas from anarchism.

    No, they don't. All their ideas are from liberalism, with arguably
the exception of a few drawn from libertarianism. (I say arguably
because not everyone accepts even that.

You just don't want this said because they don't draw all ideas.

    No this is not the case, and I have said so before, so this is a
straw-man. Anyway, I will skip over the rest. If you don't like the
way I have written it, I invite you, AGAIN, to rewrite it in such a
way that the objection is accounted for. I have explained why your
previous rewrite did not account for it, so I am not convinced yet
that your position is correct just because you have said so over and
over. BTW, I can't help but note that this is the first time you have
discussed a change before modifying the text on this page, I find your
willingness to discuss this rather than dictate it an improvement. I
only hope it holds. - Kev 11/30/03

But the fact that they don't and the nature of the dispute is already
outlined in the text of the entry. I would in fact favor the return of
the synthesis claim, but I dumbed it down to "draws ideas from"
precisely to deal with your objection. Your rewrite is clearly awful.
The meaning is not really in dispute. And saying the view most often
held by proponents suggests that.... How many qualifiers is that? I
think what the previous author wrote is correct, you just want to
attack anarcho-capitalism on its own page. -- VV 20:58, 30 Nov 2003
(UTC)

Re: your patronizing comments at the end. Perhaps you've forgotten
that you started out with edits which bordered on vandalism, that is,
edits which made it impossible to AssumeGoodFaith. Nevertheless, I
have done what I can to incorporate your objections. Your comment
makes it sound like I have just been ignoring and reverting, when in
fact I have been constantly rewriting in an attempt to adapt to what
you've said. This contrasts with bad faith edits made by you and
others. I also have been discussing this almost constantly. The new
intro is awful and should be changed. Do you not recognize this? Are
you just waiting for me to make a change so you can change it back? --
VV 04:41, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Give the world a break VV. We now have three different people making
the exact same changes, and you the only one reverting them back. I
haven't even tried to help with their reverts given your behaviour.
You are apparently using the fact that two of them are anon and not
taking part in discussion as an excuse to enter into a revert war with
them, but it is clear that they agree with Aaron and you have yet to
put to rest his own objections. I think they are good objections, and
I agree with Aaron on the issue, so you'll have to find a new excuse.
The next time someone makes those changes and you revert it back
without even inviting discussion I will be very tempted to lend them a
hand myself. - Kev 12/02/03

    I'm with Kev on this one. You don't own this page, VV. You can't
simply ignore the thoughts, ideas, suggestions, and changes of others.
It's clear that people have attempted to engage in discussion with
you, and what you call compromise is simply you giving up little bits
of an entire entry that you have held hostage.

    I reverted the page back to the changes that the majority of us
agree upon. In order to incorporate your minority position, it is
clear that a consensus must be reached. Before that happens, however,
discussion must take place. - AaronS

Actually there are two people, and they are making completely
different changes. One is an anon reverting a proposed terminology
compromise to a biased version, also thoughtlessly removing many other
unrelated fixes I made to the page, without, I should add, discussion
(in contrast with my proposal which I did explain in Talk). The other
is this nonsense about the intro. While now I'm the only one defending
the page, there were others. I'm not even going to respond to the
other accusations (beyond what I said above). -- VV 04:41, 4 Dec 2003
(UTC)

    Not even going to respond to the fact that you continue to try to
dictate the status of this page, showing no respect for the others
here? Well whatever number it is, you can now add me to it. Actually
it is pretty clear there were 3. This person from 68.169, Aaron, and
129.170. You apparently confused the 68 with me, but I'm 68.13. - Kev
12/04/03

I'm not dictating, I'm proposing compromises, as I've been doing for weeks,

    "Compromises" that completely rule out the position of others,
that you edit into the text before discussion, that you imply are some
kind of base-line the rest of us have to work from.

and the alleged "three" people (probably all the same person, when I
said two I was counting your edits) are simply reverting,

    Yes, its all one big conspiracy by a single individual. If you are
including me, then the page history clearly shows 4 people. Resolve
the IPs if you want, it appears that all 4 of them are on the history
page somewhere. It is simply slander to claim that all of these
individuals are the same person without a shred of evidence to back it
up. It would be like me claiming that the only individual who has ever
agreed with you on this discussion page (an anon whose very first post
to wikipedia was apparently here) must be you. This is specious,
anyone could make that claim at any time to make it appear that they
are not working against a clear majority. And I have done a grand
total of two reverts in the 4 months I have been here, as compared
with dozens you have done on this page alone in less than a month.

including (as I mentioned, if you're reading what I write at all)
undoing many unrelated fixes,

    I have not undone a single unrelated fix, but if you have a
problem with particular "fixes" that others have reverted you should
mention them here, I have only heard vague referances to this from you
so far, so maybe they don't know which ones you are talking about

to the version prior to the compromise I offered and explained the
reasons for on this page.

    all of which I responded to several times before even considering
a revert, as opposed to your "revert first, discuss later" tactic

This too borders on vandalism. You told me I should make a
counter-offer on the intro; well, I did, and, as I predicted above, it
just got reverted.

