Anarcho-capitalism
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 01:34:00 PDT 2022
Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 17
>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.
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 06 and Nov 06.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 18. Thank
you. --Saswann 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)--Rosicrucian 23:00, 3
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contents
1 Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
2 Disambiguate
3 POV
4 Unnecessary, POV section
4.1 Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism
4.1.1 As a form of individualist anarchism
4.1.2 As a form of anarchism in general
5 External links - why removal?
6 Archived
7 So what's the dispute?
8 Market "failure"
9 Unilateral, controversial edits by User:Anarcho-capitalism
10 POV tag
11 Opening Image
12 Protection
13 anarchist symbol
14 RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs)
15 market anarchism =
16 NPOV issue?
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
The article states:
Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form
of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently
authoritarian. For example, individualist anarchists Kevin Carson and
Ken Knudson argue that capitalism cannot occur without state power
being used to back the expropriation of surplus value from the
laborer. (emphasis added)
However, the article Kevin Carson states:
Carson has written sympathetically about several anarcho-capitalists,
arguing that they use the word "capitalism" in a different sense than
he does and that they represent a legitimate strain of anarchism.
--85.25.111.108 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. There is no contradiction there. Carson defines capitalism
like this: "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of
surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion
to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist."
Anarcho-capitalists are also opposed to state coercion.
Anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as voluntary trade. They both
advocate market economies, but Carson thinks there would be no profit
because he is still holding on to the labor theory of value.
Anarcho-capitalists think there would still be profit and that Carson
is a terrible economist. DTC 17:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this Carson Critique included when the title is about the
debate as to whether ANCAP is a form of anarchism? As pointed out
above, Carson believes that ANCAP is a legitimate form of anarchism.
86.133.126.162 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I guess it should be removed. Carson doesn't claim that
anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. DTC 05:05, 4 September
2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that section "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" that
section should probably be removed. It doesn't really make sense. If
it's a criticism of anarchism capitalism arguing that it's not a form
of anarchism then it should be in the "Criticisms of
anarcho-capitalism" section. Don't you think? DTC 05:12, 4 September
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay. Question whether anarcho-capitalism is
a form of anarchism is quite important for some people and deserves
its own section. -- Vision Thing -- 16:48, 4 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
How about calling the section "Claims that
anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism" then? "Anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism" is very vague. DTC 17:32, 4 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Hey I just removed a source from this article. It said that Barbara
Goodwin says in her book "Using Political Ideas" that
anarcho-capitalism is not a type of anarchism. Luckily, I just happen
to have this book and that is not what it says. I quote here:"Although
many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and
Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist
thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism
which demands that the state should be abolished and that private
individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs....."
That is on page 137 in my 1987 edition. Maybe the rest of the sources
should be checked up on.Anarcho-capitalism 20:59, 16 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Kropotkin was a blooming idiot. Disquietude 01:55, 17 September
2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate
I was looking for a wikipage on Ancap, Uruguay's state-owned petroleum
company, and I ended up here. Beats me, never had really heard of
ancap to describe anarcho-capitalism. Anyway, I think we should take
some steps aiming at disambiguating this issue. Regards, Lomibz 10:54,
19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I just made a disambiguation page for Ancap. Hogeye 02:36,
25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV
The last paragraph of the lead ignores the controversy surrounding
anarcho-capitalism's classification as anarchist (not all definitions
demonstrate that ancap is anarchist). It also tries to devalue
anarchists' opposition to anarcho-capitalism, saying that it's merely
because of a "sectarian bias", instead of explaining why they actually
oppose it. It also cites Wikipedia, which is unacceptable. Overall,
the lead sounds very tendentious, and it could be indicative of the
bias throughout the rest of the article (I'll do a more thorough
analysis later). A Featured Article Review is surely in order. -- WGee
03:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy to fix. Just take out the claim that the reason is
because of sectarian bias.Anarcho-capitalism 03:51, 26 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Done. Hogeye 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have not been properly addressed. The last
paragraph still says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism
"by definition"—but by who's definition? And, you can't ignore the
view of those publications that do not regard anarcho-capitalism as a
form of anarchism. The former lead properly addressed the controversy
in a neutral and effective way. So until that former lead is restored,
I will continue to dispute the article's neutrality. There are also
some other parts of the article whose neutrality I question. In the
future, please don't hastily remove the POV tag without first
consulting the one who raised the complaint. -- WGee 23:31, 26
September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason there is a section entitled "Sources
which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism". However, the
purpose of this article is not to demonsrate that anarcho-capitalism
is a form of anarchism: it's not an essay. More importantly, though,
the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section has been
deleted—another attempt to hide the viewpoints of
non-anarcho-capitalists. -- WGee 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's claimed that anarcho-capitalism is
commonly considered a form of anarchism then it needs sources. One or
two sources isn't going to back up a claim like that. Since the
anti-capitalists try to take out claims that anarcho-capitalism is a
form of anarchism, then those sources are necessary. They try to push
their minority viewpoint on the article. DTC 23:51, 26 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the lead states that "It is considered a
type of individualist anarchism." Yet there are many people
(anti-capitalists in particular) who deny this statement. (By the way,
in a Featured Article, weasel words should not be used). -- WGee
23:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that it's considered a type of
individualist anarchism. THat's the view of scholars. The sources are
at the bottom of the article but you want to remove them. Of course
some anarcho-communists are going to say it's not real anarchism,
because they're communists. DTC 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are plenty of sources at the
bottom that seem to support the claim. I thusly removed the NPOV tag,
since no sources are presented by you claiming otherwise. Intangible
23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary to say who, exactly, made
the statement, and then to provide sources. I have no problem with you
saying that "so-and-so says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
individualist anarchism." But you cannot use weasel words to suggest
that the whole world believes that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism. And if you refuse to rectify this problem and others in
thier entirety, this article will have to be stripped of its FA
status. -- WGee 23:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The sources are
right there. Those sources at bottom section of the article all say
anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. DTC 00:02, 27 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read my
last few posts? I don't care how many sources you procure: that fact
remains that anti-capitalists do not believe that anarcho-capitalism
is a form of anarchism, and that viewpoint is being hidden. Also, why
did either you or Intangible insert a contraction into the lead? FAs
are supposed to have "brilliant prose", not to mention that
encyclopedic articles must never use contractions. -- WGee 00:07, 27
September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disruptive here, this
last edit by yours [1] was really uncalled for. Intangible 00:24, 27
September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly called
for, because you are on probation for tendentious editing. -- WGee
00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a lot of
progress this article has made.Anarcho-capitalism 02:36, 27 September
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
Although I appreciate your good intentions, I feel that the article
has degraded in quality since I last worked on it. An article doesn't
always get better with time; sometimes it gets worse (see Nikodemos'
user page for more information). -- WGee 02:41, 28 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
How about
you justify what you're doing? Tell us each sentence you have a
problem with and we'll look at them one at a time. It seems to be that
you're just being careless.Anarcho-capitalism 03:15, 28 September 2006
(UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes that I feel are necessary to effect neutrality:
the restoration of the former, neutral lead (more or less); the
restoration of the Anarcho-capitalism and anarchism section, which is
an important section highlighting the ancap vs. anarchism controversy;
the deletion of the contentious and biased Sources which consider
Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism section. Vision Thing also
helped to remove some instances of original research. -- WGee 00:24, 1
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, POV section
Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism
As a form of individualist anarchism
Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary
of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social
Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21 & pp. 13-14, 2002
Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, p.21 1991.
Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1991, ISBN
0-631-17944-5, p. 11
Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press
(2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN
0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist
and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought.
Peace Pledge Union Publications [2]
Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in
America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
Brooks, Frank H. (ed) (1994) The Individualist Anarchists: An
Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908), Transaction Publishers, Preface p.
xi
Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in
America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004, pp. 118-119
Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century,
Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee,
Unité associée au CNRS, 2004
Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK)
(2000), p. 243
Busky, Donald. Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey,
Praeger/Greenwood (2000), p. 4
Foldvary, Fred E. What Aren't You an Anarchist?, Progress Report,
reprinted in The Free Liberal, Feb. 14, 2006
Levy, Carl. Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia
2006 [3] MS Encarta (UK).
Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Second Edition, Palgrave (2002), p. 61
As a form of anarchism in general
Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political
Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell
Publishing, 1995, p.231
Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New
Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7
DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of
Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, John
Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117 & 123
Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government:
The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The * Free Market
in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p.
99
Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century,
Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336
Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press
(1995), p. 11
Sanders, John T.; Narveson, For and Against the State, Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, 1996, ISBN 0-8476-8165-3
Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, fourth edition, John
Wiley & Sons (1987), p. 137
I say that these sources are unnecessary because the purpose of this
article is not to discuss whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form
of anarchism; that is not an important theme. I say that it violates
WP:NPOV because it argues that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism while excluding the opposing view. Even if the opposing view
was included, this whole section is unnecessary, as I said: the
ancap/anarchism controversy is already well documented without it. --
WGee 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is made that anarcho-capitalism is a form of
anarchism then it needs sources. Don't you understand
that?Anarcho-capitalism 01:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think it follows from the definition of
anarchism. It needs no source. But... that stuff should go into the
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article if it's not there already.
Hogeye 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article is crap. I think that's what they call a "POV
fork."Anarcho-capitalism 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section entitled Anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism, the one that you keep trying to delete without
reason. Read that section and its corresponding article before you
make ridiculous accusations. -- WGee 16:49, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
I am deleting information out of that section for
good reason. It's bad information. It's false. For example it gives a
source of Barbara Goodwin as saying anarcho-capitalism is not a form
of anarchism but she doesn't say that. She says it is a form of
anarchism. That whole little section there is pretty
nonsensical.Anarcho-capitalism 17:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only Barbara Goodwin who interjects
her opinion, but several other people, as well. You cannot delete all
the other sources because you disagree with this one. Saying that the
section is "pretty nonsensical" is no reason at all. -- WGee 17:10, 1
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other opinions are misrepresented as
well. Kevin Carson, for example, doesn't say anarcho-capitalism is not
a form of anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 17:12, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
That shouldnt have its own section anyway,
because it's a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, so why not just delete
that section and say what needs to be said in the Criticism
section?Anarcho-capitalism 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you reverting it back? It's full
of false information. Look at what Goodwin actually says: ""Although
many anarchists today still subscribe to the values of Bakunin and
Kropotkin, there are two new, divergent currents of anarchist
thinking. One is anarcho-capitalism, a form of libertarian anarchism
which demands that the state should be abolished and that private
individuals and firms should control social and economic affairs."
Please stop putting bad information back into
Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove that specific source, or
re-word it. Don't delete the whole section and dramatically alter the
lead to say that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. That's a
highly contentious claim, not a fact; and in order to comply with NPOV
policy, the opposing views must be included in a neutral manner. The
way it's set up now is fine: several scholars classify ancap as a form
of anarchism, but anti-capitalist anarchists believe that capitalism
is authoritarian and thus incompatible with anarchism. Don't try to
hide the viewpoint of anarchists, which is well documented. -- WGee
17:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You also keep inserting the
section Sources which consider Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism,
even though this article is not intended to be a persuasive essay. You
keep deleting my extensive copy-editing, as well—which is necessary if
you want this article to remain featured. -- WGee 18:03, 1 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether it's
"featured" or not. I care about whether it's correct or not. You're
putting bad information into the article. That section is nonsense. It
serves no purpose and it distorts what the source are saying. If
someone is going to claim anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism
then it needs sources. Nothing else in that section makes any
sense.Anarcho-capitalism 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this sentence not
belong in the Criticism section: "Many anarchists strongly argue that
anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe
capitalism to be inherently authoritarian." Why are there what amounts
to two Criticism sections?Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
This has been my belief
all along. The "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section is POV and
it directs the reader to a POV fork. Any criticism of
anarcho-capitalism should go in the "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism
section." DTC 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section is also WP:OR,
synthesizing the idea that "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" based
on statement "capitalism cannot occur without state power being used
to back the expropriation of surplus value from the laborer."
