Anarcho-capitalism
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 01:40:53 PDT 2022
Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 23
>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 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25
→ Archive 28
Contents
1 Neutrality issues
1.1 Post-RFC
2 Dissection of The Sentence
3 Ancap legal systems
4 Bylund
Neutrality issues
This section is now open to discuss neutrality issues. (Have at it!) –
S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following text in the lede:
"Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of
anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has
historically been anti-capitalist."
describing a POV of anCap from the left, has been revised to the following:
"Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who
would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and
socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of
resources."
which takes a neutral stand on the philosophy, and places it in a
political context.
Certain editors would like to reintroduce the disputed text in its
original form in the lede. The dispute is briefly explored in the body
of the article. So the question is not whether the article is neutral,
but rather at which point other views of the philosophy of anCap are
discussed. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your conclusion. As I wrote at WP:ANEW, the
disputed sentence is well-referenced "true-but-not-very-flattering"
response regarding what non-capitalist anarchists think of
anarcho-capitalists. The material was added to the article body by
Chrisluft on 8 May 2014 with these two edits based on a number of
quotes in reliable sources. I would have brought this material to the
article differently than Chrisluft, with more context given in prose,
but the basic idea is good. On 21 May 2014, N-HH restored the disputed
text, adding more context in the article body, and putting the
unflattering summary in the lead section. Our friend Knight of BAAWA
edit-warred to keep the text out, fighting against N-HH and an IP6
editor who insulted people as "ancap retards". This insult should bear
upon the IP6 editor who was guilty of incivility, not on the text in
dispute which is well-referenced.
I consider that the WP:LEAD guideline can be followed to the
letter if we tell the reader about in-world anarcho-capitalist views
along with the prominent external view of traditional anarchists:
Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from
minarchists, who would advocate a small night-watchman state limited
to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist
anarchists and socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and
worker management of resources. Anarcho-capitalism is not usually
recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as
anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist.
This summary is pertinent to the article, true in every sense
in the real world, and is therefore neutral. It is a significant
viewpoint, and should remain in the article much as N-HH composed it.
Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by User:Srich32977 was a bad edit which should be
reverted, and I suggest that editors familiarize themselves with the
article (particularly footnotes 58 through 63) and the talk page
conversation rather than making claims in edit summaries ("Needs a
source.") which are obviously false. — goethean 14:57, 12 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
My edit was no more "bad" than the edits done by other
users. E.g., I did the exact same revert that they did with regard to
the IP's addition. Suppose I said "revert unexplained edit by IP"? Or
"revert edit by IP which lacks consensus"? I ask that you
de-personalize the comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 12 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You falsely claim that
sourced text has no sources, you remove the text, giving the reason
that it has no sources, when it has five, and when I point this out,
you say that I need to "de-personalize" my comment, and you completely
ignore the fact that your edit summary and reason for removing content
from the article rest on a plain falsehood. It is you who needs to
examine his behavior. — goethean 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request to Anarcho-capitalism has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
– Per User:Goethean's most diplomatic and polite request above (posted
7 hours after the page received protection), please revert the edit I
did least the version be seen as consensus and immutable. – S. Rich
(talk) 19:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this, the additional text is exactly what's been
edit-warred about. The text has not gained consensus throughout
multiple weeks of page protection, and so the default state is to
leave it out, but in particular not to re-add it during page
protection (m:The Wrong Version). Proponents should use this time to
come up with a new alternative that can gain consensus. --Netoholic @
06:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:
Sorry, but I don't see a consensus here yet for any particular
wording. Please reactivate the request when you've managed to find a
consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:58, 13 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Removing the text for having "no source" was clearly a bad
call, which seems to have been acknowledged. As for neutrality, ever
since this kicked off there have been suggestions by those opposed to
the content that it somehow is not neutral and/or prioritises a
left-wing view. This is just muddying the waters. If the proposed
content was sourced solely to partisan anarchist sources and said
"Anarcho-capitalism is a bad idea and a rubbish theory", there might
be a point here. But it isn't. It's sourced to objective and academic
sources, reports a widely held view and is simply about
categorisation, classification and use of terminology. What is
instrinsically negative about saying "this is often not seen as a form
of anarchism, but as right-wing libertarianism"? The onus, as it
always has been, is on those opposing it to explain why this
fundamental, well-sourced and substantively unchallenged information
about definition and context should not be included in the lead, to
reflect the body. If anything, the POV seems to be coming from the
other side, who are quite open in calling those that disagree with
them "statists" and seem to believe that this page is here to allow
the political philosophy in question to promote itself rather than to
be a neutral explanation of what it is and how it fits into the wider
political context, as described, especially, in third-party secondary
sources. And as a side point, the page is clearly not FA-worthy. This
status appears to have been awarded in 2005. Standards are higher now,
and the scrappiness of the content together with this ongoing dispute
clearly invalidate it. N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 14 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
And as for a possible consensus text, I agree that
having both the sentences together could work: it puts
anarcho-capitalism in context in relation to both other forms of
right-wing libertarianism and anarchism proper (or "other forms of
anarchism", if you wish), from different perspectives. I don't see
them as either/or alternatives, not least because the proposed
replacement, as noted previously, still assumes and takes for granted
that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, when whether it is or
not is the crux of the problem. It adds useful detail and perspective,
but it is neither a more neutral nor a direct replacement. N-HH
talk/edits 10:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Anarchism proper" is as ridiculous a concept as
"left-anarchism". There is no "official" school of anarchism, and
anarchism via forced redistribution of wealth is self-contradictory.