    What are you talking about? Your "compromise" consisted of
stating, without any qualification, that anarcho-capitalism
incorporates views from individualism. That doesn't in any way account
for the objection by individualists, so how could it possibly be a
compromise?

Yay for you reasonable, respectful, discussion-oriented people! -- VV
21:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

    You say all this as though you have been remotely reasonable, when
you have been reverting the article this entire time from clearly
neutral language, even during the two weeks when I ceased to edit in
order give you time to think over your "compromises." - Kev 12/04/03

Obviously I disagree about the "clearly neutral" language. No, it's
not a conspiracy, it's the same person using different IPs for
whatever reason.

    Your evidence?

I didn't say you'd undone an unrelated fix, I was (obviously) talking
about Aaron etc., although by reverting twice today you did in fact
undo these fixes.

    Since you included me as one of these alleged people, and infered
that there was only one, it wasn't outlandish for me to conclude that
you were claiming that I am all of the individuals who are disagreeing
with you here.

My use of incorporate instead of draw was to address your assertion of
lack of causality: surely ideas from individualist anarchism are
included, even if they weren't initially drawn from it.

    As I said, ideas from individualist anarchism are not incorporated
into anarcho-capitalism. Ideas from classical liberalism and arguably
libertarianism are. The fact that there is some overlap does not
indicate that anarcho-capitalism incorporates the ideas of
individualism.

Of course, Aaron (or whoever) just undid it. I see you've made another
attempt, with new alterations, a good deal of which did involve again
erasing my fixes, which is of course not acceptable.

    But it is acceptable to erase all of my edits, quite often without
even a comment?

I'll make an another attempt to address your concerns. The only
reversions I have done of late have been to my last rewrite which has
been being blindly reverted by you and Aaron.

    As I said, I have reverted it a grand total of two times. You have
reverted it at least a dozen in this month alone.

I did not start the reversion cycle. No, you never responded to what I
said about terminology.

    You've made several points about terminology, and I can't find any
that I did not respond to. If there is something I am missing, please
point it out rather than making vague referances to the text above. If
you want me to point out the very large number of my own arguments you
have done nothing to answer, I would be happy to. I can only find one
paragraph in that text that has been added since my last responses.

You can look above to verify this. Perhaps you haven't noticed my
comments that were added to existing text instead of put at the end.
-- VV 04:01, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you've forgotten that you started out with edits which
bordered on vandalism, that is, edits which made it impossible to
AssumeGoodFaith.

    First, I was new to wikipedia at that time, and ceased to make
those edits after the second time. This was all many months ago,
before you even began to enter into discussions here, and many of the
edits where nowhere nearly as biased as the page still exists now.
Second, the page as it stood was not in good faith, it was a complete
mockery of anarchism in most of its forms, including numerous blatant
straw-men and a bias so overwhelming as to be almost unbelievable. It
has improved since then, but you seem to want to stop the improvements
half-way, insisting that a good compromise is to leave in the bias
toward capitalism and only a moderate misrepresentation of anarchism.
That isn't a compromise, and it flies in the face of the neutrality
policy of wikipedia. As I've said twice already, you have made some
identical edits to the ones I have made on other pages in the name of
neutrality, your double standard here only belies your extreme bias.
You never commented on this fact, apparently you think the evidence of
your double-standards is irrelevant to my own ability to assume good
faith on your part.

Nevertheless, I have done what I can to incorporate your objections.

    By and large, you have done what you could to ignore my
objections. The fact that you occasionally give a little ground after
I pour hours of effort into this page in the face of your constant
quick reverts doesn't impress me.

Your comment makes it sound like I have just been ignoring and
reverting, when in fact I have been constantly rewriting in an attempt
to adapt to what you've said. This contrasts with bad faith edits made
by you and others.

    First, you have reverted far more than rewritten, so this claim of
"constant rewritting" is simply false. Futher, do you actually
consider reverts done to neutral statements identical to your own work
on other pages as a sign of good faith on your part? Get off your high
horse VV, your behavior in the last two months on this page has been
atrocious. The fact that others here have begun to respond with the
same sort of revert behavior that you began with would not gall you so
much if you were able to witness your own actions in the matter.

I also have been discussing this almost constantly.

    You have been reverting it constantly, and discussing it only when
your reverts face numerous challenges, both on the page itself and on
the discussion page.

The new intro is awful and should be changed. Do you not recognize
this? Are you just waiting for me to make a change so you can change
it back?

