Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 3
>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.
Dec 8

This discussion has gotten somewhat off-track, so I'm going to attempt
another summary. Before I do, I can't resist responding to your
misguided "straw man" accusation. If you were reading what I wrote
(clearly not), you'd know that (a) the rape example was to make a
point, (b) the car example was to further explain that point
(essentially by noting the two examples are the same in the relevant
aspect).

    lol, okey dokey, you apparently think the point you made applied
to my argument though, eh? That is the straw-man, the attribution to
myself a position that I do not hold which would entail mothers
getting raped with sons standing on hand too confused to do anything
about it.

        VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the
contrary. Since you failed to understand the argument the first time,
I don't know if there is any point in repeating it, but here goes
anyway: If an ancap defending their car in a manner consistent with
the currents rights regime constitutes imposing their system, then so
does thwarting the aforementioned rape with violence. The latter
position is absurd, as I assume you would concede (hence the
contrary).

Anyway,lzvbtfっざzたっdぜっっzdっっっzd to summarize the terminology svccdz issue:

One side: Anarchism should refer dzedrvonly to a particSdular, fairly
old belief system/movement of people who call themselves anarchists.

    Um, no. There are many new movements in anarchism, for example the
primitivists. This is misrepresentation on your part. All this "side"
is claiming is that anarchism has a particular meaning that the
capitalists purposefully ignore.

        VV Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new"
belief system, but it is also part of the old one. This is a minor
point anyway.

Other self-described anarchists who don't share their views are
impostors with no right to the term.

    I don't recall saying anything about impostors or rights. I'm
merely pointing out the simple truth that anarchism still has these
meanings, they have not yet disappeared despite the capitalists best
efforts.

        VV Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that
is the thrust.

Response: Anarchy in the sense used by these others refers to the
absence of a state/government.

    Then it is indeed a misnomer, as that is not the literal
definition of anarchy. What is more, neo-classical liberals support
several forms of government, thus would not be anarchists even if this
is all anarchism meant.

There may be another sense in which it refers specifically to that
movement, so it may be fair to say there are two different senses of
the word anarchism, one "literal" and one a name of sorts.

    The "literal" translation of anarchism is absence of rulers. So it
just so happens that the literal meaning of the word refers to the
group that bears the name. Coincidence?

        VV Your POV about what constitutes a ruler.

In any case, given there is an active movement of capitalists who
consider themselves anarchists, the rule of usage dictates that either
there are two distinct meanings or the word must be construed broadly.
The claim that this other usage is illegitimate is POV.

    That is precisely why this page still exists, and isn't deleted by
anarchists everytime we come across it. Capitalist views should
definately be presented here, having more information allows people to
see past their lies and misrepresentations more clearly. The ONLY
thing I ask for, and many people through the history of this page ask
for, is that the language they use not indicate an absolute truth
value of their position. In other words, neutrality.

        VV No such language is used, manifestly.

Other side's possible counter: But in fact they are not anarchists
because what they believe in is not "true" anarchy for some reasons

    Funny, in all my time here I have never said that, not even once,
yet you have attributed it to me on multiple occasions

There is no qualitative difference between private security and the
state, or there is no liberty if others have the right to enforce
property claims, or the existence of property entails violent
enforcement.

    Actually that is "and," "and," and "and."

Response: Your POV. Ancaps believe there is a fundamental difference
between these private institutions and government. Disagreement,
however strong, is thus non-neutral. Ancaps may in turn see projected
left-anarchist societies as being state-like.

    Sure, both opinions ought to be presented somewhere on wikipedia.
You will note that on several occasions I have now said clearly that I
don't demand the anarchist position be explicated here. Again, and
again, all I demand is that the language used here does not rule our
position out. You constantly try to turn away from this and pretend it
is about something it is not.

        VV Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously
explained in the intro, quite substantially since this is not an
article about it.

Does that make no one an anarchist? The fact thay they believe in the
absence of the state, even if their proposal seems state-like to
others, makes ancaps anarchists in this sense.

    Here I thought your own definitions made it clear that anarchism
was against all forms of government, not merely the state. The fact
that you equate the two as identical is fine, but not everyone does.
As such even if we limit the word to only one of its meanings and
pretend that the root does not call for far more, capitalists would
still not be anarchists. But again, these arguments don't need to be
on this page.

