Anarcho-capitalism

[grarpamp]

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 22
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Anarcho-capitalism
Jump to navigation Jump to search
	This 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.
Archive 15 	← 	Archive 20 	Archive 21 	Archive 22 	Archive 23 	Archive
24 	Archive 25
Contents

    1 Protected edit request on 27 June 2014
    2 Tea Party
    3 Following the LEAD guideline
    4 RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around
including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism?
        4.1 Survey
        4.2 Suggested compromise regarding disputed material
        4.3 Threaded discussion
        4.4 Closing
        4.5 References: arbitrary break

Protected edit request on 27 June 2014
	This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The last sentence of the introductory paragraphs, "Anarcho-Capitalism
is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional
anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist" needs
a citation regardless of if it's true or not.
2601:7:7E00:8A8:8BB:FC92:1FA8:DA12 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

    Multiple citations for the statement are in the body, as well as
being linked to and discussed in the RfC above, which, as noted in
response to previous edit requests, relates directly to this content.
WP:CITELEAD is open as to whether citations should also appear in the
lead, but it's not obligatory. N-HH talk/edits 16:03, 27 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

        Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:
per N-HH. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party

If something about the Tea Party is put in the lead section, per
WP:LEAD it should be a summary of referenced article text. Please
don't put new material in the lead section alone. Binksternet (talk)
13:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following the LEAD guideline

At WP:LEAD, the guideline says that the lead section is to be a
summary of information contained in the article body. The following
text seems to me to be a suitable summary of article body text:

    Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of
anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has
historically been anti-capitalist.

The article body goes into more detail on this point:

    Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of
anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a
form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been
anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic equality. Most
social anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of
anarchism because they view capitalism as being inherently
authoritarian. In particular they argue that certain capitalist
transactions are not voluntary, and that maintaining the class
structure of a capitalist society requires coercion, which is
incompatible with an anarchist society.

The main article about this issue is identified for the reader:
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Here at this article, involved editor Knight of BAAWA expressed that
the text seen above in bold should not be made part of the lead
section, "even according to WP:LEAD".[1] Please explain the position
to me, as it looks otherwise on the face of it. Binksternet (talk)
07:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the lede for evolution mention "teach the controversy"? No,
of course not. Does the lede for Earth mention the Flat-Earth society?
No, of course not. Does the lede for sociology mention phrenology? No,
of course not. Does the lede for christianity mention that some
catholics do not consider protestants to be christian (and
vice-versa)? No, of course not. The lede is not for such things.
Please stop trying to make it be that way, given your complete
misreading and misunderstanding of WP:LEAD. And please don't say that
those articles are not relevant to this discussion, for they are. It's
called "consistency". You will have to explain to all of us why you
think anarchocapitalism is so special that it deserves this special
treatment that other articles don't have. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
12:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        The information removed is entirely relevant and should be
reinstated. Anarchism is the parent philosophy of anarcho-capitalism,
and thus their relation is absolutely appropriate to illustrate here.
Contrary to Knight of BAAWA's examples, omitting this information
would be more like the Catholicism lead failing to mention
Protestantism, or vice versa (both, in fact, do). -- MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        (edit conflict) First, to look at your examples, the Earth
article does not mention the Flat Earth Society. The Sociology article
does not mention phrenology. The Christianity article does not tell
the reader that certain groups consider each other not to be
Christian. So if we look only at the WP:LEAD guideline, none of these
articles would carry your suggested summary statement in the lead
section, because there is no such referenced text in the article body.
        Second, you have flipped the mainstream and minor relation of
traditional anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Traditional anarchism
has more text written about it, more study of it, and is more
established as a position. So traditional anarchism is the more
mainstream topic, in this sense. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, is
newer, less studied, and less established. Therefore your examples
should have been whether the Flat Earth Society mentions that the
Earth is spherical (it does), or whether some other article about a
minor position tells the reader about the mainstream position (it
should). Here at the anarcho-capitalism article, it is very relevant
to tell the reader how this field is viewed by those who came before.
        Third, you have not quoted the WP:LEAD guideline directly to
explain what part I might be misunderstanding. Binksternet (talk)
14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            The sentence that both of you want added is completely
irrelevant to what anarchocapitalism is, and is dealt with in the body
of the text. I'll give you an example via wikiprecedent: christianity.
The lede does say that protestantism came from catholicism, just as
the lede for anarchocapitalism says that it is an individualist
anarchism form (parent). But the lede of christianity does not say
(though it could with references) that the catholics did not consider
protestants to be christian (and vice-versa). And given that
historically western christianity was catholic only for a thousand
years, we see the argument from antiquity attempt clearly fail.