    I am waiting for you to offer up a valid change that actually
accounts for the objection, or to finally be satisfied with any of the
literally dozen intro edits I have suggested myself. - Kev 12/04/03

Dec 5

Re reversion. I made a series of changes on Nov 22 which I did discuss
and defend, and which were an attempt at compromise as usual, even
after we'd already been discussing terminology points. However, Aaron
(or whoever) reverted and reverted and reverted my changes, as now you
have done, to a version that also lacked numerous unrelated fixes
(such as wikifying, fixing a broken link, and changing "great french
anarcho-capitalist" to "renowned French anarcho-capitalist" (my bias,
huh?)). The record is clear and unambiguous. My reverts since then
have all been restoration from this unjustified and overkill
reversion.

    You neglect to mention that your reverts before then undid a great
number of minor edits on my part that you often did not even comment
on, and even more often had absolutely no justification for reverting
(someone made this claim, and I trust them more than you, so revert)

It is the two of you who have been acting in bad faith, not me.

    Should I point out the exact instances in which you changed
non-neutral terms like "often" into "sometimes" and then reverted my
own changes of "often" into "sometimes?"

Your judgement of "atrocious" or claim that my restoration "deserves
revert" mean nothing to me, certainly in light of these facts.

Your claims of "majority" are dubious. On your side is you and Aaron
(no evidence of multiple people),

    There are multiple IPs from a broad range of addresses, that is
evidence. What you are apparently mistaking is a presence of evidence
for a lack of, especially since you accuse these people of all being
the same person when there is NO evidence of this other than your
speculation.

who is acting inappropriately. On mine is primarily me, but in the
past Duns0014 (as well as an unknown anon lending support). This is
not a clear majority for you, and certainly not anything like an
overwhelming consensus.

    No one claimed a consensus

Re: terminology. Traditional is a POV term. On this page the claim is
made that "Most anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, claim that their own
anti-statist tradition is at least as old";

    No one is disputing that. As I have said from the begining,
anarchism is more than anti-statism and has been since the word was
first used as a self-descriptive (in fact, it was more than that even
when it was previously used as a vindictive). Yes, capitalists have a
very old anti-state tradition, but that is not the same thing as an
anarchist tradition.

on Historical origins of anarchism the past history of anarchism is
portrayed as cloudy and not sharply definable.

    Its pretty darn easy to know who the first person to called
himself an anarchist was, Proudhon. If you have any evidence against
that, offer it, you would be the first in more than a 150 years. It is
also pretty easy to learn that all the people who followed in
Proudhon's tradition to even a small degree were expressly
anti-capitalist, including but not limited to Bakunin, Kropotkin,
Tucker, Spooner, de Cleyre, Malatesta and Stirner. In other words, all
of the people who refered to themselves as anarchists before Murray
Rothbard were expressly anti-capitalist.

Of course you will not agree, but perhaps you should read the NPOV
dispute policy: "It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that
our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested
parties really does disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think
they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast
as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." By
contrast, my phrasing arguably traditional is not only NPOV, but it is
fairly generous to your position. If our roles were reversed, you
would probably want "is sometimes claimed by its proponents to be more
traditional".

    This flies in the face of your attempt to revert any qualifiers
brought into the text. I would have happily settled for lib soc if you
had not spent two weeks reverted very minor changes like
"anarcho-capitalists believe themselves to be a part of the
individualist anarchist tradition." "Anarcho-socialist" is completely
biased, there are no anarchists who would accept that title as it is
redundant and has false implications that there is any form of
anarchism other than anti-capitalist varieties. I understand Aarons
worry that lib soc when contrasted with "anarcho-capitalist" has the
wrong connotations, so I supported his changes. Further we are
allowing the term "anarcho-capitalist" to be used throughout this page
without even quotes or a warning at the very top because we are
accepting the possiblity that anti-state capitalist claims to the
title are valid, right? Then we should use a term for anarchists that
accepts that their claims may also be valid, to use
"anarcho-socialist" assumes the capitalist position. Thus, if we use
the term anarcho-capitalist to refer to anti-state capitalists, we
should use a term that anarchists would use to describe themselvse
that does not make them sound even more foreign to anarchism than
capitalists when used in comparison. So I see nothing unfair about
using "traditional anarchist" in assuming the anarchist position, we
can even indicate expressly that it is used because of the objections
on their part, not because they are universally accepted to be the
only ones following in anarchist tradition.

What is wrong with anarcho-socialism, anyway? You at one time favored
libertarian socialism, but this was condemned by Aaron as "not
specific enough" (search the text above if you want, yawn).
Anarcho-socialism is a clear strengthening of lib-soc, and seems like
an excellent choice. Plus, I have added very strong language to the
intro saying that most anarchists (again, roles reversed, you'd say
some) reject capitalism and do not feel qualification of anarchism is
necessary, and now even added language that some terms are used
primarily by opponents. What could be clearer or more fair? The term
functions as a valuable placeholder to avoid confusion and conflict on
this touchy and controversial issue.

Re: massive qualifiers.

    What massive qualifiers? Below the only example you give is a
blatant exaggeration of anything I have written. Yes, if you attribute
to me edits that I never made, then you can justifiably call them
massive qualifiers. Back in reality, these "massive qualifiers" have
actually been the bare minimum required to maintain the neutral policy
you so desperately pretend to care about above.