        VV This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and
government are potentially vague words. You seem to have implicitly
conceded this by calling potential ancap institutions states in all
but name, on the seeming grounds that they are government-like.

Most of the things you've said about this have in my view not been on
point at all. You accuse me of having a double standard, when there's
nothing to have a double standard about.

    I see, so when I made changes to wording identical to changes you
made yourself on other pages, and you reverted it, that was not a
double standard. Apparently, neutrality simply means something
different on other pages than what it means here.

I see terms such as anarcho-socialist, left-anarchist, and socialist
anarchist as disambiguating.

    And anarchists see them as blatantly misrepresentative.

        VV How? They may seem redundant to those who think anarchism
should refer only to the one position, but redundancy is not
misrepresentation. French conservative would seem redundant to those
who thought the only valid, historical kind of conservatism was that
so called in France, and that what Russians believe is not
conservative at all. But the qualifier allows us to be spared taking a
position on this. The opinion of those who find it redundant is also
stated very clearly in the opening paragraph.

When there are two different claims to a term, this is the best course.

    Yes, so lets make a distinction here. Capitalists diverge from
anarchist tradition, they do so admittedly. Capitalist DO NOT think
that they arose from anarchism, it says so RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE.
NONE of the original anarchists were capitalist, neither the
individualists nor the collectivist. So obviously the distinction
"traditional anarchist" would be valid. No? If you think it would be
unclear to readers, lets even make a clause that states explicitly
"this label is meant to do nothing more than disambugate between the
two theories, it does not imply that "anarcho-capitalists" have no
tradition of their own." Good? No? Not satisfied enough yet with your
misrepresentations of anarchism? Notice, that there is no "real
traditional anarchist" being suggested here, nor has it ever been on
the table in this discussion. So why do you keep trying to portray the
scenario as if someone is trying to distinguish between "real" and
"fake" when no one is? Perhaps because you can't argue the actual
issue on the table?


        VV Ancaps would regard past efforts towards a stateless market
order as anarchist, whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur above).
Thus traditional is a troublesome qualifier. Socialist is not since
you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism.

            Do you really think that individualism/egoism have
anything to do with socialism? Anti-capitalism != socialism. I'm
reverting your revert. It would be different if you actually ran
things by this discussion page before taking unilateral action. -
AaronS

                Spare me the claims of non-discussion; they're absurd
given the history, as is the edit in question. Would you prefer
anti-capitalist anarchism then to socialist anarchism as a compromise?
This objection had not been brought to my attention, possibly lost in
the mass of other verbiage. -- VV 23:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

                    Regardless of my history, the claims are valid.
You have done it again; thus, I am forced to revert it until more
discussion is had. Both anti-capitalist anarchism and socialist
anarchism are misnomers; just as it would be POV for me to call
anarcho-capitalists anarcho-fascists, or some other derogatory term,
it is POV to call traditional, Bakunian, Proudhonian, etc, etc
anarchists anything other than that which has been historically used
in reference to them. With this in consideration, the term traditional
anarchism is a clear compromise. It is not POV, since, according to
99.9% of literature on the subject, it factually is traditional
anarchism. - Aaron 19:50, 8 Dec 2003

                        This analogy is obviously inapplicable. Said
variety of anarchists do claim to be anti-capitalist, while ancaps do
not claim to be fascist. Do you really believe this objection? The
revert is of an absurd change, renaming ancaps. It is not POV to avoid
using a hotly disputed one alone by adding to it a specification of
which sense of it you mean. You have provided no objection to
anti-capitalist anarchism, nor any reason why it is a misnomer. -- VV
01:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

                            First of all, property is an institution
of government, by definition. It is the exercise of absolute dominion
over a person or thing (Merriam-Webster). Anti-capitalist anarchism is
POV because, for many traditional anarchists, anti-capitalism is not
on their list of priorities. In fact, many do not even define
themselves that way, especially considering the fact that their
objection to capitalism is not a socialist one but an anarchist one.
This distinction must be clear. Furthermore, anti-capitalist anarchism
is a term that I have never seen used before; why it should begin to
be used in a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia definition is beyond me.
It is not our perogative to create a new language; rather, it is to
define things, when necessary, within their historical and
contemporary contexts. That said, anti-capitalist anarchism is a
misnomer, the equivalent to anti-statist anarchism. Also, your revert
edits out clearly non-POV things, such as my inclusion of
individualist anarchists with traditional anarchists. For this reason,
I am reverting until further discussion is had. -- Aaron 21:14, 8 Dec
2003