If anything, if anarcho-capitalists are not "permitted" into the
anarchist "group" it would be more a point in their favor as far as
legitimacy is concerned. The POV of left-leaning "anarchists" is a
side note of the anarcho-capitalist movement. Please remove the NPOV
tag, and keep this excellent article protected from further malicious
edits. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N-HH is correct: this is not a safe space for
anarcho-capitalists to dress up their philosophy as they see fit,
ignoring well-sourced and relevant facts because they don't like it.
Anyone who reads the reasons given in the RfC survey or the uncivil
comments aimed at other editors would make this same conclusion. --
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only dress-up that's being imposed on this
article by editors is its relationship with other schools of thought.
The "well-sourced" facts through which those who wish to advocate
their POV to discolor the article are quotes from said advocates.
Anarcho-capitalism is first and foremost an economic liberation
movement, and has little to do with the inevitably statist socialism
of the left. In terms of objectivity, leftists are in no position to
pass judgement on the anarcho-capitalist movement. The topic of the
article is anarcho-capitalism. POVs are at best ancillary. JLMadrigal
(talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is a perfect example of the POV
problem occurring here: blatantly biased, derogatory remarks toward
the left are substituted for rational justifications based on sources
or policy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Justifications for what? JLMadrigal (talk)
17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not familiar with the subject
at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 14 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
This chart was in the 2005 FA and 2006 FAR versions of the article.
N-HH is correct, this article in its current condition
is very, very different from the 2006 FAR version, the version which
resulted after a lot of different viewpoints were applied to the
article during the 2006 FAR discussion. The 2006 FAR version told the
reader a lot about what non-ancap viewpoints were in relation to ancap
views, giving a much greater level of objectivity. Since then it had
degraded at the hands of ancap proponents. The current article is
aligned toward rah-rah positivism about how ancap is so good. It seems
there is sentiment here for starting another FAR, with the goal of
making the article more objective, or removing its FA status.
Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MisterDub, our job as editors is not to justify
anything, but to define - in this case, to define anarcho-capitalism.
Am I familiar? Extremely. Binksternet, the article has (not
surprisingly) evolved a lot over the last nine years. But even the
linked version that you hold as an example does not take the POV
position that you advocate. As I mentioned previously, I would like to
see the Nolan chart introduced (which is very similar to the one in
the version discussed), because it provides a clearer picture of the
distinct views in question. Nolan's chart (which is well-known among
American libertarians) puts anarcho-capitalists at the apex of the
libertarian quadrant, because they advocate absolute liberty in both
person and property. JLMadrigal (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Yes, but your "definition" seems to be "we are
the true anarchists" and any reliable and authoritative third-party
source that questions the nature of the relationship with anarchism as
a simple matter of standard definition – note, again, not "partisan
leftist source" that "denies" the relationship – is apparently to be
excluded on the say-so of one or two anonymous WP editors who are very
clearly of a partisan bent. Sorry, this doesn't wash. Again, if you
think it's "POV" to simply note quite fundamental and widely reported
definitional and classification disputes, or to place one political
philosophy in the context of others, based on sources other than those
from within that camp, you don't understand the policy. And, as also
previously noted, if you're so adamant that anarcho-capitalism has
nothing to do with the socialism of the left – which indeed is correct
– I'm struggling to understand why you're objecting to further
clarification of this fact; which inevitably also entails a brief note
of the uncontroversial fact that anarchism has traditionally been seen
as a movement of the left. This is simply about clarity, explanation
of the historical record and context, not about arguing for – or
against – anarcho-capitalism as a theory of "economic liberation" or
of anything else. N-HH talk/edits 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By Nolan's definition of liberty, anCaps
(and American libertarians in general) place many who call themselves
"anarchists" (but advocate for redistribution of wealth) to the left -
which, by said definition, implies that they are not truly anarchist.