There is no need to proliferate qualifications. "Ancaps consider as
legitimate contracts which are voluntary" does not need to be "Ancaps
consider as what they see as legitimate what they regard as contracts
which are what they believe to be voluntary". In cases where the
phrase is in the context of what ancaps believe, consider, or are
convinced of, piling on qualifiers is unneeded and serves to denigrate
the position.

    Agreed, but quite often there is no indication given that this is
something restricted to what anarcho-capitalists believe.

Yes, your past history, new or not, is relevant.

    I never claimed otherwise. My only claim is that your own behavior
on this page is also relevant, and that you have acted in bad faith
for some time.

I am much more distrustful of your edits after your early
near-vandalism, such as presenting a laughable socialist
interpretation of the American Revolution as though it were fact,

    At that time a laughable capitalist interpretation of the american
revolution was presented as though it were fact, but I didn't see you
jumping up to correct it

and furthermore in the context of connecting it to the ancap belief
system, and then calling these absurdities neutral. The page may have
been biased when you found it, but you were not improving it, and me
meeting you halfway is not a matter of keeping bias but of seeking
true neutrality.

Your repeated attribution to me of a double standard is just silly.

    Then call me to post the evidence. I would be happy to, because it
is as blatant as it can be. - Kev 12/06/03

I am not an anarcho-capitalist, but I want it portrayed fairly, and
have now been dragged into defending its page. My standard for this
page is the same as others, why should it not be? No, wait, that just
invites more of your theories. I'll work on the page yet more now. --
VV 21:39, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: terminology. Traditional anarchism is not acceptable.

    Then why is "anarcho-capitalism?" Because you say so? Because they
believe it is? Neither of those explainations will suffice for
anarchists, but you seem to think they work just fine for capitalists.
But I'm happy to let them call themselves what they want, if you will
allow anarchists to be described as they so desire. What do you find
this inappropriate, other than because you assume your take on
anarcho-capitalism is the correct one?

It is POV, and there are clearly better terms that avoid that problem.
This same issue came up at the libertarian socialism article, and
various ideas were bandied about. Would you prefer anarcho-communism,
anarchist communism, whatever?

    That would not account for individualists or egoists

Anarcho-socialism still seems very fair to me, as it is very clear and
cannot be confused.

    It already is confused, it asserts a redundancy and gives the
mistaken impression that socialism can somehow be removed from
anarchism. This usage would even further confuse matters, as all of
the original anarchists were socialist insofar as they were
anti-capitalists, but many modern day individualists like to
distinguish themselves from using the term socialism interchagably
with anti-capitalism because of some of its other connotations. Again,
by describing these people other than how they would describe
themselves you are opening a can of worms you really aren't informed
enough to close. But heck, if you insist on refering to anarchists as
libertarian socialists, then why not just refer to
"anarcho-capitalists" as anti-state capitalists or neo-classical
liberals? After all, in the one case you find it perfectly acceptable
to misrepresent an ideology, in the other you think it is a horrible
violation of NPOV that borders on vandalism.

Maybe you think lib-soc is better.

    I agree with Aaron that it is too divorced from the actual term.
We are anarchists, that is how we identify, to change it would be akin
to renaming this article anti-state capitalism. But if you are willing
to make the changes on both sides to remain neutral, please be my
guest.

Your standard of self-description doesn't work. If a group of
Freemasons started calling themselves anarcho-capitalists, we'd have a
problem with that term, too, but that hasn't happened.

    I see, so because YOU PERSONALLY believe the arguments made by the
caps then their standard works and you will enforce it. No arguments
to the contrary matter to you, since you don't believe them it is
clearly neutral to ignore them. Is that it VV? Caps enforce governing
instutitions, they could not possibly be anarchists by any stretch of
the word. Yet you are happy to uphold their usage while claiming that
there are other groups who clearly would not qualify as anarchists.

In any case, the dictionary definition of anarchism is still a fine
starting point.

    It is? Good, take that definition. Notice how 2 thirds of it
explicitly denotes more than mere anti-statism. For this to work as a
self-descriptive of caps you would have to first deny both the other
definitions offered right there in the dictionary YOU linked to. Then,
you would have squint your eyes a bunch and pretend that a judicial
system, a police force, a prison system, and a military defense force
are not all forms of governance in order to play a game in which
"ancaps," many of whom support all of those things, could by some
stretch of the imagination be said to reject all forms of government.
Tell me, if it isn't refering to all possible forms of governance,
then why the heck does it say explicitly "all forms?" Caps aren't
against government, they are merely against one kind of government,
the one that intrudes upon the hierarchical structures of power that
they endorse.

The term anarchy predates Proudhon, and so he does not own it (and
does, say, Huxley even own agnosticism?).