            As to what you misunderstand, Binksternet, it is due
weight. I'll give another wikiprecedent: evolution. There is neither
mention of creationism nor ID in the lede for evolution. At all.
Period. But it is clearly significant enough to have been brought up
in court in the US many times regarding the teaching of it and of ID.
One would think, then, that it would get mentioned. But no, it's not.
Why? Because it's irrelevant to what evolution is. Similarly, that
some people view anarchocapitalism as not part of anarchism is
irrelevant to the lede as well. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:59, 9 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]

                I am not finding your argument very compelling. You
started with WP:LEAD, saying I was misunderstanding the guideline,
then you switched to WP:WEIGHT, which is another thing altogether,
making me assume that you have abandoned the argument about WP:LEAD,
acknowledging that it does not help your point. The WP:WEIGHT
guideline discusses whether to represent minor viewpoints strongly or
weakly as compared to the representation in published sources.
However, the viewpoint of traditional anarchism is the mainstream
view, and cannot be lessened by an application of WP:WEIGHT. The
mainstream view always gets prominence on Wikipedia. Binksternet
(talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                    So you don't find how other pages are set up to be
compelling? You don't find consistency in pages to be compelling? Suit
yourself, but neither precedent nor WP:LEAD are on your side. - Knight
of BAAWA (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                        Knight of BAAWA, sorry, but that's just
outright nonsense. Your examples were obviously set up in error and
thus are not appropriate analogues to the current dispute. --
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                            No, it's not nonsense. No, my examples
were not in error, and yes they are analogues to the current dispute.
Further, it appears that Binksternet hasn't actually read WP:LEAD, for
he would have found a section in there about undue weight. I know this
because I actually read it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring needs to stop! BRD -- MisterDub (talk | contribs)
21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, major edits (i.e. content removal) need to stop being marked as
minor! Is this a common theme here??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs)
13:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The irrelevance of the Evolution page and the argument being
derived from it have been pointed out over and over, and far more
apposite examples, in which definitional debates are very definitely
and correctly included, provided ad nauseam. That has all been
consistently ignored, as have guidelines re weight and lead structure
(or rather, oddly deployed as if they somehow justify removal, when
they rather obviously tend to supporting inclusion. How back to front
could "it's in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead" be as an
argument?). Furthermore, this content is subject to an RfC, which is
still open. Due to edit warring, the page was protected .. and as soon
as that is left, mid-RfC, those wanting to remove it are off
edit-warring it out again? N-HH talk/edits 20:45, 10 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]

        No, it's not irrelevant, much to your dismay. You too are
ignoring precedent and policy. Please stop. By the way: the sentence
is being edit-warred in, not out; it has no business being there. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            Your just saying that the comparison with Evolution is
relevant, that others must be dismayed by that and that the
information has "no business being there" doesn't make any of those
assertions automatically true. Let's explain it again, in bullet
points:

                What individual other pages do is not of itself
probative of anything
                The "debate" around Evolution/Creationism is a
substantive one of fact, not one of
classification/description/context. Same with Earth/Flat Earth
                Creationism and flat-earthism are fringe
concepts/arguments, hence clearly undue for the lead of the main
serious page on the overarching topic; the observation that
anarcho-capitalism is often not seen as anarchism is clearly not
fringe, as the sources cited show
                Other pages, in fact, very much do note such issues
(or at least did when I last looked): see for example Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia and, especially pertinently, National
Anarchism; as well as, more trivially, Red panda, Koala, Tibetan
terrier
                And, if you want to stick with evolution, a more
appropriate, though still imperfect, comparison would be with the
Intelligent Design page. Are you seriously suggesting that it should
not point out in the lead – which it of course does – out that it is
not considered a science? Especially if it had an "also known as
Creation-Science" line and carried the "Science" template?

            Also, I don't know why you're telling me to "stop". As
before when you tried this one on, I'm not editing the page. Btw the
text that, slightly varied, is now being touted as some kind of
reasonable compromise, which suggests that "Anarcho-capitalists
distinguish themselves from ... anti-capitalist anarchists", is
extremely problematic and in no way a replacement for the material
which needs to be there: not only does it rely on the a-c perspective,
rather than that of third parties, but it if anything reinforces the
suggestion that a-c definitely is, uncontroversially, assumed to be a
form of anarchism, by directly contrasting it with other forms of
anarchism. This is the crux of the problem – this page asserts and
assumes a fundamental descriptive/definitional fact which is a matter
of significant recorded dispute in the real world according to
authoritative sources. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 11 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]

RfC: should the page note in more detail the contention around
including anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism?
NAC: No consensus as to A. Weak yes as to B. Closer will not use a
supervote to resolve A; either leave article as is or publish a new
RFC with better circulation. Closer is not editing article to address
B; participants should do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 25 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An edit, and now a later variation of it, that includes more detail on
the fact that most anarchists and much academic analysis question the
classification/inclusion has been repeatedly reverted by a single
editor. There has been discussion on this in the section above. In
essence there are two parts to the edit and two issues to look at:

    A: Should the point be expanded, with references, in the section
"Anarcho-capitalism and other schools", eg through the current
proposed wording or some variation of it: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not
usually recognized as a variety of anarchism by traditional
anarchists, who would instead view it as a form of right-wing
libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist and
concerned with social and economic equality"?
    B: Should a brief summary of the point, as referenced in that
section, be included in the lead? N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

Survey

    Yes re both A & B. The content itself is well sourced. The point
also appears in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political
Philosophy, as well as the books currently cited in the edit itself.
It is verifiable information, which is included in multiple reliable
and authoritative sources, and a significant point of dispute within
the classification and definition of anarchism. The fact that there is
such a dispute is not controversial. Not mentioning the issue – the
lead and much, though not all, of the body avoid it currently – not
only misleads through omission but is a breach of NPOV. As for the
lead/point B, it needs to be noted there, however briefly, as it goes
to the definition of the topic. The fact that we have a section,
indeed a whole separate article, on the relationship between these two
concepts also suggests it is significant enough to include in the
lead, which currently asserts and assumes, without qualification, that
anarcho-capitalism is, uncontroversially, regarded as a form of
anarchism. N-HH talk/edits 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No to all. You've failed to make any sort of valid points. You
need to make edits to every single lede for every single idea that has
controversies in order for your edits to have merit. And please stop
misleading people that there is a misleading by omission and breach of
NPOV; there isn't. The article in no way asserts and assumes what you
say it does. Ergo, you are lying--and no, that is not a personal
attack. Since the article clearly doesn't say what you say it does,
and since you have to have read it to make whatever claims you are
making lest you not have any clue, it's clear that you are
deliberately not being truthful. Why is that? Why did you lie? You
know that anyone can look at the article and see that what you have
written does not comport with what the article says--so why lie? -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No to both - This is an article about AnCap philosophy and
history, and that requires that we stay on-topic, summarize, and give
due weight the various aspects of this ideology, and so we do not have
to give the same due weight to other, off-topic ideologies. AnCap
views about other ideologies is highly relevant, and should be
described in a way that relates to how why those views are counter to
AnCap philosophy. Views about AnCap from the perspective of other
ideologies are highly off-topic, and should be only mentioned in very
brief form here (this is of course reversed on the articles about
those ideologies when talking about AnCap). I am perplexed at the
existence of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, as it is very
poorly-defined, a structural mess, should probably be deprecated or
re-tasked, perhaps to Great anarchist pissing matches of history. --
Netoholic @ 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No and No. Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with
the bomb-throwing, property-hating left - who have long commandeered
the term "anarchy" for their own political agenda. Hence they tend to
use the term "anarcho-capitalism" rather than "anarchism". (Nor do
they identify with the political right who tend to disrespect persons
in a similar manner.) Regarding equality, anarcho-capitalists are
actually more concerned with flattening hierarchies by allowing a
level playing field where individual employer-employee relationships
tend to become peer to peer, than impractical political "solutions"
such as those from the left - which tend to create class rifts. Their
"equality" claim is as hypocritical as their "anti-state" claim. (The
"Anarchism" article is sorely lacking on this point. But that is
another matter and needs be settled elsewhere.) While mention of the
claim to the title "anarchism" by other schools of thought could
continue to be offered in its own section in this article, it is
clearly secondary. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes and yes. Wikipedia articles commonly give readers a context in
which to place a philosophy. It is the AnCaps who deliberately and
explicitly took the term anarchist and transformed it for their own
purposes — which is a legitimate move, and their move has been
overwhelmingly successful, due largely to the popularity of right-wing
values of the US. But the dual meanings can easily cause confusion for
the reader, and this potential confusion can be ameliorated, and
therefore should be. — goethean 15:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes and yes. We are writing an encyclopedia here, so we should
primarily concern ourselves with objective viewpoints such as that
found in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy,
edited by Gerald F. Gaus, Fred D'Agostino. On page 225, Roderick T.
Long says that social anarchists generally think of
anarcho-capitalists as not anarchists.
    We should not concentrate on in-universe descriptions, taking the
word of anarcho-capitalists about whether they are this or that.
Rather, we should stay objective and tell the reader about the
scholarly analysis, both in the lead section and in greater detail in
the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No and yes. If anything, it seems the section titled
"Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools" (as of 20 June 2014)
should be reduced. Aside from the first statement, the whole section
is supported by only three sources, two of which are primary (and why
the heck is so much content derived from a webmaster???); it's a lot
of filler, but little actual content. I also have a concern that the
first sentence uses the term libertarian as a philosophy distinct from
anarchism, whereas these terms are often used synonymously. This goes
straight to the heart of the issue, which is that
libertarianism/anarchism, as it has been expounded since the mid-19th
century, has been a left-wing, anti-private property ideology. It
wasn't until the mid-20th century that so-called classical liberals in
the USA appropriated both terms to describe propertarian and statist
beliefs. This information should absolutely be in the article and the
lead, but again, the section in question needs a lot of work. Add
better content with more reliable sources to make this a good section.
-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes and yes. I'm not impressed with political arguments that smear
the opposing team like this was a heated debate on a web board or
Usenet. I see two issues that could preclude this information: is it
undue or off topic? While an argument could be made for either, I
personally do not agree. This is a topic that I would expect to see in
the article, and, as a reader, I would be surprised to find that it
had been excluded. How the wider anarchist community perceives
anarcho-capitalists, and how academics have reported on this topic, is
relevant and verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