Whether an interpretation is popular - or endorsed by an "authority"
does not make it correct (particularly in the case of a movement
against hierarchy). This is the crux of the issue regarding editors
who are attempting to subject the article to the point of view (POV)
that social anarchists "are the true anarchists", and that
anarcho-capitalism is therefor 'illegitimate'. JLMadrigal (talk)
12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is you, only you, and no reliable
sources which equates anarchism solely with an-cap. On the contrary,
multiple reliable sources have been presented which call this identity
into question. In response to the presentation of these sources,
you've offered nothing but name-calling. — goethean 13:25, 15 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]
JLMadrigal, you seem to have misunderstood. I
was not asking if you were familiar with anarcho-capitalism, but the
current dispute. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:53, 15 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
This discussion is impossible. No direct
response or engagement is forthcoming in respect of any points that
are put related to WP policy or third-party evidence, and every
reasoned point is simply ignored and talked past. All we are getting
is repeated assertion that one personal interpretation of anything and
everything is the definitively correct one and the apparent belief
that the purpose of this page is to allow anarcho-capitalists to
present the case, in an almost cult-like fashion, for
anarcho-capitalism not only being a good thing but also the only true
manifestation of anarchism, as understood by those who really get it.
There also seems to be a confused perception that they are heroically
battling people trying to do the mirror-image opposite, ie discredit
the substantive philosophy of anarcho-capitalism and/or write the
entire page as if Bakunin is the one true prophet, when of course that
is not the point either – all that is being asked for is, per policy
and practice, the representative incorporation of the range of
secondary views, without taking sides at all. Unfortunately, this is
how WP pages, especially those about politics, drive themselves into
the dirt. N-HH talk/edits 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"All that is being asked for is, per
policy and practice, the representative incorporation of the range of
secondary views, without taking sides at all." If that were the case,
I would have no objection. Unfortunately, it is not. These views are
already in the document. They do not belong in the lede, since they
are, as you mention, secondary. The existing compromise paragraph -
which has already been incorporated into the lead - sets the stage.
JLMadrigal (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be able to stand
alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish
context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most
important points—including any prominent controversies. — goethean
14:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And secondary doesn't mean
tangential... it means, "Look! Wikipedia is built on secondary views!"
-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only controversy of note
in anarcho-capitalism is the Friedmanite versus Rothbardian ethical
basis for argumentation. But it's minor enough not to be included in
the lede. Regardless, even if the debate over the birthright to the
"anarchist" title were notable enough to be included in the lede,
omission from the lede would still not violate neutrality since it is
discussed in the body. JLMadrigal (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Funny you would say such a
thing, when you obviously don't believe it yourself: [1] -- MisterDub
(talk | contribs) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's just pretend
that the reliable sources which say otherwise don't exist. — goethean
16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And let's pretend that
if it is in the body, it should/need not be in the lead – whereas of
course that is entirely back to front, given that the lead, as noted,
is meant to reflect and summarise the body as well as defining the
topic and putting it in context. If the lead did not assert, pretty
much outright, that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, you
could argue that noting the widespread querying of that need not be
there either. But of course it is there, in black and white in the
name, the alternative names and the Anarchism template. Thanks to
others for pointing out the gross confusion about the meaning and
relevance of the term "secondary" in this context as well btw.
Finally, of course, a "controversy of note" is not the one and only
one, internal to anarcho-capitalism that JLMadrigal declares exists
but what secondary [sic] sources note as significant, as pointed out
ad nauseam.