                        Property an institution of gov't? By
definition? I don't think even Kev asserted such a crazy thing. Your
POV, obviously. I am seeking a specifier for this form of anarchism
which is not loaded like traditional. Socialist anarchism still seems
like the best choice, but I am open to alternatives, including the
ones I've proposed. The misnomer talk is puzzling in light of your
objection being merely one of emphasis, when the feature emphasized is
the distinguishing one in this case. We could even try a proper name,
like Proudhonian anarchism. But ancap->lib-cap is not a solution and
will not be one. As for the text on indiv anarchists, it is off topic;
we were listing terms used, not all the different component movements,
which is not really relevant for this article and out of scope for
that paragraph. -- VV 02:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

                            By definition, yes. It doesn't take much
to pick up a dictionary.

                            prop·er·ty
                            2 a : something owned or possessed;
specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to
possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : 'OWNERSHIP' c : something to
which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer)
under contract whose work is especially valuable

                            own
                            1 a : to have or hold as property :
'POSSESS' b : to have power over : CONTROL

                            pos·sess
                            1 a : to have and hold as property : OWN b
: to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill
                            2 a : to take into one's possession b : to
enter into and control firmly : 'DOMINATE' c : to bring or cause to
fall under the influence, possession , or control of some emotional or
intellectual reaction

                            dom·i·nate
                            1 : RULE, CONTROL
                            2 : to exert the supreme determining or
guiding influence on

                            rule
                            3 a : the exercise of authority or control
: 'DOMINION' b : a period during which a specified ruler or government
exercises control

                            So, please, don't pretend like I'm
stretching things, here. It's all right there. It's not my POV - it's
the POV of the dictionary.

                            Socialist anarchism is just as loaded as
traditional anarchism, and is much less accurate, considering the fact
that many anti-capitalist anarchists would not call themselves
socialists. Proudhonian anarchism leaves even more out. If libertarian
capitalism is not a solution, then neither is libertarian socialism.
As for individualist anarchism - it is a term that is used to describe
traditional anarchism. -- Aaron 22:24, 8 Dec 2003

Like I said long ago, one could say Russian conservative and French
conservative, and thereby save arguments as to who the real
conservatives are, when there are radically different competing
usages. -- VV 07:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

        Obvious, the ancap -> lib-cap thing is not a solution. Again,
the issue is not whether people should be able to choose labels for
themselves, they should, but whether when there are conflicting claims
to a label there should be specification as to which usage is meant.
-- VV 21:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Back to Anarcho-capitalism.

VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the contrary. Since
you failed to understand the argument the first time, I don't know if
there is any point in repeating it, but here goes anyway: If an ancap
defending their car in a manner consistent with the currents rights
regime constitutes imposing their system, then so does thwarting the
aforementioned rape with violence. The latter position is absurd, as I
assume you would concede (hence the contrary).

    You are having lots of trouble with this one VV. Let me put it
this way. If you think this applies to my argument, then this is a
straw-man, because it does not. If you do not think it applies to my
argument, then it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. If you
can't see the qualitative difference between property and self, then
that is your position and your problem, not mine.

        VV Really, quit the patronizing language. It is you who
misunderstood what I said, probably because you didn't try. Now you're
trying to make the word straw-man apply otherwise. The argument is
very simple and solid. I'd repeat it but I don't see the point.

            Yes, the argument is simple, solid, and a straw-man. Thank
you, move on.

                VV It's probably too much to expect for you to admit
you were wrong. You've made a heroic attempt at retooling the
straw-man accusation, but do you seriously stand by the claim that I
"changed my example"?

                    Yes. The relevance of the example changes entirely
when you begin by claiming that a person is being physically harmed
(the straw-man, as it didn't apply to my arguments), then suddenly
change it to a car being damaged/stolen.

Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new" belief
system, but it is also part of the old one. This is a minor point
anyway.

    Yes, Lutherans also believe in Christ, making them a part of
Christianity. Primitivists also believe in anarchism, making them a
part of anarchism. The only way we could claim that capitalists
believe in anarchism would be to change the meaning of the word. If
Lutherans tried to claim that the Buddha was Christ, then christians
would have a pretty good argument that Lutherans aren't christian. If
people in Nepal tried to claim that their country was Scottland, then
Scottish would have a pretty good argument that people in Nepal are
not actually Scottsmen, eh?

