grarpamp grarpamp at
Tue Sep 6 01:44:02 PDT 2022

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 26
>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 24 	Archive 25 	Archive 26 	Archive 27 	Archive 28

    1 Lead
    2 initial paragraph
    3 Lead
    4 Origin of flag?
    5 Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism
    6 Reverts
    7 my edits
        7.1 edit 1
        7.2 edit 2
        7.3 edit 3
        7.4 edit 4
        7.5 edit 5
        7.6 edit 6
        7.7 edit 7
        7.8 edit 8
        7.9 edit 9
        7.10 edit 10
        7.11 edit 11
        7.12 edit 12
        7.13 edit 13
        7.14 edit 14
        7.15 edit 15, 16
    8 Sources
        8.1 how do we proceed?


Goethean, I agree with your edit here, as the material you removed was
indeed editorializing. The edit summary was unfortunate, however.
Editors shouldn't swear at each other in edit summaries.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "anarcho referring to the lack of a state, and capitalism
referring to the corresponding liberation of capital" is helpful to
the reader, because it distinguishes anarcho-capitalism from other
forms of "anarchism". Ancaps use "anarcho" strictly in the sense of
the lack of the state, and "capitalism" to refer to the liberation of
capital. This is in contrast to the use of the terms by leftists, who
include market hierarchies among their enemies, and define capitalism
differently than do ancaps. JLMadrigal @ 21:17, 26 August 2015

        The lead already states clearly that anarcho-capitalism is
distinct from standard anarchism right there in the bottom of the
lead. Just like how anarcho-capitalism isn't minarchist libertarianism
either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            Yes, but it now clarifies the fundamental uniqueness of
ancap among anarchists and capitalists. JLMadrigal @ 22:59, 26 August
2015 (UTC)[reply]

                According to the wikipedia article on anarchism,
"anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in
the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the
state system.". Seems pretty clear to me. Jp16103 (talk) 23:44, 26
August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                    Given how many anarchists like sports (which have
heirarchies in the form of the referees/players), this is clearly
wrong. And adding the editorial comments really smells of OR. So
please don't do it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015

                        Historically anarchists have been against
hierarchies. This is a FACT. What is OR? Also, I dont see why this is
editorializing, anarcho in every other sense of the word means,
anti-state and ant-hierarchy. Why should this be an exception? Jp16103
(talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                            No, no they haven't. Anarcho- only means
anti-state. No rulers, not no hierarchies. So tell me why this page
should be the exception that it would be the only one with that
comment, and not the other "anarcho-" pages? Are you going to be
consistent and edit all the others that way, or is it just THIS one in
particular? Because if it is this one in particular: you need some
serious support to take it out-of-line with the rest of the "anarcho-"
pages. Dazzle us with your argument for making this page an exception
to the other "anarcho-" pages. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:10, 27
August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                    Why do we even include the
definitions in the lead then? Also, anarchist with the exception of
anarcho-capitalists support a society based on non-hierarchial free
associations. Do some research on
anarcho-syndicalism,communism,primitivism,etc. and you will quickly
find out that this is true. The anarcho in "anarcho-capitalism" means
something totally different than anarcho in any other "strain" of
anarchist ideology.Jp16103 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                        Anarcho-capitalists claim
their society would be non-hierarchical but that individuals could
voluntarily join non-coercive hierarchies. TFD (talk) 18:15, 27 August
2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                            If they do support
non-hierarchical free associations, why then do some support sports
other words: it doesn't require being against hierarchies, and you
still haven't shown the reason that this page--among all of the
"anarcho-" pages--should be out-of-line with the rest. - Knight of
BAAWA (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                                From the an-com wiki
page: "Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free
communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5][6] and communist
anarchism[7][8]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the
abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while
retaining respect for personal property),[9] and in favor of common
ownership of the means of production,[10][11] direct democracy, and a
horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils
with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from
each according to his ability, to each according to his need"." Ancaps
are different in this regard because they do support hierarchy and a
"vertical system" where there is a BOSS and EMPLOYEES. Anarchists
support common ownership over property unlike "anarcho"-capitalists.
Also, before you say this is only with anarcho-communism it should be
noted that syndicalist, primivitist, mutualist, and individualist all
share nearly identical beliefs regarding this. Anarcho-capitalism is
an invention of the late 20th century and is contrary to anarchist
ideology that has been established for centuries. For example, a
primitivist, a syndicalist, a communist, and a mutualist would all
agree on the basic principles of anarchism they would NOT agree with
the anacp definition of anarcho. It should also be noted that
anarchism in the US, means something totally different in the rest of
the world. Jp16103 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                                Ok, and? Still waiting
for you to show reason that this page--among all of the "anarcho-"
pages--should be out-of-line with the rest. Because that quote doesn't
do it. Also: the fallacy of ad antiquitatem is still a fallacy. -
Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