    I never made such a claim to ownership, so that is a straw-man. I
am merely trying to get some historical context here. Before Proudhon
the term was used solely as a vindictive to refer to left French
revolutionaries. Obviously you wouldn't like that definition either,
as it would also rule out capitalists, so it is funny that you would
argue that the meaning of the word predates Proudhon. But regardless,
to say that capitalists follow in the tradition of anarhcism would
imply that they do follow Proudhon in some way because he set the
tradition (unless you would like to explain who else used the term to
refer to an actual movement). But since Proudhon was explicitly
anti-capitalist, that would be a hard claim to stand by.

Furthermore, predecessors could be anarchists even if they didn't use
the term, just as dinosaurs were dinosaurs before that term was
invented.

    Sure, and if you would like to point out any tradition that can
before anarchism which rejected both the state and all other forms
rulership like capitalism, you could easily argue that they are now
interpreted as anarchists.

Examples of unneeded qualifiers: Anarcho-capitalists believe that
private businesses, born out of (what they believe to be) voluntary...
(believe -> hold doesn't change much);

    Then feel free to rewrite it in such a way that makes clear their
conception of voluntary is disputed. Or just say so explicitly when
the term is first used in the article, then you can drop any
qualifiers throughout the rest.

This view regards (state) government.... (Do I really need to list them?)

    Yes. They do in fact support governing institutions, thus
government. It is the state that they reject, or forms of governance
open to public representation. You have yet to argue against this, you
have simply claimed that "people know" what government is. Well if
"people know" then please go up to someone and ask them if a judicial
system enforced by police is not a form of government.

Why not just let ancaps state what they believe?

    This entire essay stands as a statement of ancap belief, that is
exactly what I want, for it to stand as a statement of ancap BELIEF.

Your rewrite in the beginning is now way off. You say these contracts
are legitimate, in order that the voluntary part may be qualified
alone.

    Then feel free to rewrite it in such a fashion that makes clear
that the claim to voluntary contracts in particular is controversial

A better way of addressing this concern of yours would be to let
ancaps have their say, and in whatever criticism section below explain
how someone with another view might disagree with their take on
voluntary.

    Then why not just put an advisory at the begining of the article
that states it is not neutral, and does not even attempt to be
neutral? Then you can say whatever the heck you want in the context of
the page.

That is a way of presenting both views fairly.

    No, it is a way of giving precedent to the cap views and pushing
the dissenting views to a footnote. I'm not even asking that the
dissenting views be represented in this page, just that they not be
ruled out by the language. As if that is a huge burden.

Perhaps you could even write an article on criticisms of
anarcho-capitalism, since you seem to have an interest, similar to
Criticisms of Mother Teresa.

    I can't think of a single response you have ever given to me that
did not include this kind of antagonistic jab, yet you want me to take
your revert war "in good faith."

(The initial blurb about the American Revolution was hardly
capitalist, and was in fact rather sparse and quite reasonable,
certainly compared with yours.

    Maybe you didn't notice that I dropped this objection weeks ago?
Give me a break VV, if all you can find to harp on is stuff we have
long since moved past, then please find yourself a new hobby.

Nor anyway would any problems justify turning it to something else
unreasonable. As for not jumping to fix it, I didn't notice it until
you quasi-vandalized it.)

    Of course, my edits are vandalism, yours are "maintaining
neutrality." Why don't you drop the superior attitude, your
revert-at-a-whim policy does not match your claims to superiority.

Finally, impose their system is much stronger than impose their views,
so your (unpersuasive) arguments against the latter do not even seem
to touch the former.

    Please be more clear, I'm unsure of which passage you are refering
to. -Kev 12/06/03

-- VV 07:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some of your responses are puzzling to the point where I don't know if
you've understood me. If different groups consider themselves
anarchists, we shouldn't judge one to be the "true" group (especially
since one would include the other, but not vice versa). However, there
are not two groups claiming to be anarcho-capitalists, so this problem
does not arise. I don't see what what I PERSONALLY believe matters one
iota to this argument.

    It matters because it seems to be a viewpoint you are simply
unable to see past. I agree totally that capitalists should be able to
claim that they are anarchists in the context of their page, fine and
dandy, so your constant referances back to that are irrelevant.
However, there are two groups here that claim to be anarchists, one of
those groups is being refered to by their own chosen title (i.e. that
of anarcho-capitalist), while the other is being hurded into a series
of at worst blatantly misrepresentative terms and at best misleading
ones. Libertarian socialist is fine in the context of anarchist
dialogue, it doesn't work as a comparison to capitalists who are being
refered to as "anarcho-capitalists" when arguably they shouldn't be
refered to as anarchists at all.

Remember, it is your POV that anarcho-socialism is redundant.

    Yes, I do remember that. If I didn't remember that, this page
would not exist. Course, it is not only my POV, it is also the POV of
every one of the original anarchists, be they collectivist or
individualist. It is also the view of the vast majority of anarchists
today. It is also the view that is consistent with the root meaning of
the word, literally "against rulers." But all of that is irrelevant to
you, you've decided that their claims are valid and thus it doesn't
even matter if we are going to refer to anarchists by titles they
would never accept, so long as we keep the capitalists looking swell.