Suggested compromise regarding disputed material

Many articles have a "Criticism" section devoted to counter arguments.
Placing disputes regarding "official" and "unofficial" versions of
anarcho-capitalism (as well as any disputes regarding the "legitimacy"
of anarcho-capitalism) in such a section would be a fitting
compromise. It's not a question of preventing readers from knowing
about controversies regarding the movement, but about presenting them
in an organized way. An article about the laws of aerodynamics written
in the 19th century would have been corrupted if it were subject to
contemporary viewpoints regarding man's inability to fly. Likewise,
the laws of economics are not subject to the whims of social engineers
- as the official politico-academic left (as well as the
ecclesiastical right) would prefer. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:22, 13 June
2014 (UTC)[reply]

    An article about 19th century aerodynamic theories must be placed
in its proper context at the outset so as not to mislead readers. So
must an article on politico-economic theory. — goethean 14:59, 13 June
2014 (UTC)[reply]

        Precisely. And the context in which the principles of
anarcho-capitalism is understood is a clear understanding of the basic
laws of economics. The reason the anti-state movement has failed on
the left is because of its grave misunderstanding of capital and
markets. Similarly, in the 19th century, the laws of aerodynamics were
not well understood - and certainly not by the majority. What would be
misleading to readers of anarcho-capitalism would be a writing-off of
market fundamentals by basing its legitimacy on its popularity. The
case for anarcho-capitalism must be presented clearly in the article.
Opposing theories (where applicable) can be presented toward the end
in the "Criticism" section. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

            At least there's an attempt here to look at whether the
material might be included, but perhaps in a different way, rather
than the outright and absolute "no" that prevailed ahead of the RfC.
That said, I'm not sure I'd be in favour of this suggestion. Firstly,
devoted "Criticism" sections are deprecated on WP and, in my view,
just end up as rather tedious POV laundry lists; secondly, despite
this assumption seeming to be behind much of the opposition to
inclusion, the material under debate here is not "criticism" of the
tenets of anarcho-capitalism, it's just a brief reference to the
debate about terminology and classification. Btw, I would also dispute
the suggestion that anything on the page should be about presenting
the "case" for anarcho-capitalism (or indeed making the case against
it). An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and place in
context, based on the content and observations of reliable,
authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other. N-HH
talk/edits 10:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                The problem with the disputed text is that it
describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of
the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism. Such
viewpoints clearly belong in a "Criticisms" section. Regarding the
clarification of terminology, the sidebar (which could be expanded)
offers an appropriate venue to describe terminology as it is used by
the movement. Regarding classification, anarcho-capitalism does not
fit the defective mold offered by the left (or the right for that
matter). Libertarianism itself is viewed by the left as far right, and
by the right as far left. So, in order to understand where
anarcho-capitalism "fits", one must see the defects of existing
systems of classification. To allow anarcho-capitalism to be defined
by outsiders - particularly by enemies of the movement - would
increase the confusion surrounding an already complex topic.
JLMadrigal (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                    No topic gets to exclusively define itself, on WP
or elsewhere, without reference to authoritative third-party views and
analysis. Equally, the proposed text is not allowing
anarcho-capitalism to be defined by outsiders, hostile or otherwise;
it merely notes significant views on definitions and terminology, as
reported in reliable sources. I can only repeat that that is not
criticism – any more than saying that a Tibetan terrier is not a
terrier (not that this text goes that far anyway, nor should it) is a
"criticism" of the Tibetan terrier – and that WP disdains criticism
sections anyway. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                        That's not the issue at all. The concern is
due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of
their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear
definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy. That sort
of information would be off-topic (to any large degree) in another
article. What "traditional" left-anarchists think about AC can fit in
many places, and probably the best mix is a little here on this
article and a little on their own articles, in-line and in-context.
The lead of this article should paint broad strokes, and I'm sorry but
the quibble from left-anarchists is a minor sidenote. -- Netoholic @
18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                            "...the quibble from left-anarchists..."
--- you mean how anarcho-capitalists deliberately and successfully
re-defined anarchism to something closer to its opposite? It's more
than a quibble, it is a well-documented part of history that the
article should note prominently rather than pretending that it never
happened. — goethean 18:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                "Anarcho" comes from the simple,
definition of word "anarchy" meaning "no rulers", not from
"anarchism". Anarchism ("traditional") comes from the same base word.
The only difference in their philosophy is what comes after we have no
rulers. Its not "capito-anarchism". -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 19 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                                    I don't want to get into a
discussion of the ostensible merit of various political philosophies.
Please refer back to my previous comment (it is a well-documented part
of history that the article should note prominently rather than
pretending that it never happened.). — goethean 19:55, 19 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                                        It does not follow that
"well-documented" means it should feature "prominently" in this
article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article
must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from
people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable
place that content (also "well-documented") belongs. -- Netoholic @
21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                            Instead of expanding the
"Criticism" section, scrap it along with the "Anarcho-capitalism and
other anarchist schools" section, and create a new section preceding
the "Internal debates" section (itself more appropriately renamed
"Branches of anarcho-capitalism") that classifies anarcho-capitalism
among relevant contemporary political ideologies - possibly entitled,
"Anarcho-capitalism and Modern libertarianism". Since the Nolan Chart
clarifies how modern libertarians define themselves, and how
anarcho-capitalists identify themselves among the modern libertarian
movement, a brief, well-sourced discussion of the political spectrum
in this light would resolve the classification issue, and make
anarcho-capitalism more understandable. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:38, 20
June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism sections are bad form and no subject is allowed to
define itself. BTW the term "anarcho-capitalism" is a clear reference
to anarchism. Rothbard used the anarchist flag and cited anarchist
sources. How sincere he was or whether it really is anarchism is
another issue. TFD (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        Indeed. We're slightly going round in circles here. As noted,
the bottom line is "An encyclopedia is meant to inform, describe and
place in context, based on the content and observations of reliable,
authoritative sources, not advocate one way or the other." That is a
pretty simple and basic requirement. WP is not here to provide a
platform for proponents of the political school that is the topic of
the page. It should not, and the proposed text does not, advocate in
favour of or against anarcho-capitalism per se but simply and briefly
note the wider context including, in this case and others, an
acknowledged definitional dispute. Also as noted, the argument that
anarcho-capitalists aren't or don't claim to be part of the broader
anarchist school is neither entirely accurate nor what the page
currently asserts. And even if that were the case, it should surely
propel those arguing that towards accepting the inclusion of widely
and reliably sourced content that briefly notes that very issue. If
non-partisan, secondary sources consistently make observations that
the definition and context is not that clear cut, WP should reflect
that, and no policy-based arguments have been presented to counter
that assumption. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            N-HH, you are again confusing popularity (among members of
an opposing school for that matter) with legitimacy. The ideological
context of Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is modern libertarianism -
not leftism. Further, the basis for anarcho-capitalism in general is
not political ideology but economic reality. Its popularity among
political activists is a matter better explored in such a section.
JLMadrigal (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