anarcho-capitalists in general do not attempt to forcefully abolish
natural hierarchies, they focus on compulsory hierarchy (i.e. the
state). JLMadrigal @ 01:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                                        I fixed the
indents since it was bothering me. Jp16103 (talk) 02:11, 28 August
2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                                            This isn't
ad antiquitem because you cant just change the definition of something
because you use it for your own political gain. Just because you call
your philosophy anarchist because it has some anarchist elements it
does not mean that it is anarchist. Anarcho is short for anarchist,
yes? An anarchist is someone who: oppose authority or hierarchical
organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not
limited to, the state system". It cannot get any clearer than that.
Lets be honest here, the anarcho in anarcho-capitalism refers to
opposition to the state NOT the opposition to hierarchy that EVERY
here and clearly state that ancaps are anti state, not anti hierarchy.
That is all that I am asking for in the lead. Also I don't know how
much more you want. Do you want me to give you quotes from the first
internationale from Bakunin explaining anarchist ideology because I
will. Or would you rather I dive into Proudhon (the "founding father"
of anarchism) and find his opinions on the topic? This page "should be
out of line with the rest" because anarcho-capitalism is "out-of-line"
with every other form of anarchism. We need to be fair here and
explain why their definition of anarcho is not the same as an ancoms
definition.Jp16103 (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                                                                It is
antiquitatem because the definition of anarchism only includes
anti-state. What people like you try is no different from the people
who try to say that atheism entails communism or wickedness: you add
to the definition something which isn't truly there. So let's be fair
and honest and not make this article out-of-line with the rest of the
"anarcho-" articles. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2015

ancoms' and ancaps' definitions differ. That's the point - and why an
early clarification of ancap definitions is helpful to the student of
anarcho-capitalism. Of course, the biggest difference is that ancaps
hold that natural property relationships guide civilization, and that
anything approaching equality can only be achieved via competitive
market relationships - not wealth redistribution or confiscation of
property (which requires a state). JLMadrigal @ 11:59, 28 August 2015

you truly think that anarchism is only anti-state then you clearly
have no understanding of anarchist ideology. Anarchists have always
until the rise of "anarcho" capitalism been against the
state,property,and hierarchy. Ancaps have a different definition of
anarcho, thats why in the lead we should state the differences in the
definition of anarcho. Im not trying to add anything to the
definition, because the definition of anarchism has been clearly
defined since its inception! When Proudhon created the term anarchism,
he described his philosophy as being against private property and
vertical production! Ancaps were the groups who changed the definition
of anarchism (and libertarian btw)! I don't see how i can make this
anymore clear. Ancaps have their own distinct version of "anarchism"
that is out of touch with every other anarchist philosophy! To say
that the anarcho is anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism means the
same things is WRONG. 'Yes, ancoms' and ancaps' definitions differ.
That's the point - and why an early clarification of ancap definitions
is helpful to the student of anarcho-capitalism. "This is exactly my
point! Jp16103 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

         Thinking that "anarcho-" also includes anti-hierarchy is just
like thinking that atheism involves wickedness just because it used to
be defined that way by theists. Or that anarchism is "chaos" because
statists are terrified of anarchy. By the way: Proudhon didn't create
the idea of anarchism (no matter how much you might want to scream
that he did). Anarchists and anarchism were around before him, just as
atheists and atheism were around long before the term arose. The wide
definition of "anarchism" (including regular and philosophy
dictionaries) simply use the idea of no rulers/anti-state. So please
let's not editorialize. Let's not make this article out-of-line with
the other "anarcho-" articles. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:58, 28
August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