The cited dictionary definition at any rate includes the broad
definition as primary,

    You mean the definition I have repeatedly shown must rule out
capitalism from the get go? Oh right, you ignored that argument this
time like you did the last three times.

and really it's not 1/3 because one does not refer to an ideology but
to a behavior meaning.

    Oh, forgive me if the definition YOU imported only directly
demonstrates that capitalism incompatible anarchism on the first and
second account, merely indirectly implying it on the third.

Your claim that yours is the only one does not seem to hold up in this context.

    What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that I claimed a
particular definition of anarchism? Where? All I have stated is that
anarchism has always meant more than mere anti-statism. Are you
denying this? Are you now claiming that at some point in history
anarchism meant only anti-statism and nothing more? I would love to
see the evidence.

The historical assertions are made in the articles I cited above;
whether right or wrong is POV.

    You aren't going to even try to argue this, just make some
incredibly vague referance to the fact that someone in wikipedia
argued that anarchist history is shrouded in mystery? If you want to
present facts, go ahead and do so. Name a single person before
Proudhon who used the term as a self-descriptive, or a single person
who used it before him as a vindicitve to mean merely anti-statism, or
even a single person before Rothbard who used it to mean merely
anti-statism. If you can't do any of those things, then I see no
mystery in the following claims: before Proudhon the term was used as
an insult to refer to leftist French revolutionaries, after Proudhon
it was embraced by all the original anarchists to mean far more than
anti-statism, Rothbard rejected this tradition and asserted out a new
meaning for the word that allowed for capitalism, thus making
anarcho-capitalism identical to the anti-state capitalism that came
before Rothbard. Do you even deny any of those claims?

They believe voluntary contracts are legitimate seems fine to me, it
refers to what they believe.

    Sure, except that anarchists believe voluntary contracts are
legitimate as well, so what is the difference? The difference is in
the term voluntary, which needs to be defined in the page.

Criticisms of voluntary can come later; this is not a matter of prime
placement vs. footnoting, it's a matter of explaining their beliefs
vs. noting the criticisms of them, a logical progression.

    This isn't criticism of the word, it is explaination of it. I
merely ask that we inform readers of wikipedia as to what is meant by
the word in this context.

For now I'm leaving negotiated although it somewhat misses the point.
I don't know what's antagonistic about proposing detaching a
criticisms section.

    Because neutralizing the claim that what they propose is voluntary
when many would believe it to be blatant coercion is not a criticism,
it is merely allowing the text to remain neutral to the issue

Your reference to the old American Revolution text as laughable and
capitalist was not months ago but yesterday.

    Can you tell the difference between the discussion page and the
actual article? No? Further, I didn't say it was months ago, I said it
was weeks ago. And the last time I edited it on the page was indeed
weeks ago, so you are beating a dead horse. To death apparently, you
must really care about this issue to harp on it so long after it has
been put to rest. Or maybe you are just running out of things to harp
on.

As for reverting-as-a-whim, again it was you and Aaron's reverts that
were excessive;

    According to.... Gee I wonder. Are you still positing yourself as
the end all judge of wikipedia VV?

you even undid the fix of the Esperanto redirect!

    And you undid several grammatical fixes, even changes that you
later admitted you had no basis of knowledge for reverting! Makes me
wonder what your point is.

The relevant passage is There is no history of violence, terrorist or
otherwise, perpetrated by anarcho-capitalists to impose their system
upon others. Imposing their system does not mean beating up someone
raping their mother, even though most do believe in the legitimacy of
that too.

    I never claimed such a thing, this is another straw-man, which you
resort to because you can't actually address my claims as they stand.
Killing someone for non-violent "trespassing," an act that is
legitimate under several anarcho-capitalist models, is not by most
stretches of the imagination the same thing as "beating someone up for
raping their mother." What it is by many conceptions is a form of
violent coercion used to enforce a particular system of economics.
This isn't even a controversial claim, most caps would agree that they
are imposing their views upon someone who is violating them. That is
what you do when you uphold a claim with violence, you impose it.
Nothing to shy away from, unless propaganda is all you are looking to
include in wikipeda. - Kev 12/06/03

Anyway, I've prepared yet a new proposal, restoring lib-soc on the
grounds that objections to it seem less vehement that those to an-soc,
and referring explicitly to the multiple possible senses of anarchism.
-- VV 21:11, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The discussion at the beginning states clearly that the terminology is
itself controversial, and the adoption of the (self-descriptively
used) lib-soc serves as a placeholder to avoid this.

    Then it might as well be any term, especially one chosen by
anarchists themselves.

        VV The problem is when the term is also chosen by others.

The meaning of "abolition of government" may mean something different
to you than to others, but it's not an unreasonable claim that someone
who wants to abolish gov't is an anarchist in this definition.