Intangible 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it sources Kevin Carson.
Carson defines capitalism as "It is state intervention that
distinguishes capitalism from the free market." He's talking about
capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism. Not to mention that he has a
perverse definition of capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:25, 1 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would be a little
bit conservative to just linking to website. I've not looked into
Kevin Carson, but unless he has previously published on anarchism in
scholarly journals etc., it is best to avoid the use of these kind of
sources. Intangible 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also it had Chomsky as a source that
it is not anarchism, but Chomsky in "Chomsky on Anarchism" says it is
"a strain of anarchism." He even says it is the only anarchist
movement that has survived and the "left anarchism" has been killed
off.Anarcho-capitalism 22:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the alternate names for anarcho-capitalism being deleted? The
reader needs to know straight out that he's looking at the right
article. "Anarcho-capitalism" is just one term for the philosophy. In
fact, for quite awhile I only knew it as "free market anarchism."
"Anarcho-capitalism" is a term which only lately has started getting
popular.Anarcho-capitalism 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but there's a box in the first section with all of the different
names. -- WGee 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then something in the first sentence needs to be pointed
to that box, because not everybody knows it as "anarcho-capitalism." I
think at least "free market anarchism" needs to be mentioned because
that it a very popular name for it. Antistate.com which is an
anarcho-capitalist site doesn't call it anarcho-capitalism, but
"market anarchism."Anarcho-capitalism 22:19, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
"Market anarchism" is too vague a name because markets can
exist outside of capitalism. Anyway, anyone will know that they've
found the right page after reading the lead; if they're too lazy to do
that, that's too bad for them. -- WGee 22:25, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The point is that it is a
synonym. When anyone talks of "free market anarchism" they're talking
about what is otherwise known as anarcho-capitalism.Anarcho-capitalism
22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And "individualist anarchism" is the same way. Most
people who call themselves individualist anarchists are what you would
call anarcho-capitalists.Anarcho-capitalism 22:31, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so, but this is where the ancap/anarchism
controversy comes into play: most anarchists reject any conflation of
anarchism and capitalism. As I've said before, this controversy needs
to be documented in detail, and it was documented in the Anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism section, until you deleted it. -- WGee 22:35, 1
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, take out the sources if they're not
what they claim to be; don't delete the entire section, thereby
deleting the social anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 22:36, 1 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
If that section is about whether
anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, then that's what I did. I
took out the sources that have nothing to do with
that.Anarcho-capitalism 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you said in your edit
summary, several of the sources that you deleted do argue that
anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. All of the sources that
I have restored in my last edit either say explictly that
anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism or they say that
anarcho-capitalism (or capitalism itself) is authoritarian and,
therefore, not anarchist. Also, please note that the section is not
only devoted to the labelling controversy, but also to describing the
differences between anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchist
thought. -- WGee 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your notion is WP:OR. I can easily
provide (see Talk:Anarchism archive) for a scholarly article that says
that anti-authoritarianism is not central to anarchism. You are
synthesizing all kinds of ideas here, based on your POV. Intangible
23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple deductive reasoning is
not original research. Anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian;
therefore, an authoritarian economic system cannot be anarchist. Which
do you disagree with: the premise or the conclusion? -- WGee 01:31, 3
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voluntary trade is the
antithesis of authoritarianism. What are you talking
about?Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the cited
anarchists believe that capitalism is inherently authoritarian, they
must also believe that anarcho-capitalism is inherently authoritarian.
They are not necessarily talking about trade, but about the corporate
structure. -- WGee 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a
difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism. A criticism of
capitalism is not necessarily a criticism of anarcho-capitalism. The
Kevin Carson source that is in there is criticism state intervention
in the economy, which anarcho-capitalists also criticize. He's not
criticizing anarcho-capitalism at all. Anyway, I correct his position
in the article.Anarcho-capitalism 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The
Ancap/anarchism section should remain until the fate of the main
article is decided. Also, I removed Carson's opinions, which aren't
directed towards anarcho-capitalism, as you pointed out through your
edits (btw, don't edit Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.) -- WGee 02:46, 3
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both the
criticism section and the ancap/anarchism section need to be expanded.
-- WGee 02:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could make an equally persuasive argument how other forms of
anachism are not real anarchism, either. One's rational debates do not
necessarily belong in an encyclopedia. All this article needs to
express are the premises, history, etc, of anarcho-capitalism.
Imagination débridée 02:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WGee, your premise that anarchism is inherently anti-authoritarian is
false. See the Anarchism article. Intangible 15:26, 3 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that Anarchism can support authoritarianism? Full
Shunyata 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem is pleasing any anarchist with a definition of a
concept that defines anarchy or any of its sub-philosophies. This is
because any anarchist worth their salt would disagree with any attempt
to define the subject, as to define it would place a concept inside
the confines of a set border. It is best if the definition fits the
broad philosophical and political definition as established by works
on those subjects and is judged on those merits alone. Hotspur23
19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
External links - why removal?
Hi, I am hoping it was just a misunderstanding, but I have to ask to make sure:
There were a couple of recent additions to the "External links" that
were even more recently removed. They weren't seen as POV issues (they
are external links after all) but apparently it was because they were
presumed to be not related to anarcho-cap thought. ???
I just re-added them ( http://www.AdventuresInLegalLand.com and
http://www.TOLFA.us ) because both ARE definitely related -- they are
VERY practical anarcho-capitalist resources, especially for those
seeking to research/act on more than just abstract/economic theory.
I believe that labels are dangerous, and an easy way to dismiss
logical analysis... but to humour the removing person and to clarify
their applicability, I have added the anarcho-capitalism label ...