        VV The situation is not so clearcut, since the ancap claim to
anarchist is not so absurd.

            According to? Hmm... hum... that is right, according to
VV! The ultimate arbiter of what is clearcut and what is hazy and
obscured, like this "mysterious past" of anarchism you refer to when
you can't get around the facts concerning the original anarchists.

                VV So you're claiming it's "clearcut" when in fact
it's an issue of considerable controversy? Oh, you're claiming I'm the
only dissenter even to its being clearcut.

                    I never claimed you were the only dissenter. I am
saying that you are falsely presenting yourself as some kind of
authority on what is or is not a clearcut issue. To anyone who has
studied the history of anarchism this issue is clearcut. The people
calling themselves anarcho-capitalists are almost entirely isolated to
the US and ignorant of that very history.

But, fine, yes, this very thing does happen. "Native Americans" often
call themselves Indians. This causes confusion sometimes because
people from India are also called Indians. If an article were, say,
comparing both groups, some terminology would be needed, and in fact
the term American Indian is often used. Do Indians (from India) have a
good argument that they are not actually Indians? Well, it doesn't
much matter. Eh?

            Yep. As I have said repeatedly, let the caps call
themselves whatever the heck they want to. They can call themselves
fascists or buddhists or pancakes with butter. Just indicate that this
is a CLAIM on their part, and everyone is happy.

                VV You seem to have overlooked the fact that I
rebutted your argument.

                    What argument, that anarcho-capitalists have no
valid claim to the title? You sure as hell did not put to rest that
arugment. You merely gave some reason to believe that they do have
claim to the title, which I readily agreed with, pointing out that
regardless of what they believe their claims should exist on the page
as claims.

Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that is the thrust.

    Funny, I thought I made the "thrust" of my argument explicit.
Anarchism has a certain meaning, historically and today, a meaning
that must be ignored in order to call capitalists anarchists. But
apparently you are a mind-reader who knows that my "true" motivations
are not what I say they are, or maybe you think that an argument about
the meaning of a word reduces to an argument about which ideology is
"true."

        VV Oh, get off it. I'm reading English, not minds.

            Then stop assuming you know my motivations from my words,
and stop attacking ME according to my motivations instead of
addressing my ARGUMENTS according to the words.

                VV This is pretty funny coming from you. But you
probably wouldn't recognize it.

                    Who was the one on about "irrelevant broadsides" earlier?

No such language is used, manifestly.

    So making a definitive statement about a matter that capitalists
claim without a single qualifier, without even noting that it is a
claim and not a fact, is totally neutral to you? Then why, VV, have
you edited such statement on so many other pages with the exact same
qualifiers I have tried to insert?

Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously explained in the
intro, quite substantially since this is not an article about it.

    Generously? Are you the one that dictates this page VV, "giving"
generously to those who disagree with you? Give me a break. You only
accept particular arguments that we make, carefully weeding out
others. Then you destroy any attempt to make the statements that
follow throughout the rest of the essay neutral, and you pretend you
are not ruling out our position? As I have said from the begining, and
as I will repeat, I DON'T CARE IF OUR POSITION IS EXPLICATED HERE. All
I am asking is that the position of the capitalists be explicated in a
neutral manner. You can pretend like I'm asking for something else,
but it won't change the fact. If you are unable to accept that
capitalism must be introduced through the neutrality policy of
wikipedia, then I would also accept a simple header that declares, in
bold, "This page does not attempt to be neutral, readers are warned
that it is an explicit propaganda by capitalists and does not even
attempt to allow for dissenting positions."

        VV I assume you recognize your own hyperbole for what it is.
Grab your aforementioned dictionary for uses of the word generous.

            K. There, read it, understood it, still applies. Next...

                VV No it doesn't. You can't fool me, I know what my
own words mean.

                    I see, so you apparently must know that generous
does not mean "liberal in giving," because if it did, then my
statements would indeed apply.

This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and government are
potentially vague words.

    Ah, so for what, two months now, you argue into the ground that
caps obviously reject the state and government. Then when your
arguments fail and have nowhere to go, "this seems a bit pointless
anyway." Fine, define the two words in the context of the essay, or
just link to a wikipedia definition. If caps fit in it, then the
claims can stand without qualification. If caps do not fit in those
definitions, then the claims must be qualified as CLAIMS.