Finally, finally, the
"compromise" text on its own is entirely inadequate, for reasons
explained; nor should it have been unilaterally inserted as a supposed
replacement/repair of the text in issue without independent discussion
mid-RfC (it's now of course set in stone for the time at least, while
the discussed-in-detail and so-far majority-supported text remains
out, due to the inevitable randomness of page protection). If we can
get agreement on the combined text incorporating both internal and
third-party views, as suggested above, that might at long last sort
this pointless dispute out. N-HH talk/edits 09:06, 17 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
The proposed text
is redundant, since the previous sentence already establishes that
there is a difference regarding capitalism among anarchists. Further,
it asserts that the traditional view is still a majority view without
submitting or referencing any numbers as evidence. JLMadrigal (talk)
12:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the text you personally object to is sourced as a
statement/assessment – numbers have nothing to do with it. Secondly,
the text you are insisting should be there instead as an
alternative/replacement not only presents the view from one, in-world,
perspective as opposed to an objective third-party position but does
not address at all the definition/classification point (which you
continue to ignore on this talk page as well by referring to the
differences "among anarchists"). Thirdly, unlike the orginal text,
that text was not made subject to discussion or debate but simply
unilaterally declared, mid-RfC, to be the ideal solution and then
inserted as a fait accompli ahead of the latest page protection. I can
keep repeating all this and you can keep ignoring it if you wish. N-HH
talk/edits 12:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism
by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been
anti-capitalist." "Most" is a fraction (>.5). Such a claim needs to be
verified if it is to be included in an objective document. This might
lend credence to inclusion of a POV of 'orthodox' anarchists.
JLMadrigal (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The
sources provided above sufficiently verify the text. — goethean 16:06,
20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree
with Goethean: we do not need exact figures so long as we have many
strong sources which more than justify the claim's inclusion. The
proposed addition could probably be phrased better, but we need to
accurately reflect the fact that capitalist anarchism is a relatively
new development that many other anarchists (i.e. the communists,
syndicalists, and mutualists representative of "traditional
anarchism") reject because capitalism is viewed as intrinsically
hierarchical. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:54, 21 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who
would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and
socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of
resources. Conversely, traditional anarchists typically reject
property and market processes, viewing them as hierarchical.
JLMadrigal (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that being obfuscating in an attempt to hide
information from readers is productive. The proposed content that you
removed is clear, well-sourced, and true. — goethean 12:53, 22 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working toward a compromise, JLMadrigal. I think your
proposal is fair, but could use some copy editing. How about something
like the following?
“ Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who
would advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and
socialists who advocate cooperative ownership and worker management of
resources. Conversely, traditional anarchists, who typically reject
private property and market processes, viewing them as hierarchical.
”
A couple thoughts: 1) I think it'd be easier to say that
traditional anarchists "typically reject capitalism as intrinsically
hierarchical" or something similar... is there a reason why this
wouldn't be acceptable? 2) Given my quote above, I don't think the
last bit ("viewing them as hierarchical") is necessary; distinguishing
these two groups by showing that traditional anarchists reject private
property and markets should suffice. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“ Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who
advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically
reject private property and market processes, viewing them as
hierarchical preferring communal property arrangements. ”
No need to delete reference to communal ownership. JLMadrigal
(talk) 15:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think it'd read better if it said they
"reject private property... in favor of cooperative ownership
arrangements," but let's see what others have to say. Thanks again! --
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I notice you've changed cooperative to
communal... is there any reason for this? My concern here is that
communal may be true for communists, but isn't (or is less so) for
syndicalists and mutualists. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22
July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "cooperative" is used in a special way by
traditional anarchists, which may be confusing as anCaps believe that
market relationships are cooperative. Perhaps "collective property
arrangements" would be more accurate. JLMadrigal (talk) 17:15, 22 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs)
17:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although fine as far as it goes, and the
information contained is useful for the lead (although FWIW I'd prefer
"co-operative" to "communal" or "collective"), this is simply an
embellishment of the alternative text parachuted in mid-RfC and is
still skirting round the fundamental point: this is not just about
describing a dispute on matters of detail/execution between different
schools of anarchism but about noting the widely acknowledged and more
fundamental definitional dispute as to whether anarcho-capitalism is
or should be considered as anarchism at all. Whatever detail is added,
this well-sourced information about context and definition is still
being entirely excluded in the above proposal. Nor is the text getting
the same level of oversight that the proposed addition in the
still-open RfC has had (which is currently running 5-4 I think in
favour of including that addition). The proposal that merges both
observations, as already suggested, subject to minor tweaks to the
precise text, would seem to be a more genuine compromise than a
suggestion from one party who has always wanted the point under debate
in the RfC to be excluded that it should continue to be excluded. N-HH
talk/edits 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N-HH, I'm hoping we can work toward a
compromise "that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all
recognize as a reasonable solution". From what you are saying, it
sounds like we ought to have a different separation between
sentences... perhaps something like the following?