However if in the coming days someone still believes they should be
removed, please at least FIRST check out both resources for their
theme/content and you will surely see that they are very much
anarcho-cap promoting. :) And be decent enough to state (ha ha) in
this here discussion page WHY they are re-removed. Please and thank
you. 68.149.190.31 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: just found this other Wikipedia entry -- and it seems to
confirm what I have personally found, which is that anarcho-caps and
individualist-anarchists are equated more often than not. So again,
AiLL/TOLFA do belong in the External Links here. 68.149.190.31 02:45,
3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism#Anarcho-capitalism_as_a_form_of_individualist_anarchism
Archived
Things were getting lost scrolling through all that text, so I've
trimmed us down to only the most current discussions.--Rosicrucian
23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the dispute?
Why is the article "protected"? What's it being protected
from?Anarcho-capitalism 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being protected from our edit warring, apparantly.
I disagree with the protection, however, because we were actually
making progress towards resolving our dispute, albeit gradually; this
is my opinion, at least.
Now that the article's protected, though, could you take the time
to precisely outline your criticisms of the current version of the
article?
-- WGee 01:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main synonyms for anarcho-capitalism should be
listed right up there in the first sentence because it's not referred
to as "anarcho-capitalism" by everybody. I don't understand why you're
fighting that. And the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section
should be deleted or started from scratch because it doesn't make
sense. What is its purpose? If it has one, maybe it should be made
more explicit by changing the title. I can't figure out what the theme
is supposed to be as being distinct from "Criticims of
anarcho-capitalism."Anarcho-capitalism 01:39, 4 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 'Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism' section should
either deleted altogether or, at least, should be in the criticisms
section. It is out of place where it is. What is the purpose of it?
Imagination débridée 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who asked for page protection. I will wait for the Afd
to close down, before I'll ask for this article to be unlocked.
Intangible 08:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My question was what is the purpose of 'Anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism' section? But, then again, why did you ask for page
protection, Intangible? Imagination débridée 23:41, 4 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
From the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism AfD:
This article discusses the opposing viewpoints as to
whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It also
compares and contrasts traditional anarchism and this new
anarcho-capitalism. There is enough information and controversy about
these two issues to merit a separate article. What's in this article
isn't criticism, but rather an important description of profound
ideological differences.
Hopefully that answers your question, Anarcho-capitalism.
I'm opposed to including multiple names in the lead partly
because I don't want to overwhelm the reader with anarcho-capitalist
jargon early-on. Also, most articles at Wikipedia (and encyclopedic
articles in general) only state the most popular name in the first
sentence—which, to my knowledge, is anarcho-capitalism. You needn't be
so worried, anyway; most readers will grasp the subject of the article
after reading the lead, and I doubt that they'll completely miss the
box of ancap terms.
-- WGee 01:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anarcho-capitalism, your heading Criticisms claiming
that anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism is not
neutral. Please read WP:WTA, which specifically urges against the use
of the word "claim":
The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In
this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by
using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect. The American
Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation explicitly in their
definition of the word: "To state to be true, especially when open to
question".
Not only that, but your title is excessively long and too
specific: the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article discusses more
than "Criticisms claiming that anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate
form of anarchism."
-- WGee 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" section
in this article, that you've now created, supposed to be about? You
say that the "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" article is more than
just about whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, but that
is all that section in this article is about. So, you seem to be
contradicting yourself by naming the section "Anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism."Anarcho-capitalism 03:44, 17 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
I find the actual title "Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism" as POV as
it's suggesting that anarchism and ANCAP are two different things
which is debatable. --Hixx 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.Anarcho-capitalism 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism" is not POV because so
far there is insufficient evidence that anarchism and "an"-cap are the
same thing. We're waiting for self-proclaimed "an"-caps to prove that
capitalism can be anarchistic. Simply claiming to be a form of
"anarchism" does not make one an anarchist more than standing in a
garage makes one a Lexus. So far "an"-caps have simply applied the
prefix to themselves simply because they are opposed to the public
State. They haven't shown any similiarities with any other school of
Anarchism (not even Individualist Anarchism) in any other area. Full
Shunyata 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your premise that to be a form of anarchism you have to
have similarities with others forms of anarchism. That's just not
true. I pride my philosophy on being different than all the other
anarchist philosophies. I don't have to prove that anarcho-capitalism
is anarchism. The article already contains sources from a wide variety
of scholars (non-anarcho-capitalists) that say it
is.Anarcho-capitalism 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-Capitalism, do you have a reason for opposing the "Anarchism
and Anarcho-Capitalism" section other than your personal beliefs that
"true" anarchism is capitalistic? Full Shunyata 13:15, 20 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Yes. Even if I was wrong that anarcho-capitalism was a form of
anarchism, but title is not neutral and Wikipedia is supposed to be
neutral. It implies that anarcho-capitalism and anarchism are two
different things. In addition, it doesn't make much sense because the
section could be about anything as long as it has anything to do with
anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. There is no focus.Anarcho-capitalism
16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Market "failure"
Since there is no portal or to-do list for anarcho-capitalists, I'll
make this brief mention. The article on Market failure needs some
work, so for those looking to do some cleanup, you might visit there.