        VV Yes, my arguments have failed and I have nowhere to go. I'm
desperately grabbing at any straw I can find, because I'm just so
biased and want Wikipedia to be nothing but anarcho-capitalist
propaganda. Fortunately, a knight in shining armor has seen through my
crumbling and absurd straw-men and will overthrow the dictatorial
stranglehold I seek to maintain. Am I summarizing your take on me
fairly?

            You exaggerated it to the point of absurdity, but I thin
you have the basic pattern down, yes. If you would like to suggest
evidence that doesn't fit this pattern, instead of playing games, go
ahead.

                VV Well what I've said so far has been dismissed as
part of this scheme,

                    No, it hasn't. You built a cartoon characture
exaggeration of what my claims where, as per the following statement
on your part:

so your comical call for evidence comes off as insincere. Ancaps would
regard past efforts towards a stateless market order as anarchist,
whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur above).

    Then according to this very page, that would mean that
"anarcho-capitalists" have their own tradition, but that it is not the
tradition of anarchism. After all, as this page clearly indicates,
"anarcho-capitalists" believe that they came from liberalism, NOT from
anarchism. That means that past "anarcho-capitalist" societies follow
in the tradition of liberalism, NOT anarchism. Thus the word
"traditional anarchist" quite clearly refers to those following from
the people who originally identified with anarchism.

        VV Yeah maybe that should be rewritten. I didn't write it.

            Ah, finally the standard of what should or should not be
rewritten, edited, and reverted on this page. Just ask yourself, did
VV write it? If the answer is yes, it stands. If the answer is no, it
stands only with his express approval. Go ahead and rewrite it, that
would be a hoot. I like watching someone who knows next to nothing
about anarcho-capitalism rewrite the claims of people who actually
understand it.

                VV I again assume you're just being dishonest. But in
any case you are genuinely confused, my message was that you should
not hold me accountable for something I didn't say.

                    Of course, when you said "maybe it should be
rewritten" I should have read that as "don't hold be accountable for
that" instead of "maybe it should be rewritten."

Thus traditional is a troublesome qualifier. Socialist is not since
you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism.

    "Socialism" is not only redundant, it is far too vague.
Traditional anarchists are all socialists in different senses of the
word. Many egoists and individualists are only socialists insofar as
they are anti-capitalist. To call them socialist, and then attribute
these positions to them and use their labels interchangably with
others is to misrepresent and confuse both positions. Alternatively,
to call it another of your suggestions like "anarcho-communism" would
be to rule them out altogether. They could, however, be included very
easy and simply under the "traditional anarchist" label that Aaron
whipped up. Let me repeat myself, "Capitalists diverge from anarchist
tradition, they do so admittedly. Capitalist do not think that they
arose from anarchism, it says so right here on this page. None of the
original anarchists were capitalist, neither the individualists nor
the collectivist. So obviously the distinction "traditional anarchist"
would be valid."

Property an institution of gov't? By definition? I don't think even
Kev asserted such a crazy thing.

    I would be happy to point out the fact that property is exclusive
dominion over a given thing, the ability to use, dispose, and enjoy a
thing upheld by way of force. I could further point out that to govern
is to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct
of, to exert a determining or guiding influence over. In the face of
those two definitions, taken straight from the dictionary without
edit, I don't have to claim that property is governance by definition.
I only have to wait for you to be silly enough to deny it.

        VV This is just word play.

            lol, first the response is "property as an institution of
government is just plain crazy!" Then when it turns out to be strongly
supported by the very definition of the word, "this is just word
games."

                VV I stand by everything I've said. I don't feel the
need nor see the point in seeking to explain again.

Govern has some weak senses, but a government in the relevant sense is
something more specific.

            Feel free to define your variables as you slither away
from the very arguments you called for and are unwilling to accept the
answer to.

At any rate, this is your POV; it just flatly denies the ancap position.

            Yes, it does. Yes, it is POV. That is why my POV should
not be on this page, but rather, the cap POV should be on this page.
Agreed? Good. Now just add to that the fact that the cap POV should
not be expressed AS FACT, and we are good to go.

                VV I'll hold my tongue yet again. But, "slither", really....

                    Tit for tat. You want me to be civil, try removing
the dismissive bullshit you load into half your statements.