Anarchism is usually considered a
radical left-wing ideology which promotes cooperative ownership and
worker management of resources, and anarchists from this tradition
typically believe capitalism to be antithetical to anarchism. Amongst
right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists can be distinguished from
minarchists, who advocate a night-watchman state limited to the
function of individual protection.
-- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:08, 23
July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One step forward, two steps back. This
article is about anarcho-capitalism - not left-anarchism. Further, as
discussed prior, anarcho-capitalists are not right-libertarians. Those
would be the minarchists. The following addition addresses the
definitional concern without a meat-ax.
Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from minarchists, who
advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of
individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who typically
reject private property and market processes, in favor of collective
ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who believe
that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical,
anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in
a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and
state-sponsored monopoliies are abolished. As a result, there is
disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the
nature of "anarchy".
JLMadrigal (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JLMadrigal, you say that "This article is about anarcho-capitalism
- not left-anarchism." I agree, but... so? What point are you trying
to make here? You also say that "anarcho-capitalists are not
right-libertarians," which is provably false (see Peter Marshall's
Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism). Please try to be
clear and accurate, and maybe we can get through this dispute. Thanks!
— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from
minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the
function of individual protection, and traditional anarchists, who
typically reject private property and market processes, in favor of
collective ownership arrangements. In contrast to left-anarchists, who
believe that economic relationships tend to be hierarchical,
anarcho-capitalists believe that hierarchies can only be flattened in
a naturally competitive marketplace to the extent that states and
state-sponsored monopolies are abolished. As a result, there is
disagreement between anarcho-capitalists and left-anarchists over the
nature of "anarchy".
Sorry, but this latest suggestion is absolutely terrible;
we can't insert false information into the article. — MisterDub (talk
| contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And which information exactly is "false", MisterDub?
JLMadrigal (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, pretty much that entire last sentence.
1) It doesn't seem appropriate to inject a new term (left-anarchists)
without an explicit connection to the previous term (traditional
anarchists); 2) left-anarchists do not believe "economic relationships
tend to be hierarchical," they believe that capitalist economic
relations are necessarily hierarchical; and 3) anarcho-capitalists
think hierarchy is permissible as long as it's voluntary and so don't
care to attack hierarchical relationships. — MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This last proposal is every bit as bad as the others. The
reader needs to be told plainly that ancaps are not considered
properly anarchist. The "disagreement" is an absolute one about
inclusion, not about the "nature" of anarchy. Binksternet (talk)
03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to revision of the last sentence.
JLMadrigal (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – we appear to be veering into some fairly
subjective essay-style analysis about what anarchists and/or
anarcho-capitalists believe in terms of detailed theory, while at the
same time avoiding the key issue that this has been about from the
start, which is that of definition and classification. Despite the
"idontlikeit" complaints of one or two editors about including it, as
endlessly pointed out, the original content succinctly reflects – and
cites – material directly found in sources on that point. Furthermore,
the RfC on that has been closed with the conclusion that it should be
included in the form originally proposed. I would happily see the
brief point about AC vs minarchism etc also added as a separate – and
equally uncontroversial – observation. N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 26 July
2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) And regarding left-anarchists, there is
consensus among traditional anarchists that they self-identify as left
of center, so that shouldn't be an issue. 2) Since leftists have a
limited understanding of the laws of the marketplace (property,
capital, and business relationships in general) they tend to distrust
it. "Capitalism" as they define it - rather than the state - is their
bogeyman. 3) Leftists also tend to conflate hierarchy and inequality -
thus equating "capitalism" with oppression. Inequality is the natural
state of affairs in all animal and plant kingdoms. JLMadrigal (talk)
00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to respect your edits when
you chop down leftists in this manner. Let's try to steer clear of
such global statements. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Just describing the context,
Binksternet. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proper context is
that we're not here to debate you! This is an academic encyclopaedia
built upon reliable sources, and the sources are clear. — MisterDub
(talk | contribs) 13:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The context of
anarcho-capitalism IS the issue. Advocates of another strain of
"anarchism", who wish to insert their foreign viewpoint (regardless of
how well sourced) into the article are seeking to muddy a clear
definition of anarcho-capitalism which presupposes the accuracy of