--RayBirks 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unilateral, controversial edits by User:Anarcho-capitalism
(revert to anarcho-capitalism. i dont need to discuss
non-controversial edits and adding sources to unsourced statements. if
you dispute any particular edit, take it to the discussion page.) [4]
You do not have the perogative to unilaterally decide whether or not
your edits are uncontroversial; in fact, only uncontroversial edits
are "minor edits". Neither do you have the right to violate
WP:CONSENSUS whenever it's convenient. It is your responsiblity to
demonstrate that your contributions comply with WP policies before
inserting them and to ensure that your edits are acceptable to other
users; it's not my responsiblity to spend hours on this talk page
rebuking your edits "one by one" (and you know full well how
prohibitively long that would take). -- WGee 00:29, 27 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I have to discuss my edits
before I make them. I do not believe they are controversial edits at
all, so I see no need to do so. I just greatly improved the article by
sourcing statements that were unsourced, and adding better
explanations of things. Then you come along and revert everything. I'm
sorry, but that just won't do. If you have a problem with any of my
edits, then discuss them here one at a time. So far, you haven't
pointed out anything that you believe were bad edits. You apparently
just don't like the idea that I edited the article, so you reverted
all my edits. If you don't have time to "spend hours on this talk page
rebuking [my] edits one by one", then what are you doing on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia takes time and patience. Just demolishing a whole series of
edits made by someone else is disruptive.Anarcho-capitalism 00:34, 27
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read my edit summaries. Not only do your verbose contributions
merely restate what has already been said succinctly (i.e. they are
redundant), but they are written using poor, if not incorrect, syntax
and informal language: Need I remind you that featured articles must
be "Well written", meaning "that the prose is compelling, even
brilliant"? Moreover, you deleted several instances of the anarchist's
viewpoint, thereby circumventing WP:NPOV. -- WGee 00:42, 27 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more.Anarcho-capitalism 00:44, 27
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your edits, so you think have the
right to insert them anyway? Do you think that your opinion outweighs
mine? That's a flagrant violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Once you ignore
that guideline, the process of collaboration comes to a halt, edit
wars ignite, and Wikipedia ceases to function as intended. Thus, since
you reject this cornerstone of Wikipedia, the only way to resolve this
dispute seems to be through the dispute resolution process—maybe
mediators can explain to you the fundamentals of Wikipedia better than
I can. That said, will you agree to resolve this dispute through the
Wikipedia:Mediation Committee? -- WGee 00:58, 27 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
No, I won't. I don't see any reason to. I haven't
violated any Wikipedia rules. My edits were NPOV and sourced. You
haven't been able to point out anything speficially wrong with my
edits (other than you say you don't like my
grammar).Anarcho-capitalism 01:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And grammar would be easily corrected. What is
the idea behind the NPOV banner?? Intangible 13:53, 27 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted
several instances of the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby
violating WP:NPOV: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Also, most of your edits
are either verbose; redundant; written in an unencyclopedic, informal
tone; and syntactically incorrect and awkward. I will, therefore,
insert a "cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt seem those edits were POV. For
example, Colin Ward is an anarchist of the socialist kind, who is not
a neutral observer. What Joe Peacott and individualist anarchists
think about capitalism should be written about in individualist
anarchism, not in anarcho-capitalism. Just my 2 cents. Intangible
22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 The Colin Ward source doesn't
says capitalism is different from a free market. I have that book and
I don't see it. That's why I deleted it. There was not even a page
number for the alleged citation.Anarcho-capitalism 22:58, 27 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 I removed that because it says
that it is controversial that anarcho-capitalism was influenced by
19th century individualist anarchists. That's not controversial at
all. It's well known that Rothbard studied Tucker and Spooner. I put a
source there just to be sure, and I have more sources if anyone needs
them.Anarcho-capitalism 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7 I moved that out of there to
another section because it's already stated in that section that the
19th century individualists anarchists thought that competition in a
free market would make it impossible to profit.Anarcho-capitalism
23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8 I deleted what I moved to that
section in the step above, because this section is not for that kind
of information. Again, it's already talked about that the 19th century
individualists thought profit couldn't happen, so it's just
redundant.Anarcho-capitalism 23:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9 It's true that profit is not
defined in mainstream economics as individuals receiving less pay than
the labor theory of value says that they should receive. That's not
there anymore anyway. I took it out because it's not
necessary.Anarcho-capitalism 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate, moreover, that the
yellow and black flag is a mainstream representation of
anarcho-capitalism, or else it will be removed. -- WGee 22:32, 27
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is or not. I
didn't put it there.Anarcho-capitalism 23:08, 27 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
A characteristic of a problem
editor: "You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that
others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the
responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly
with the editor seeking to include it." (Wikipedia:Tendentious
editing) So please roll-back your edits and justify them on this talk
page first, or else I will have to report you to the administration
for violating offical policy. -- WGee 05:27, 28 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
I haven't violated any
policies. I cite my additions. So, report away.Anarcho-capitalism
05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. -- WGee 07:15, 28
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate
it.Anarcho-capitalism 07:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the flag
there than take it out. I thought someone had a source for it. Like I
said, I didn't put it there, and I don't care whether it's there or
not. But don't take out my sourced additions, and don't put back in
unsourced comments that I removed.Anarcho-capitalism 05:43, 28 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to remove the POV banner soon. User:Anarcho-capitalism
appears to have sufficiently justified his changes. MrVoluntarist
12:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with User:WGee's actions though. In general, you do
not have to justify your edits on the talk page before making changes.
And just putting someone on AN/I is totally uncalled for here.
Intangible 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Kev or Aaron (whoever WGee is) for growing up and
removing the tag. MrVoluntarist 14:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neither Kevin nor Aaron; and please refrain from making
personal attacks (i.e., thanking people for "growing up").
Anarcho-capitalism is required to discuss his edits and formulate a
consensus before making contributions; the involved editors must
mutually agree on what information should be inserted into the
article, or else seek a form of dispute resolution. By the way, I
still dispute the article's neutrality. -- WGee 16:48, 28 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
LOL!!!! I said "Kev", not "Kevin", genius. How did you
know "Kev" was short for "Kevin", rather than, I don't know, "Kevehs"
(the original name I've known him by)?
And I stand by saying that you "grew up". Putting an POV
tag on without, you know, explaining what's POV so people can fix it
is childish. Moving from childish acts to non-childish acts is
"growing up". Get it?