The only specific point made against inclusion posted in the current
discussion about this seems to be that the Evolution page doesn't
mention creationism in the lead. However, this is not just about the
lead, and in any event the two cases are utterly different.
Creationism is a) a fringe theory that b) disputes the reality of
evolution. The dispute here is about classification and terminology,
not about the correctness or otherwise of any underlying theories, and
nor is the "anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism" stance a fringe view.
Far more appropriate analogies, as noted in the previous discussion,
can be found in the following pages, where the taxonomic issue is
covered both in the lead and the body: Red panda, Koala, Liberal
Democratic Party of Russia and, for good measure, National Anarchism
and Creation science. N-HH talk/edits 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So you've admitted that you're just trying to marginalize
anarchocapitalism. Great. You've just invalidated your entire stance
by admitting to trying to introduce a non-neutral point of view to the
text. I request the protection be lifted at once so that the NPOV
edits can be removed. There will be no further discussion required. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm not sure I've admitted or done any such thing or how
anyone could possibly come to that conclusion or, pace your comment
above, that I've been "lying" (or that that accusation is not a
personal attack. Whatever). And NPOV is of course in fact precisely
about representing all widely held points of view, without necessarily
endorsing any of them. We have reliable, authoritative sources that
explicitly note the existence of the dispute over terminology and note
that the "not a form of anarchism" view is widely held. However,
currently, as noted, the lead classifies and describes
anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism without qualification (even
if you don't accept that the prefix "anarcho-" is doing this in itself
anyway, the lead also rather obviously does it by saying in the very
first sentence "also referred to as free-market anarchism .." and
through the use of the Anarchism template, which includes in its list
of "Schools of Thought" what it calls "Capitalist" anarchism, which
ordinarily links back to this page). As for "no further discussion
required", the whole point of RfCs is to get exactly that, preferably
from third parties. I'd suggest we let that happen. N-HH talk/edits
16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure how a fair-minded reader can conclude any such
thing. I'd suggest that perhaps it might be an idea to ease off with
such overheated rhetoric and focus on the substantive content of the
discussion rather than the motivations of one's ideological opponents.
—Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: when you say "we do not have to give the same due weight
to other, off-topic ideologies", are you suggesting Anarchism is
"off-topic" and "other" to Anarcho-capitalism? Surely that if anything
justifies including the material, not excluding it? Also as for due
weight, we are talking about a couple of sentences to note the issue.
It is not about taking one side of the argument, filling half the page
with it or putting it in the very first sentence, but briefly – as you
indeed suggest as well – and simply noting, per multiple reliable
sources, that the taxonomical debate exists. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 12
June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    General anarchism (as in the unambiguous use of the word meaning
"without rulers") is relevant to AnCap philosophy, of course. The
sources that you have for the particular brand of "traditional"
anarchism (ie left-anarchism, I guess) is a different ideology than
AnCap, evidenced by how those sources try to disavow AnCap from their
ranks. As such, yes, then those sources are certainly from an
off-topic ideology and do not deserve strong weight here. Brief
mention is perhaps fitting in the right context in the article body,
but the lead should be squarely on describing AnCap ideology, history,
and any major controversies, if any. What you want to put in there is
not major. Also, there is no point trying to justify this inclusion
based on how reliably sourced it is. Content that is extensively and
reliably sourced can still be off-topic for a particular page.
Describe the "taxonomical debate" on the pages of ideologies that
think there is a "taxonomical debate" - its relevant over there
because its part of their ideology, but only minimally relevant on
AnCap. --Netoholic @ 08:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        As noted, the lead currently uses the Anarchism template and
uses synonyms such as "free-market anarchism". You can't get round
that by saying, "oh it refers to a totally different thing, which
happens to also be called anarchism, and hence it's off-topic and
cannot be mentioned at all". There simply isn't that neat sort of
distinction in the real world for such topics and terminology. Even if
there was, an explanation would still be warranted. Regardless, the
simple fact is that the debate about the use of the term anarchism in
this context – whether it is taken to mean simply without rulers
and/or to refer to the predomoninantly leftist strain attested in the
academic and historical record and what the relationship is between
"anarchism" and "anarcho-capitalism" – is noted, and noted broadly in
the fashion being proposed in the RfC, in multiple reliable sources
about "anarchism" and about politics more generally. The definition
and classification of a topic, the terminology used to describe it and
how it relates to other, arguably related, ideas, are surely fairly
fundamental to that topic, and hence relevant to the lead. At the very
least it must be relevant to a section in the body explicitly titled
"Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools". If you're going to
be consistent in arguing that discussion about "anarchism" is
off-topic and that anarcho-capitalism is entirely sui generis and
discrete, you've got to scrub that section entirely and also remove
the Anarchism template and the "anarchism" synonyms. In fact of
course, what we should do is briefly present the issue/debate, as
reflected in sources, without plumping definitively for either option,
which is all the proposal entails. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 12 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