said viewpoints. JLMadrigal (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A deeply amusing
comment. User:JLMadrigal's apparent stance is that this article should
lack all reference to the world beyond the minds of
anarcho-captalists. This stance is untenable and directly contradicts
core Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NPOV. — goethean 15:32, 30 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Post-RFC
OK, so this was closed a few days ago now with approval to include the
content re disputed classification. I'm therefore going to add it back
in. I will leave the recently added text about minarchism and the
anarcho-capitalist perspective, which links into the point if not
directly covering it, preceding it. That leaves us in effect with the
composite compromise text initially floated above – which, separately
from the support for the RfC text alone, had the backing of at least
two editors and no outright objections. If anyone still wants to
object to the RfC text specifically, they should not edit-war it out
but take it to review or whatever, if they really think it's
necessary. There's been more than enough squabbling over material that
is fairly uncontroversial in the real world. N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 28
July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this anarchist POV issue on the NPOV noticeboard in
order to remedy the persistent insertion of the disputed POV text in
its original form:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Featured_Anarcho-capitalism_article_is_being_held_captive_to_left-anarchist_editors
JLMadrigal (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring without discussion now? Classy, fellas! —
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of stealth, it would seem that the following
discussion is relevent to editors of this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism/archive1
JLMadrigal (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one was speaking of "stealth", nor has there
been any as far as I can see when it comes to that discussion. As
noted in an edit summary, I will go to ANI and report everyone who is
still trying to edit war the sentence out the next time any of you
remove it. That means User:JLMadrigal, User:Netoholic – who has form
when it comes to simply ignoring RfC conclusions – and User:Knight of
BAAWA. You are fairly likely to end up blocked I'd have thought. This
has gotten beyond boring now. N-HH talk/edits 09:57, 31 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
And now we are, as promised, at ANI. More bureaucratic
hoop-jumping required, unfortunately, because one or two invested
people insist that they, and they alone, are right even when the
real-world sources, WP policy and WP consensus are all against them.
N-HH talk/edits 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the real-world sources and policy are
with us, and there was no consensus. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:34, 1
August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dissection of The Sentence
"Anarcho-capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of
anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has
historically been anti-capitalist."
This exact sentence seems to be the locus of the storm which has lead
to 3 separate page protections, an RfC, a FA review, and an Admin
noticeboard post. Now, let's take some time to really dissect what is
specifically wrong with this sentence, so that those who keep
insisting on this precise wording are no longer mystified as to why it
is unacceptable and keeps being removed.
"not usually", "most"
These assertions are pretty much classic weasel wording, with no
backing or context. How would one determine "not usually" or "most"?
Have there been surveys? Have reliable sources used this phrasing, and
what do they base that on? Is there really a preponderance of evidence
in the literature of this viewpoint, or is just cherry-picking? How
can we know it isn't cherry-picking?
"recognized"
I feel like this is simply the wrong word being used here. I have
no idea why recognition of a viewpoint matters as to the viewpoint
itself. I don't "recognize" certain musicians as being good, but who
cares? Those musicians are still successful and I can acknowledge
their success by empirical evidence. Opinions exist on their own and
are not dependent on the recognition of others. Is the assertion being
made here that there is some strict definition of "anarchism", which
anarcho-capitalism doesn't fit definitionally? If that were true then
it would be obvious. We would not say that "circles are not usually
recognized as a form of squares", because circles cannot be squares.
If you can't say with confidence "anarcho-capitalism is not a form of
anarchism", then you also can't say it "is not usually recognized".
And if you could say "...is 'not...", then we would just simply say it
in the article. The way its used enhances the weasel wording effect
mentioned above.
"traditional"
If there is one segment of the population that the word
"traditional" doesn't apply to, it is anarchists. By their nature,
they generally reject blanket terms or definitions. But Wikipedia
needs clear context. Right now, the word "traditional" within the
context of anarchists has no grounding. If this point needs to be
made, then it should be made by directly referring to specific,
prominent anarchists that hold this view. Let the reader decide who is
"traditional" or whether that label is even important at all. I think
this word also fits MoS/Words to watch § Relative time references
("traditionally" is mentioned there as an example of words to avoid).
"historically"
Why is the historical meaning of anarchism being given
preferential weight here? Anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy has only
been formalized for a few decades, and anarchism as a philosophy has
also changed from its historical foundations. This is like saying that
a modern viewpoint on civil liberties is invalid because
"historically" minorities and women have not had such liberties.