Funny! Sorry, but if you'd actually take the time to
read this thread rather than spew insults (which is very childish—how
ironic!), you would know that I have explained which of
Anarcho-capitalism's violate WP:NPOV. -- WGee 17:43, 28 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
You have listed. You have not explained. See
below, Kev/Aaron. MrVoluntarist 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Intangible -- you don't always have to
justify changes on the talk page. Major changes, esp. deletions, sure,
but I'm not impressed by charges that someone edited without
discussing on the talk page. MrVoluntarist 17:28, 28 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't read this discussion page
thoroughly; otherwise, you would know that Anarcho-capitalism did not
discuss any of his recent contributions in advance, yet he demands
that I discuss my deletions. That's ridiculous, illogical, and
contrary to policy. Controversial edits, especially in such a
controversial article, must be discussed before they are inserted;
that is the basis of WP:CONSENSUS. "Wikipedia policy is quite clear
here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests
firmly with the editor seeking to include it." (Wikipedia:Tendentious
editing) -- WGee 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I obviously have read the talk page, and
I obviously made those comments with the content of the talk page in
mind. You listed what you thought were POV edits. You didn't give a
reason they were POV. And I don't see how they were major enough to
justify discussing before editing. Plus, the little quote you dug out
on the false suspicion it helped justify your position is irrelevant:
the fact that he has to defend the change doesn't mean he has to post
on the talk page before making it. That's not how Wikipedia works.
MrVoluntarist 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need your permission to edit the article.
There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I need your permission before
I make any changes to the article. Who do you think you
are?Anarcho-capitalism 01:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "Anarcho-capitalism is required to discuss his edits and
formulate a consensus before making contributions" Are you required to
discuss your edits and formulate a consensus before making
contributions as well? What's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Intangible 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Intangible. WGee, I would like you to point to
the Wikipedia policy that says an editor needs to gain consensus
before making edits. Can you point to the exact policy please? I find
your activity here highly disruptive, WGee. Especially in the light of
this edit:
[10] "You might want to take a look at this article. The
lead, in particular, has been gradually POV'd by anarcho-capitalists.
I think another FAR is in order; perhaps I can start one this weekend,
unless you beat me to it. -- WGee 22:05, 25 September 2006
(UTC)"[reply]
It looks like you are only here to cause trouble, WGee.
This is the worst kind of pov pushing I've seen. Doctors without
suspenders 18:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to drop by
TheWolfstar/Maggie/Lingeron/WhiskeyRebellion/etc. It's only a matter
of time until you are banned again; your removing those banners will
only speed up the process by making your disruptions more conspicuous.
-- WGee 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm the one being disruptive here.
And consensus seems to be against you, Blockader, AaronS, Kevehs,
WGee, BlahBlahblah,etc. Doctors without suspenders 20:48, 28 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly suggesting that we're all the
same person? -- WGee 22:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted
several instances of the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby
violating WP:NPOV: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Also, most of your
edits are either verbose; redundant; written in an unencyclopedic,
informal tone; and syntactically incorrect and awkward. I will,
therefore, insert a "cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Yet you still claim that I haven't
explained my concerns. If my explanation is not to your satisfaction,
that's too bad. The banner says, "The neutrality of this article is
disputed." Do you think that you have the perogative to decide whether
or not I'm disputing the neutrality of the article? Thus, if any one
of you removes the banner again, I will report you to the
administration. -- WGee 02:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the reasons for those edits
above. I even numbered them for you. You haven't rebutted my reasons
for those edits. Report me to administration all you want. I'm not
doing anything wrong. You are. Either explain your reasons for
disputing my edits or don't put a tag on the article. Just putting a
tag on the article solves nothing if you're not going to explain
yourself. About the cleanup banner, I already "cleaned up" things, so
I took the tag off. What more cleaning up do you want? Can you point
out any specific sentences that needs "cleaning up." Any "cleaning up"
I do, you revert. What you're doing here is totally
irrational.Anarcho-capitalism 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I waste my time by
rebutting your reasons? You never moderated your position in the past,
and the article is now comandeered by sympathizers to
anarcho-capitalism, who form the majority of the involved editors
right now. I'm just warning people that I dispute the neutrality of
the article, as I'm entitled to do. I cannot even attempt to resolve
this problem because you refuse to compromise and you refuse to
discuss your edits in advance; moreover, my earlier attempts to effect
neutrality have been reverted on sight. -- WGee 03:13, 29 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Your first complaint
was that I edited the article without getting your permission. None of
us need to get your permission before editing the article. Who do you
think you are? I don't need to discuss my edits in advance. It's
perfectly legal to discuss them afterwards if anyone happens to
question them. After pressing you to explain if you had any complaints
about the edits themselves, instead of just being upset that I edited
the article without your prior permission, you came up with a few
complaints about some specific edits. I explained the reasons for
them, and you haven't explained any disagreement with those reasons.
You claim here that I won't "compromise." Compromise what exactly? I'm
here asking what you think is wrong with my edits, so that if you're
right then they can be fixed. You don't seem to be willing to engage
in any real discussion of the issues. But, then you go complaining to
adminstrators that I won't discuss my edits which is not true. The
reverse is true. You don't want to discuss your deletions and my
edits. Here I am, and here I've been waiting to discuss, but you won't
do it. Instead of discussing the issues, you stick a NPOV tag on the
article. You put a "cleanup" tag on the article, but then why I "clean
up" you revert that as well. Either you want the article "cleaned up"
or you don't. Which is it? You're being irrational.Anarcho-capitalism
03:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being
perfectly rational: I refuse to argue endlessly with an editor who has
a history of intransigence and ignorance of my opinions. Since we
can't come to an agreement amongst ourselves, some form of third-party
dispute resolution is in order; but you've refused mediation. Thus,
the only remaining option is to open an arbitration case, as
recommended by administrator Daniel Bryant. -- WGee 03:32, 29 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't
ever claim again to administrators that I refuse to discuss my edits.
What's really happening is you don't want to take the time to discuss.