    No, it isn't an unreasonable claim. That is why the claim stands
on this page and should stand on this page AS A CLAIM!

        VV That would be if it weren't reasonable. In this case it is
certainly an anarchist view in this sense of anarchism.

I see nothing anti-capitalist there, you are reading the definition to
your pleasure.

    I see, so the ability to exclusively use, dispose of, and enjoy a
particular thing, upheld through violence or threat of violence
(property as per dictionary and Rothbard) is not having dominion over
it? Capitalism is defined as rulership at its most basic level, the
fact that you don't see anything anti-capitalist in an ideology that
rejects rulership just means that you are blind.

        VV This is just silly. First of all, all systems other than
perhaps "pacifist" ones (generally non-anarchist ones), including the
socialist ones, permit use of violence to uphold claims; it's just a
matter of which claims. Second, my rights to my own lungs (for
instance) would be recognized by nearly any system, but that does not
make me a "state" nor a "ruler". Certainly any assertion of this is
manifestly POV, since most would not think right to an object is
governmenthood (indeed most would find this crazy).

Ancaps do not want corporate police, they want private security
sometimes hired, and then via competition, not the same.

    Many ancaps do want corporate police. They want corporations, they
want corporations which handle security, they want corporations with
their own defense forces, thus, they want corporate police. The fact
that you don't like this doesn't change it.

        VV Many is not all. And anyway you're twisting it around; I've
read enough to know that in many cases their version of "police" —
often not so called — is quite different from what exists now in
states.

You may not think this will be the outcome, but that is your POV.

    It is the EXPRESS position of many capitalists that corporate
police will be the outcome of anarcho-capitalism. This might be POV,
but it is a POV that belongs on this page, because it happens to be a
common cap POV.

It is not a strawman.

    The claim about raping ones mother was, you are suddenly changing
the example mid-argument to claim that it isn't a straw-man

        VV I did no such thing.

If defending one's car is imposing one's system, because one would
also have that right in an ancap order, then so is any other act which
you believe would be right in that order.

    Sure, I didn't deny that. It makes perfect sense, the fact that
the two systems overlap is coincidental. To deny this is to deny the
entire ancap position that their system can be created through
individuals acting according to anti-capitalist standards within a
state domain. If they were not imposing their system when they acting
according to their values, then there system would never replace the
state. If you want to challenge their position, go *+9

ahead, many would agree with you that such a policy would never
actually threaten a state.

        VV It seems you make my point. That is precisely why defending
their car or beating up the rapist is not an attempt to impose their
system.

Why wouldn't it be? A purely pacifist order might not let you beat up
anyone without being a criminal. No, to impose one's system (not even
views!) one has to do something not allowed in the existing system.

    According to VV and his great standard of what is and what is not?
No argument needed, not even rhetorical support? Sorry, that standard
doesn't work for me anymore.

        VV I just did argue. That was the conclusion. And as for your
"argument" to the contrary, well, that doesn't obviously work for me.

And no impose is not nec the same as violence. That is your POV too.

    I never said that the two were the same. I merely stated that
sometimes impositions can be violent, and they in fact can.

        VV You said, "That is what you do when you uphold a claim with
violence, you impose it." In fact, what violence is is not
well-defined, either.

I did not confused the disc page with the real page, I was referring
to disc page. Your pointless sarcasm is ridiculous here.

    I'll note your further antagonistic jabs as evidence of your good faith

        VV Refuting your false and sarcastic accusation of confusion?

Re: voluntary; it seems it only has meaning relative to a system of
rights in any case. (Is it involuntary if I need your heart to live?)
That is a side issue, ancaps believe corporations on voluntary
contracts to be fine, while others may not, the voluntariness not
being at issue but the large-scale organization.

    Um, so the fact that their conception of voluntary has been a
major criticism of anarcho-capitalism since Rothbard is not an issue
because? Wait, I know, because VV says so.

        VV A curious view to attribute to me.

If others believe in voluntary contracts too that is good for them
they share this view.

If I undid fixes, it was in the context of undoing massive damage, and
fixed them later.

    Great, then we can both claim the high-ground, I've been fixing
massive damage done to this article by a certain VV for some time. -
Kev 12/07/03

Your side

    My side? Are we taking sides now?

        VV You referred to a majority, that implies two sides.

did not even respond till recently to my notes that your reverts were overkill.

    That is almost funny. I invited you to discuss this here when you
first began your revert spree against my edits. Later, when you ceased
to discuss things for a bit while still reverting I implored you to
discuss things here. Each and every time I responded point by point to
everthing you had said, when I forgot something and you pointed it out
I carefully went back and included it in my future responses. I even
put all my edits on hold, while you continued to revert and revert and
revert, just to give you time to discuss things here and clear your
head a bit. The fact that I didn't respond to every single point you
brought up with Aaron is kinda understandable, given that you often
wait weeks before responding to the majority of my points, after I
plead with you time and again to please give them consideration. You
really are running out of things to complain about VV - Kev 12/07/03

        VV No you just reverted en masse to join Aaron, by your own admission.