I am seeking a specifier for this form of anarchism which is not
loaded like traditional. Socialist anarchism still seems like the best
choice

    If you were really looking for a term that wasn't loaded, then you
would not chose socialist anarchism, as that blatantly assumes the
capitalist position at the outset. "Traditional anarchism" is indeed
loaded, but it just happens to be loaded with connotations that
capitalists agree with, like the fact that they did not come from the
same tradition as anarchists, but rather arose from liberalism.
Proudhonian anarchism doesn't work, because again you are trying to
squish a huge number of diverse ideologies into a label that does not
fit them. "Anarchism" is the label the refer themselves to,
universally. They are anarchists, and they are no more or less than
anarchists. The compromise of even traditional anarchist is
problematic, but it is less so then any other. I would vastly prefer
that they be called anarchists, since anarchist is a different word
than "anarcho-capitalist" and thus distinguishes them just as well as
any false prefix you slap onto the label would. But since no one is
going to accept that, "traditional anarchist" will just have to
suffice.

        VV Once again, you've exposed me. I never wanted a term that
wasn't loaded; I looked for one that blatantly assumes the capitalist
position at the outset. I can't fool you at all, can I?

            Nope. Choosing words that did in fact assume their
position from the outset, and then enforcing those changes regardless
of the opposition, sort of gave it away.

                VV I'll keep that in mind for my future crusades of
anarcho-capitalist deception.

                    You do that.

Oh, reiterating the claim that there is only that kind of anarchist
isn't going to serve to dismiss the huge number of objections to it.

                Nor should it. Those objections should be present,
they should be accounted for. All well and good, I have never
suggested anything otherwise.

But ancap->lib-cap is not a solution and will not be one.

    Your bias is leaking from your pores VV. You thought that
anarchist->libertarian socialist was a perfectly acceptable solution.
In defense of it you even pointed to the fact that capitalists have
pushed collectivist anarchists into refering to themselves as
libertarian socialists on their own page. Why is it that they can be
refered to exclusively as libertarian socialists on their page, even
renaming the entire page to indicate as much, yet refering to
capitalists as libertarian capitalists "will not be done?" I didn't
even change the page or the headings, just the sub-text. How much more
biased can you be? The good news is, I didn't intend for libertarian
capitalist to be taken seriously, I intended for it to stop your
mindless reverts to "libertarian socalism" long enough for us to talk
about it. Apparently it worked, where weeks of trying to talk about it
did not. I'm begining to understand just how valuable these
discussions are, given your total disregard for them.

        VV Just to review, the "mindless reverts" (which constituted
one (1) change)

            One change repeated over and over and over.

                VV Nope, once.

                    Funny, the history shows otherwise. Maybe its a
different reality we are looking at here.

were (was) to socialist anarchism. I had moved on from libertarian
socialism after strenuous objections. And it was you who had
originally suggested that term in the first place! I suppose once I
conceded that much you wanted more.

            Try this for a change. Listen to what someone says, and
think about it, and then act accordingly. I tried it and Aaron
convinced me, his arguments worked just fine. But of course you would
hold it against me that I changed my position through discussion on
this page, since you apparently think it would be disaster if any of
these discussions lead you to change your own opinion.

                VV I'm supposed to be impressed that you were
persuaded to adopt an even more extreme and unreasonable position by
Aaron?

                    Extreme and unreasonable. Of course, it must be
so, because VV said as much. And I take him at his word everytime he
says anything, because he has shown so much integrity in this conflict
thus far.

And I suppose it would be a waste of time to note all the changes I
have accepted (but I did anyway, see below).

                    You mean all the changes you have "generously"
accepted. Oh great lord?

As for later mindless reverts, they were to a version before what you
now seem to admit was vandalism (making frivolous changes just to make
a point).

            The article as it stood was biased, and you unilaterially
reverted it back to that bias over and over. I decided to stop banging
my head against the wall and demonstrate the bias to you by making it
symmetric. What do you know, you finally stop reverting back to lib
soc, and suddenly my edit is "frivolous."

As for the text on indiv anarchists, it is off topic; we were listing
terms used, not all the different component movements, which is not
really relevant for this article and out of scope for that paragraph.