And, yes I do refuse mediation. I refuse arbitration as well. I've
done nothing wrong. Rather, some kind of action needs to be taken
against you by administrators for being so
disruptive.Anarcho-capitalism 03:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,
I said that you refuse to discuss your edits in advance, which is an
integral part of WP:CONSENSUS. And by accepting mediation, you are not
admitting that you are doing something wrong; you are admitting that
there is a dispute that needs to be resolved. Arbitration is
compulsory, by the way; if you are notified of the case but refuse to
defend yourself, you may be blocked or lose your case by default. --
WGee 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There
is no such rule that anyone has to talk about their edits before they
make them. Talking about them afterwards is fine. Go ahead and try
arbitration then. I can't imagine any administrator taking what you're
saying seriously. Humor me.Anarcho-capitalism 04:01, 29 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
If
you would have payed attention, an administrator, Daniel Bryant,
actually recommended arbitration. And I'm sure there are several
editors who would attest to your disruptive behaviour. Further, the
core of WP:CONSENSUS is that editors must come to a consensus as to
what information should be included in an article and how; that
logically requires preemptive discussion. -- WGee 04:47, 29 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, WGee, I don't know what your problem is. The consensus
seems to be that Anarcho-capitalism's edits are just fine. You are the
one who is going against consensus. He has tried repeatedly to discuss
what your problem is with his edits and you refuse to state one damned
thing. You are acting irrationally - he's right. You are only here to
cause trouble with this article because you don't agree with it's
phiosophy. That much is clear. I suggest that you might benefit from
psychiatric help, WGee. Jesus, you're only 16 years old and you're
acting like a mean cynical old man. Get some help before it's too
late. Doctors without suspenders 05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that explains a lot.Anarcho-capitalism 16:56, 29
October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV tag
What's the TAG for? The article doesn't seem to be POV. Just putting a
POV tag to a FA without explanation on the talk page is bordering on
vandalism. Intangible 13:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. WGee is threatening to report any of us who dare to
remove the tag to the administrators. Yet he won't say what his
specific objections are. Doctors without suspenders 17:00, 29 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed and explained my objections, as both of you know:
Anarcho-capitalism, you have deleted several instances of
the non–anarcho-capitalist viewpoint, thereby violating WP:NPOV: [16],
[17], [18], [19], [20]. Also, most of your edits are either verbose;
redundant; written in an unencyclopedic, informal tone; and
syntactically incorrect and awkward. I will, therefore, insert a
"cleanup" banner. -- WGee 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop being disruptive, especially you, Intangible. You're very
close to being reported for violating the terms of your probation. --
WGee 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it seems that those sources where from highly
partisan writers. There are enough credible neutral sources saying
that individual anarchist are in favor of free markets. Somehow Ward
takes the marginal view that somehow this not the case. The only POV
comes from Ward being used as reference here, for saying individualist
anarchists don't believe in free markets. Please Comment on content,
not on the contributor. Intangible 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to his objections but he hasn't responded
back. As he said above, he refuses to. He'd rather just put a POV
banner on the article. Again, the reason I removed the Ward source is
because there was no page number to verify it. I have the book and I
don't see him saying anywhere that capitalism isn't a free market. Why
would he? Capitalism is defined as being a free
market.Anarcho-capitalism 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have just removed that one clause
rather than the whole thing. But it seems that you will use any excuse
to delete the anarchist viewpoint. -- WGee 07:27, 30 October 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Because the rest of the sentence was wrong
too. Not all of the 19th century individualists were mutualists.
Secondly, because there was no page number. I would think a featured
article should be of high quality, which would include the sources
having page numbers. I don't know what you're talking by saying I'm
deleting an anarchist viewpoint.Anarcho-capitalism 15:45, 30 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what he means by deleting an
anarchist viewpoint either. I'm an anarchist and I don't have that
viewpoint. WGee is not an anarchist and yet he claims to know what
anarchist viewpoints are. Doctors without suspenders 18:26, 30 October
2006 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have a source,
anarcho-capitalism, saying that individualist anarchists did not
"mistrust capitalism"? If so, that would still not be a legitimate
reason to delete the source; you should merely juxtapose the two.
Moreover, that there is no page number does not make the reference
invalid or nonexistent. The proper solution, rather than deletion,
would be to ask the editor who originally inserted the reference to
reveal the page number. -- WGee 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does "mistrust
capitalism" mean? I don't know what it means, and I doubt anyone else
does either. All in all it was a meaningless sentence. Again, I have
that book and there are only a few pages devoted to
anarcho-capitalistm, what that sentence said is just not in there. As
I said, it's already explained what the difference is between 19th
century form and the anarcho-capitalist form of individualist
anarchism. I actually rewrote much of that section in order to clarify
what the difference is. You know, I find it really strange that you're
condemning me from removing a sentence that was incoherent and was not
sourced properly, but then you deleted my well-cited edits in your
massive reversion. So, let me ask you, why did you delete, for
example, this sentence: "The "normative core" of classical liberalism
is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous
order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that
satisfies human wants." (Razeen, Sally. Classical Liberalism and
International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual
History, Routledge (UK) ISBN 0-415-16493-1, 1998, p. 17)??? Any other
reason besides I didn't get your permission first to put it in the
article? Anarcho-capitalism 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opening Image
Whatever happened to the opening image with the dollar/yin-yang? The
top part of the article looks extremely dry and would benefit from the
image's return. -- WillMagic 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protection
The protection tag reads This page is currently protected from editing
until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk
page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the
current page version.) Aren't we supposed to be resolving this issue
now? If we don't resolve it the article will just stay
protected..right? Doctors without suspenders 00:26, 30 October 2006
(UTC) 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. It's been very difficult to get WGee to respond above,
and he's the only one disputing anything.Anarcho-capitalism 00:14, 3
November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he's satisfied and that's why he hasn't
responded.Anarcho-capitalism 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is bullshit. Complain about it..get the page
protected..then walk away with no attempt to resolve the
issue..whatever the heck that is. Doctors without suspenders 19:07, 3
November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've given up dealing with you myself because you are
being so intransigent, disruptive, and tendentious. Thus, the only way
for this dispute to be resolved is through arbitration, as I've said
before. I will no longer waste my time unfruitfully debating with you.