-- VV 22:52, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

        VV 00:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The term chosen by anarchists is obviously "anarchist." The fact that
we use other terms in other contexts does not indicate that when
compared with capitalists we should be called "libertarian
socialists." Again, this is a double standard on your part. Many
capitalists go by the term "libertarian capitalist," yet you insist
that they be refered to as part of anarchism in the text while
believing that lib soc is a good compromise for the rest of anarchism.

The fact that a position is reasonable does not make it correct VV.
The cap position is reasonable, but anarchists the world over who are
also quite reasonable see it to be false. As such, YOU are still not
the final artbiter of what needs to be qualified and what does not, so
you will not be unilaterally declaring that basic qualifiers are
unncessary in this case just because you happen to have a particular
agenda.

This is just silly. First of all, all systems other than perhaps
"pacifist" ones (generally non-anarchist ones), including the
socialist ones, permit use of violence to uphold claims; it's just a
matter of which claims.

This is plainly false, and again speaks of your ignorance of the
issue. A number of anarchists systems neither "permit" nor "deny" the
use of violence, precisely because anarchism is not in the business of
"permiting" or "denying" human behavior, but rather responding to it.
More importantly, the quality of the claims is drastically different.
When one authoritatively dictates the use of a given thing to an
involuntary party it is far more of an imposition than if one does
everything in ones power to come to a consensus or compromise beforce
agents (who are not legitimated by the system itself) give up and take
matters into their own hands.

Second, my rights to my own lungs (for instance) would be recognized
by nearly any system, but that does not make me a "state" nor a
"ruler".

This follows from a self-ownership ethic that is denied by many
anarchists. Regardless there is a very real difference between the
self and those things created by the self, but here you attempt to
defend your position by conflating the two.

Certainly any assertion of this is manifestly POV, since most would
not think right to an object is governmenthood (indeed most would find
this crazy).

I didn't claim that rights were government. I claimed that police,
prisons, and judges are all manifestations of government. Though I
reject rights, one can in fact believe in rights without resorting to
governmental institutions to enforce them. But "anarcho-capitalists"
do legitimate the resort to these governmental institutions, thus they
aren't anarchists at all.

Many is not all.

You are grabbing at straws. My edits did not indicate that all of them
desired corporate police, but if you objected to them you should have
inserted a qualifier. As it stands from your reverts one would think
that none of them endorsed corporate enforcement, when in fact even
those who don't explicitly support it still legitimate it.

And anyway you're twisting it around; I've read enough to know that in
many cases their version of "police" — often not so called — is quite
different from what exists now in states.

I see, so we can call them private defense agencies and suddenly they
are something different? You tell me how these police are not a
governing institution, and I will drop that objection.

It is not a strawman.

    The claim about raping ones mother was, you are suddenly changing
the example mid-argument to claim that it isn't a straw-man

        VV I did no such thing.

The text indicates otherwise. First you brought up an example of a
mother being raped. I called it a straw-man, because none of my
arguments had included examples of physical violence. Then you
suddenly changed it to an example of a car instead of a person and
insisted that obviously it wasn't a straw-man. You are working against
yourself VV.


Sure, I didn't deny that. It makes perfect sense, the fact that the
two systems overlap is coincidental. To deny this is to deny the
entire ancap position that their system can be created through
individuals acting according to anti-capitalist standards within a
state domain. If they were not imposing their system when they acting
according to their values, then there system would never replace the
state. If you want to challenge their position, go *+9 ahead, many
would agree with you that such a policy would never actually threaten
a state.

        VV It seems you make my point. That is precisely why defending
their car or beating up the rapist is not an attempt to impose their
system.

You are confused. I just gave an example of why many people would see
it as an attempt to impose their system. I gave not a single reason to
think that it wouldn't be, I only indicated that many would agree that
it wouldn't be. You then respond, "ah! There you have it, that is
precisely why it wouldn't be!" But what is? I gave no reason at all.
You really need to take a step back and think about this some more VV.
Maybe your edit and revert spree throughout wikipedia and your revert
wars with several other users should be dropped for awhile so that you
can concentrate on a subject you understand better.

 : I never said that the two were the same. I merely stated that
sometimes impositions can be violent, and they in fact can.

        VV You said, "That is what you do when you uphold a claim with
violence, you impose it." In fact, what violence is is not
well-defined, either.

Again you are confused. When you uphold a claim with violence, yes,
you are imposing it. Thus this instance of imposition belongs in the
violence category. That does not make the two identical, nor do any of
my statements indicate that they are.

No you just reverted en masse to join Aaron, by your own admission.

Actually, when I started reverting en masse (around 5 reverts, a scant
number compared with your what, 2 dozen?) it was to join you, not
Aaron, as you had been reverting everything well before Aaron even
arrived. - Kev 12/07/03