            Re: Anarcho-capitalism and other anarchist schools
section.... "you've got to scrub that section entirely" - The best
suggestion I've heard in this entire discussion. The section should
instead be dedicated to referencing AnCap arguments from sources that
comment about any other ideologies (left-anarchism, conservatism,
etc.). Devoting an entire section to the argument with just
"traditional" anarchists is unduly weighted. Let left-anarchist
complaints about AnCaps be in their own articles because those views
are part of their ideology. --Netoholic @ 19:51, 12 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                But that section is not, without the proposed
addition, simply about the "argument" with "'traditional' anarchists"
nor would the addition of the one-sentence content in question make it
so. Anarcho-capitalists tend to call themselves anarchists, and the
section is about the relationship, as a whole, with other anarchist
schools. As reliable sources attest, there is an interrelationship and
theoretical lineage there, and some elements of anarcho-capitalist
thought sync with other anarchist ideas; but there are also disputes,
about both theory and terminology. The assertion that such content is
off-topic or unwarranted on a page about "Anarcho-capitalism", which
would otherwise carry unqualified assertions about its relationship to
and membership of the broader currents of "Anarchism", is untenable.
So long as the material is presented in the round, with due weight and
neutrally, it is manifestly relevant and on-topic, barring some
extraordinarily strong argument to the contrary, which has yet to be
presented, and is unlikely ever to be.
                More specifically, equally untenable is any similar
assertion about the precise content under consideration in the RfC,
based as that content is on the explicit meta-observation that "few
anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist
camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and
social justice .. even if they do reject the State, [they] might
therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than
anarchists" in a chapter on "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism" in
a book entitled A History of Anarchism, which is described in one
formal review as "An exhaustive and authoritative study which is bound
to become the standard account" of anarchism. When we also find the
same observations in other, more general books, such as The Routledge
Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, in a sub-chapter called
"The Rise of Anarcho-capitalism", the foundations of any objections
fall away to anyone with an open mind. How can such explicit treatment
of the topic of Anarcho-capitalism in authoritative sources not be
relevant and why should individual random WP editors get to
override/veto the judgment of those sources? Fine, there's a debate
about how exactly to present that information but the idea that it
cannot be included at all is just bizarre, to be frank. Hopefully that
is going to be clear to most people – I've said more than enough on
this. N-HH talk/edits 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JLMadrigal: "Anarcho-capitalists have never claimed to identify with
the bomb-throwing, property-hating left ... [whose] 'equality' claim
is as hypocritical as their 'anti-state' claim". This is not about the
merits or otherwise of anarcho-capitalism, general/leftist anarchism
or any other political viewpoint, nor is the material in question
about promoting or denigrating any such viewpoints, but about merely
noting the differences, as recorded in reliable sources, despite the
similarity in some terminology and, even, in some theoretical ideas.
And if, as you say, anarcho-capitalists want to disassociate
themselves from [other] anarchists – as the term is usually used – I
don't quite understand what the objection is to referring to the
well-sourced and verified observation that the logic works the other
way too, and that there is an analytical and taxonomical debate in
academic sources about the relationship. N-HH talk/edits 23:20, 12
June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about anarcho-capitalism. As such, it may further
expand on the viewpoints of anarcho-capitalists regarding contrary
ideologies. For example, it may clarify that anarcho-capitalists see
left-anarchism as a self-contradictory term since a forced
collectivization of property and capital requires a state. Any
negative viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism by sources other than
those in the movement need to be confined to a special section
regarding said objections. The debate between anarcho-capitalists and
traditional "anarchists" has its own article. JLMadrigal (talk) 04:25,
13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the real anarchist please stand up? There is only one reason to
not include this information if it is well sourced. wp:valid Would we
unduly legitimize these positions if we included them?Serialjoepsycho
(talk) 00:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The following text and references:

        "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a variety of
anarchism by traditional anarchists, who would instead view it as a
form of right-wing libertarianism, as anarchism has historically been
anti-capitalist and concerned with social and economic
equality.[1][2][3][4][5][6]"

    is an inaccurate representation of anarcho-capitalism, and would
immediately be recognized as such by any anarcho-capitalist:

        It is clearly not right wing, since it fully rejects the state
and rightist collectivism. Those on the right support the state
monopolization of the military-industrial complex and monopolization
of law via an ecclesiastical collectivization of personhood. The left
views anyone supporting a free market as "right wing".
        Anarcho-capitalists understand that social equality is not
achieved through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth (as the
left believe), but through free markets where business associates are
peers. Cronyism requires the state.
        The cited text incorrectly defines "the state" to include any
provider of security and arbitration services. Such a broad definition
could only support a bomb-throwing, property defacing definition for
"anarchy" (since no one would be allowed to defend himself).

    My suggested wording below (to be placed in the "Criticism"
section) would provide a clearer statement of the ideological
conflict. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

    "The philosophy of “anarcho-capitalism” dreamed up by the
“libertarian” New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by
the Anarchist movement proper."Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments
For and Against AK Press, (2000) p. 50
    "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists'
into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic
equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market
men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual
aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might
therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than
anarchists." Peter Marshall. Demanding the impossible: A history of
anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. p. 565
    "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain
strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same
name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)."Saul Newman,
The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 43
ISBN 0748634959
    Section F – Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? at An
Anarchist FAQ published in physical book form by An Anarchist FAQ as
"Volume I"; by AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh 2008; 558 pages, ISBN
9781902593906
    "‘Libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ are frequently employed by
anarchists as synonyms for ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’, largely as an
attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of
‘anarchy’ and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly
complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism,
‘minimal statism’ and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy
advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and
their adoption of the words ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’. It has
therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right
libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist
tradition." Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left libertarian thought
and british writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David
Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006. p. 4
    "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective
that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However
Rothbard’s claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown
that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows
countless private states, with each person supplying their own police
force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from
capitalist venders...so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined
to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the
“anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal
fraud."Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" by Peter Sabatini in issue #41
(Fall/Winter 1994–95) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed

        "While anarcho-capitalists clearly would prefer to omit the
state from the orchestration of capital and markets, many old-school
anarchists have less faith in the free market, and would prefer not to
allow the unhindered accumulation of wealth, associating capitalism
with wage slavery." JLMadrigal (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            I dislike overt "Criticisms" sections, so I'd rather see
this line (and its a good line stating the "conflict" with appropriate
weight) placed along with other discussion of Anarcho-capitalist
philosophy regarding anarchy (basic statelessness), perhaps under
subheading Anarcho-capitalism#Contractual society. (related note, I
think that heading is a bit misleading, since its not immediately
apparent to a reader that it contains information AnCap
anarchist/statelessness views) --Netoholic @ 19:32, 18 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                As noted in another sub-thread I'm also against
outright and discrete "Criticism" sections (as, indeed, is WP as a
whole; nor, indeed, is this about "criticism" as such anyway). As for
the critique of the current proposed text, that text is of course
derived from an accredited source – that's half the point of the whole
debate here – and we shouldn't suddenly be relying on our own logic to
argue with the accuracy or otherwise of the source material (which is
not anyway trying to represent anarcho-capitalism but to represent
views of anarcho-capitalism and to place it in context) or advocating
changing the text to something not directly based on that material.
Equally, the alternative text, as noted elsewhere, while arguably
"correct", is anyway making a different point and does not address the
classification issue at all. It might be a valid addition but I don't
see that it's an alternative. N-HH talk/edits 08:08, 19 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                    Who? Who are these traditional anarchists. I think
you really have to name them off. While see no issue with giving a
little weight to notable people, these unnamed traditional anarchist
don't really deserve that weight. As written in the survey above, that
would be wikipedia giving a position. Wikipedia can't give a position.
Anachocapilists say they are anarchists and "traditional" anarchists
say they aren't. These are the only recorded facts. I'm not familiar
with any group known as "traditional Anarchists". Not a group like say
the Republican party, who will at times have a spokesman that issues a
statement on their behalf. Most of the sources shown here are being to
used to do just that. Your proposed change is giving undue weight to..
well that part isn't clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                        Anarcho-capitalism is a distinct ideology, and
is independent of any "proper" anarchism movement. It does not need to
be classified in terms agreeable to ideologists of another strain (in
this case, to leftists). In fact, if anarchy is defined as the absence
of the state, then anCaps are the only "true" anarchists (since
leftists require the existence of the state in order to confiscate and
redistribute wealth, prevent competition, and abolish property).
Rather, anarcho-capitalism is properly classified as the advocacy of
abolishing the state in matters regarding BOTH person AND property.
JLMadrigal (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                            @Serialjoespycho: Traditional anarchists
might better expressed as the traditional conception or currents of
anarchism. Obviously the wording could be changed to that or something
similar, but I'm not sure they have to be identified and named: the
idea is fairly clear, surely, and also used in sources. I agree though
with noting the recorded facts, and the dispute in question is well
recorded. @JLMadrigal: As for the distinctiveness of
anarcho-capitalism, as noted, that is the very issue that the proposed
text addresses, which as ever leads me to wonder why there is such
opposition to including it from those who appear to be advocates for
anarcho-capitalism and why there's less complaint from them about the
current state of the page, which by contrast asserts the connection
without qualification or explanation. Also, as already noted by me and
others, we're not here to debate the merits or otherwise of
anarcho-capitalism or traditional anarchism [sic] nor should the page
be about that. N-HH talk/edits 09:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                                Just as an article about evolution
does not need to mention creationism to be clear, an article about
anarcho-capitalism need not even make reference to the misnamed
"anarchist" movement. Again, anarcho-capitalism (unlike leftism) is
consistently opposed to the state. The Evolution article makes a brief
reference to Creationism under a "Social and cultural responses"
section. A similar approach might be acceptable in an article
clarifying economic realities. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

                                        N-HH, I'm sorry. I'll try to
be more clear for you. There doesn't seem case being made that this
point of view is the majority point of view. It does seem to be pushed
as a significant minority point of view. However if it is signifigant
there would be prominent adherents. If they are prominent it is very
likely they have names. I'm not an advocate for anarocaptilism. A bot
directed me to this RFC. You can see that on my talk page. As far as
advocacy goes since you mention it, it does seem to me that there are
advocates on both sides of this issue. However that isn't very
important. I have good faith that both sides can be nuetral. I'm not
debating the merits of either. I am asking who the traditional
anarchists are that hold this position. Unless the position is this is
the majority POV, name names.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:22, 21 June
2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I have to say that the "debate" on this page is
appalling. This isn't a place to institute your personal, ideological
beliefs; Wikipedia is built on verifiability, people... find your
sources! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2014
(UTC)[reply]

Closing

The last comment was 20 days ago. Since then the lede has been
modified. Is this discussion resolved? If no comments are presented, I
propose to archive this thread with a simple {{resolved}} note. – S.
Rich (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    S. Rich, the RfC was recently reopened, and discussion should
continue. I'm a little confused as to your recent deletion from the
lead, as well. Perhaps you didn't see the section in the body which
makes the same claim and is supported by six sources? I don't mind
leaving the statement out for the moment, as there is currently an
edit war occurring and the IP user should not have re-added it. If the
RfC doesn't resolve this problem (which I now believe to be indicative
of a wider, POV issue), I'll bring it to the DRN. -- MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        Actually I was supporting Ditto51, like with here. Next. I've
seen RFCs pulled out of the archives in the past, but I think the
better procedure is to start a new thread with a link to archived
discussions. (In fact, Help pages which I've contributed to say as
much. E.g., archived discussions are immutable....) At present, Mr.
Dub, I don't see a need to go to DRN. Rather, if there are specific
changes that are needed, let's find out what they are. (I am entirely
neutral on the matter.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]

References: arbitrary break

References
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent
comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further
edits should be made to this discussion.