-- WGee 03:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unlocking this page, as five days on full protection is simply not
warranted (and besides, the irony of locking down an anarchy page....
but I digress). You can arbitrate the issue, but in the interim, I'm
going to make a stab at moderating this. Discuss all significant
changes here on the talk page, rather than edit-warring. All additions
of new substantive content need sources, of course. Readysetgo.
JDoorjam Talk 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering to moderate this dispute, but I'm going to
have to take a break from this article for a while. I'm very busy in
real life and don't have time to become entrenched in such lengthy
disputes; plus, I believe I can be more productive elsewhere, where I
don't have to deal with disruptive editors. I'll check back once in a
while, though, to make sure that the POV tag is still there and to
monitor the article's progress.
What triggered the protection (the straw that broke the camel's
back) was Anarcho-capitalism' persistent removal of the POV tag. It is
nobody's prerogative but mine to say whether or not I dispute the
article's neutrality. All that is required in good faith is that I
justifiy my reasons for disputing that article's neutrality, as I did.
My reasons do not have to meet two editors' definitions of "good" or
"legitimate" in order for the tag to remain. As I've said, I'll
monitor the article's progress intermittently to see if the POV
problems have been corrected, but, in the meantime, the tag should
remain as a warning to newcomers.
-- WGee 04:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, disagreeing with the neutrality of an article is
actually not sufficient for maintaining an NPOV tag on the page.
Actively discussing disagreement is necessary, but not sufficient, for
keeping the banner on the page. You need to make a good-faith attempt
at reach consensus on this article. If you cannot or will not engage
in discussion, and no one else disputes the neutrality of the article,
the article is no longer disputed, and the tag ought come down. There
must be discussion, give and take, etc., on ways to move the article
to neutrality — positive forward motion, and if you're not here, there
can't be any! JDoorjam Talk 05:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, WGee has presented no actual passages that he
recommends fixes to in order to move towards neutrality. Given this
and his continued unwillingness to debate the topic, I have removed
the NPOV tag. --WillMagic 10:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got the wrong person. I might have removed the POV
banner in a revert inadvertantly when you reverted a large number of
edits to the article, but other than I didn't remove the POV banner. I
was trying to discuss any problems you had with the article because
you put a POV tag there and was content to leave it there while we
were discussing, but you weren't able or weren't willing to take the
time to discuss. But, JDoorjam is correct above. You can't just stick
a POV banner on an article and walk away. If you're the only one that
has disputed anything then you need to actually dispute. You need to
take the time to discuss any POV issues, so that if they are real,
they can be remedied.Anarcho-capitalism 15:38, 4 November 2006
(UTC)[reply]
--64.135.205.26 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
anarchist symbol
I've removed the "anarchist symbol." Although the intro might seem
dull like that, I don't this one was particularly neutral or even much
used among ancaps. I like the amagi symbol instead, but its use is too
prominently linked to Liberty Fund, alas. Intangible 02:23, 5 November
2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either. I think it's ridiculous to associate
anarcho-capitalism with the ying yang.Anarcho-capitalism 16:40, 5
November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Said symbol always seemed anti-anarcho-capitalist, as it includes
the symbol for the dollar, which is a state-sponsored fiat currency.
Silver or gold maybe, but never the dollar. -- RayBirks 16:52, 5
November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs)
A conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against
Anarcho-capitalism. Donnacha 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all you want, but you're not going to be able to get me
kicked off Wikipedia because I haven't committed any of the crimes you
and your anti-capitalist cohorts have claimed.Anarcho-capitalism
17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is ridiculous. He's a solid editor of this page, and it
seems like WGee et al. have something of a vendetta against him.
--WillMagic 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-Capitalism believes in an oxymoron he should read some
Proudhon or Bakunin if he wants to see what real anarchy not fake in
other words capitalist anarchy
market anarchism =
I copy-pasted the article on market anarchism here, with a redirect on
the original page, because the concepts are too related to warrant
their own entries. --64.135.205.26 00:06, 10 November 2006
(UTC)[reply]
Though most market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, not all
are. So I'm not sure that should be directed here. Those contents you
put in certainly don't need to be here.Anarcho-capitalism 01:13, 10
November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must restore also the old version of Market anarchism
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_anarchism&diff=86831096&oldid=85899838
--NimNick 09:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anarcho-capitalism: market anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism are definitely not synonymous. Market anarchism, or
free market anarchism, is a much more broadly used term and includes
mutualist anarchist thought such as put forward by Proudhon and
contemporary Kevin Carson as well as individualist anarchists such as
Benjamin Tucker and contemporary Wendy McElroy. Market anarchism is a
label encompassing different thought traditions, which have in common
their understanding and advocacy of the free market--both as a means
for equality, justice, and freedom, and an end (anarchism). I
mentioned this point, which I find extremely valid and important, on
the talk page for market anarchism as well, but it seems it was
disregarded. Per Bylund
NPOV issue?
"...they believe the only just way to acquire property is through
voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather
than through aggression or fraud." in the introductory section, may
not be NPOV. Anarcho-capitalism advocates acquisition of property only
through the free market in the ways listed; this sentence makes all
other ways of acquiring property that may not fall under this
definition seem synonomous with "aggression" or "fraud". Since this is
controversial, are any users willing to comment on or dispute this
before changing it? The NPOV tag should not be necessary. --Sgutkind
03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are trying to say... But
Anarcho-capitalists see no moral justified way to aquire property but
through volountary means or homesteading. The whole idea is built on
property which stems from self-ownership. Any initiation of force
which includes of course such natural aggresions such as tresspassing,
stealing or damageing someone else's property is wrong and a obvious
violation of property rights and hence self-defense against such
agression is justified. I don't see any NPOV sign and I have a hard
time remembering it ever being a controversy. Lord Metroid 08:44, 17
May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list