Again, its the wrong word and wrong perspective, and I think it too
falls within WP:RELTIME. The point should be made by referencing
specific, prominent viewpoints from any time period, and let the
reader decide how to weigh the "historical" value of such viewpoints.
All in all, we cannot use this specific phrase as a summary of the
viewpoint in the lead because of these problems. -- Netoholic @ 18:44,
31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your parsing of the phrasing and your personal judgment that
it is somehow flawed or wrong are both all very interesting, but as
noted ad nauseam, this is what reliable and authoritative sources say.
I know you and others like doing this kind of thing but, as it
happens, the role of WP editors is not to second-guess and argue with
such sources, or to suggest that we somehow know better. The point
here is clear, widely recorded and was agreed in an RfC. Start a blog
if you think you have a more interesting analysis of reality. N-HH
talk/edits 20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually: The sources demonstrate that most anarchists are
anti-capitalists. Colin Ward states that "The mainstream of anarchist
propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism." "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." (Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A
History of Anarchism)
Recognized: You ask "Is the assertion being made here that
there is some strict definition of 'anarchism', which
anarcho-capitalism doesn't fit definitionally?" and the answer is yes.
Peter Marshall writes that anarchism "emerged at the end of the
eighteenth century in its modern form as a response partly to the rise
of centralized States and nationalism, and partly to industrialization
and capitalism. Anarchism thus took up the dual challenge of
overthrowing both Capital and the State." "Godwin was one of the first
to describe clearly the intimate link between property and power which
has made the anarchists enemies of capitalism as well as of the
state." (George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas
and Movements)
Traditional: Anarcho-capitalism is a recent development,
developing ~100 years after anarchism. "However, much more recently
the word [libertarian] has been appropriated by various American
free-market philosophers – David Friedman, Robert Nozick, Murray
Rothbard, and Robert Paul Wolff – so it is necessary to examine the
modern individualist 'libertarian' response from the standpoint of the
anarchist tradition." (Colin Ward's Anarchism: A Very Short
Introduction)
Historically: Again, anarcho-capitalism is a recent
development... see above.
Of course I'm open to rephrasing (as I've stated before), but
the core of the argument is that we need to make clear that 1)
anarchism developed in the mid-19th century as an anti-capitalist
ideology, 2) anarcho-capitalism is a recent development (at least a
century after Godwin and Proudhon first espoused anarchism), and 3)
the anarchists in point #1—those who had been theorizing and
practicing anti-capitalism as an integral characteristic of anarchism
for a century before American individualists appropriated libertarian
terminology—don't accept anarcho-capitalists as anarchists. —
MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For about a thousand years, the only form of Christianity
was Roman Catholicism. The article on Christianity mentions the
Protestant/Catholic schism in the lede. However: it does NOT state
that some in each camp did not recognize the other as Christian--and
in fact some of that still holds sway today, e.g. the anti-Catholic
Jack Chick tracts. So we have the idea of historically something has
been, but does not state that those adherents do not usually recognize
the other side as being part of them. The upshot: Argument from
Antiquity is a fallacy no matter how you try to word it. Same with
Argument from Numbers.
We could also look at the page on atheism. Nowhere in that
lede does it talk about communism (as many people still equate atheism
with communism) or wickedness (as even some dictionaries include that
in the definition of atheism). So what "most" might "usually"
"recognize" as "traditional" isn't necessarily what it actually is,
now is it? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We prefer citing sources to making stuff up. —
goethean 03:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. I cited sources too. Whee! We're
even! Now stop trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism just because
you hate whatever misconception of capitalism you have. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"those who had been theorizing and practicing
anti-capitalism as an integral characteristic of anarchism for a
century before American individualists appropriated libertarian
terminology" were dead long before anarcho-capitalism was developed.
They cannot be used to make an assertion as to whether AnCap "counts"
as anarchism. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the reliable sources can (and do). — MisterDub
(talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just to make it clear, contrary to Netoholic's edit
summary, the point has not been incorporated "in an acceptable way in
the prior sentence," as it fails to address the core argument I've
enumerated above. Rather, the impression is that these suggestions are
purpose-built to avoid the main issue. — MisterDub (talk | contribs)
21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it has. We now make a brief summary
("Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from ... anti-capitalist
anarchists and socialists") of the distinction between AnCaps and
anti-capitalist anarchists in the lead. All the other expansion on
that should be made in the article body where references, context, and
opposing viewpoints can be explained further. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 1
August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The current phrasing doesn't make known that there
is a controversy as to whether or not anarcho-capitalists are even
anarchists, as the sources all relate.