    So a brief explaination of the ideology that capitalists claim to
borrow from is off topic? Then why are there so many explainations of
liberalism, natural law, and libertarianism right here on this page?
I'm serious VV, take a little time off, reorient yourself, and come
back. I will happily cease to edit the page if you agree to take a few
days off, because you obviously need it to clear your head here. - Kev
12/08/03

        VV Yes, it's a quick blurb about the opposing anarchist
ideology, not a classification of all the opposing views. The sections
that then do do exhaustive comparisons warrant more discussion.
Anyway, I will see your advice for me to "reorient" myself and clear
my head for what it is, a patronizing cover, and I'll go clean up all
that bias that was leaking out of my pores. In the interim, I have
tried a new edit. Since it doesn't give you everything you want, I'm
sure you won't like it. I'll brace myself for a new round of
incivilities. -- VV 08:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

            You'd best brace yourself, because if you continue to
constantly dismiss my edits as "absurd" "silly" "ridiculous"
"non-sensical" "vandalism" "frivolous" "terrible" and so on and so on,
you can reasonably expect that my tone is not going to suddenly grow
more loving out of the kindness of my heart.

                VV I would never suspect you of developing a loving
tone. Your behavior towards me on this forum goes far beyond rude. I
fear yielding to the temptation to start talking to you the way you've
been talking to me.

                    Yes. Please take a note of the begining of our
conversations. Look carefully, and notice who first started using
dismissive rhetoric and bullshit qualifiers in the place of arguments.
I'm sorry if you don't like my response to it.

As for my criticisms, they have been of what you've written, not you,
and in some cases I've been right by your own admission. Now, in
accordance with my "patronizing cover", you know, that one that
implored you to discuss things when you reverted without a single
word, that one that already took two weeks off to give you time, that
one who has wasted hours now educating you as to basic facts about
this subject you were almost wholly ignorant of - that "cover" will
leave the page according to YOUR edits, just like he did last time, to
give YOU time to get your head clear. - Kev 10/09/03

                VV A positive though temporary gesture,

                    More than you are willing to do, apparently. Too
bad though. Don't worry, I still won't edit it for a week. At least
one of us ought to be sincere, eh? I know, you are going to whine
about how Aaron was still changing it even when I'm not, ignoring the
fact that the last time I did this for 2 weeks your edits stood almost
totally unchallenged. I'll just mark this up as another indication of
the extent that you are willing to come to an amicable compromise.
Can't wait till the week is up, as you've just lost a whole lot of the
"give him the benefit of the doubt" that was keeping me back.

although of course Aaron is not on board. I still of course do not
believe there's anything wrong with MY edits (which are MY attempt at
answering everyone's concerns), and I don't see much evidence of
constructive criticism of them.

                    I know you don't, but I no longer have any hope in
this area. I've done my best to explain my reasoning behind every
edit. You've disagreed on each and every point. I've tried and tried
again, come up with numerous facts on the matter, shown different
angles. When you weren't discussing it I implored you to discuss it,
when it wasn't going anywhere I voluntarily took a break for your
benefit. I noted the historical facts that were relevant, ones that
you clearly had no knowledge of. Yet still, you think nothing is wrong
with your edits, despite their one-sided nature, despite their
constant attempts to push back any change on this page - regardless of
the reasoning behind it (the lao tzu edit for example, which you
blocked time and again with NO justification and finally gave up on it
as it was apparently "silly." The lib soc edit, which you reverted
half a dozen times before finally adopting it as your own edit when
you feared even that might change)

Nor do I expect you're likely to acknowledge how much compromising there's been.

                    So all that change was compromise? You are saying
that if you'd had your way none of those changes would exist on the
page? That would be rather sad, as the former version you are
comparing it to not only lacks a great deal of relevant information,
it is also horribly biased. That sorta indicates that you would prefer
the bias, and have only removed it as part of a "compromise." Go ahead
VV, revert back to the page you think it so grand. I assure you there
are several instances in the history of this page I could revert back
to as well, ones long before I even came, and sit on a high horse
claiming its been "a whole load of compromise since then." -Kev
12/10/03

-- VV 06:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Dec 9

VV, are you going to address the issues that I raised, or are you just
going to revert at will? - Aaron 4:59 PM 9 Dec 2003

    I have been addressing the issues, and you have been reverting at
will. -- VV 06:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

        You have addressed none of the issues that I raised. None
whatsoever. Please do so. - Aaron 7:15 PM 11 Dec 2003