It seems clear that these rationalizations are just
that; they are not supported by reliable sources, nor do they comport
with Wikipedia policy. I guess I will wait to see how the NPOV
noticeboard shakes out. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:46, 1 August
2014 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to the question I posted above: How
can we know that the selection of sources isn't just cherry-picking?
-- Netoholic @ 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd actually have to know about the
subject. I suggest reading some of the robust secondary sources on
anarchism, many of which I have already referenced above, or political
philosophy in general. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:17, 1 August
2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good enough answer for
editors, let alone readers. If you can't explain how we can know that
those sources aren't cherry-picked, then we can't rely on them. There
are a lot of sources which also talk about states of anarchy without
ever mentioning capitalism. There are plenty likewise that see
capitalism as inevitable. Unless you can demonstrate how you know that
"usually" "most" "traditional" anarchist thinkers reject capitalism,
then we cannot make such an assertion. We can reference what specific
thinkers say on the issue, but we cannot imply that they speak for the
majority of anarchists. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 1 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]
I would like someone to explain why communists are editing
anarcho-capitalism? Wolf DeVoon (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
06:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because (and unfortunately this means good-faith cannot be
assumed, especially given such tactics as Eduen's use of scarce-quotes
and other sundry examples of incivility which I never bother to report
because I'm not petty) they wish to marginalize it due to their hatred
of whatever misconceptions they have about capitalism. They tend to
confuse capitalism with the current
mercantilist/fascist/welfare-warfare socialist state system which
holds sway in many places. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:23, 2 August
2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI – Laissez Faire City redirects to List of Anarchist
Communities, 100% edited by commies, and there is zero information,
not even a mention about ancap LFC on the page. Orlin Grabbe, Patri
Friedman, Andre Goldman, Tibor Machan, Alberto Mingardi and many
others were intimately involved. Writers and full-text articles about
LFC at archive.org — Wolf DeVoon (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Ancap legal systems
It is intensely annoying that Andre Goldman is mentioned without
reference or link to his vaporware Common Economic Protocols. His
cyberspace law firm (International Contract Administration) has
likewise vanished, after he conducted an amateurish investigation into
the collapse of Laissez Faire City and its Dubai based spin-off [dead
link] Digital Monetary Trust over ten years ago.
As far as I'm concerned, Goldman's intellectual contribution was about
1/4" deep and consisted in the main of incoherent attacks on my work.
Bottom line: "Andre Goldman" can't be found anywhere on the web. I
certainly can be.[1][2] Wolf DeVoon (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]
References
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/laissez-faire-law-wolf-devoon/1012570462?ean=9781430308362
http://www.amazon.com/The-Constitution-Government-Galts-Gulch/dp/1499550456
Bylund
The main section relating to the relationship with other anarchist
schools has a detailed exposition, including a huge block quote, of
the views of someone who appears to be a non-notable commentator (and
has an odd reference and link to "anarchism without adjectives").
Arguably his views should not be there at all, but the full quote is
definitely OTT and undue. In terms of explanation I'm not sure it adds
much to the Rothbard material that follows. Could we agree t lose
some, if not all, of it? N-HH talk/edits 09:14, 28 July 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Yes, this section needs to be pared down significantly. Per Bylund
should be removed entirely as non-notable. — MisterDub (talk |
contribs) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll wait to see if anyone comes up to defend it and will
then remove or at least trim it (if no one else does first). I don't
want to dive in and just wipe it all too quickly, given the recent
history here. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is he non-notable? Please explain. - Knight of BAAWA (talk)
22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's your burden to explain how he is notable... but
let's start with the fact that the article introduces him as a
webmaster (which conveys no special status or knowledge), and end with
the deletion of his Wiki article because "[t]he notability of this
topic has not been established." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:38,
1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not my burden. So please: show how he is
non-notable. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Remove Per Bylund. Wikipedia has twice voted to delete
a biography about him, once in February then again in March 2008. The
guy is a Mises Institute columnist. Outside of Mises he is not quoted
by mainstream authors. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2014
(UTC)[reply]
Well there you go! A real argument for removal has
been advanced. Wonderful. However, some of the quote can remain. The
3rd paragraph, beginning with the 2nd word, clearly needs to remain.
After all: it is verifiable (which is wikipedia's standard) and helps
intro the Rothbard section. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:29, 3 August
2014 (UTC)[reply]
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list