             Seeing that this isnt going anywhere Im not going to
fight for this anymore. You win, I wont try to change the obviously
one-sided lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk •
contribs) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

initial paragraph

I like this :

Anarcho-capitalism, also known as free-market anarchism,[2] market
anarchism,[3] private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism,[5]
among others (see below), and "ancap" is a political philosophy that
advocates the elimination the state and the privatization of
government services.

instead of this section of the first pargraph

'Anarcho-capitalism (anarcho referring to the lack of a state, and
capitalism referring to the corresponding liberation of capital and
markets, also known as free-market anarchism,[2] market anarchism,[3]
private-property anarchism,[4] libertarian anarchism,[5] among others
(see below), and the short term "ancap") is a political philosophy
that advocates the elimination of political government - which
distorts market signals, breeds corruption, and institutionalizes
monopoly - in favor of individual sovereignty, absence of invasive
private property policies and open markets (laissez-faire
capitalism).' — Preceding unsigned comment added by
(talk) 11:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new user made drastic changes to the lead here. I reverted it
because the changes had not been discussed first, and any changes as
radical as that ought to be discussed. However, I think the user does
have a point. The lead is overly-complicated and something shorter
would be better. Suggestions? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:19, 16
September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The current opening sentence is needlessly convoluted and
reader-unfriendly and certainly needs trimming. The lead also has
problems in the sentences that follow, with loaded phrasing ("invasive
private property policies", "liberation of capital" etc) and
assertions stated as fact (eg that government "breeds corruption").
And of course it is, as argued about endlessly in the past, wholly
misleading about the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and
anarchism. The problem is that it has mostly been edited recently by
veto-wielding partisan supporters of the ideology, some of whom are
quite open about the fact that they think this page should more or
less advocate for anarcho-capitalism rather than be a sober,
encyclopedic summary of it, based on objective third-party sources.
N-HH talk/edits 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And if anyone thought the lead couldn't get more convoluted,
subjective and even inaccurate than it already was, they were dead
wrong. What a confusing and misleading mess. N-HH talk/edits 07:46, 10
October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        Indeed, this article is continually worsening, and the trend
will not stop with JLMadrigal and Knight of BAAWA protecting the
article. (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            I'd support reverting the recent changes and going back to
an August 2015 version. — goethean 16:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                I'm not so sure. It seems pretty convoluted and full
of loaded phrasing even back then. Ideally, I think it should be
scrapped and started over by disinterested editors who know what
they're talking about and who know how to express ideas with clarity
and objectivity. Sadly, that's unlikely to happen on WP of course.
N-HH talk/edits 09:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knight of BAAWA, please remember that you do not own this article.
Tomboy Chan, myself, and I believe Goethean also, are in favour of
removing all the excess synonyms for "Anarcho-capitalism" from the
lead of this article. You are in absolutely no position to be
reverting me when multiple editors disagree with your position. If you
feel that those synonyms are valuable information, then please suggest
a different and better way of including them in the article.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I take back my cynicism. Going back to this version – so long as
it sticks of course – is a definite improvement. It leaves the lead
far less cluttered and relatively clear as to what anarcho-capitalism
is and where it comes from. I still have reservations about how the
(fairly weak) link to anarchism proper is explained in the last
paragraph, and the unqualified inclusion of the Anarchism template,
but we know what the page warriors think about that, and at least it
tries. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of flag?

I came here to look up the origin of the ancap flag (black and gold).
I know the symbolism ("anarchy" and "gold"). But what's its history?
Who came up with it when? - David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 13 December
2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @David Gerard: Anarcho-capitalist symbolism#Yellow-black bisected
flag -- Netoholic @ 13:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        Thank you! I was wondering because of the other ANCAP, whose
logo is also black and yellow ... clearly based on the black and
yellow calibration markers used on crash test dummies, and I was
wondering which came first - David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 13 December
2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

I removed this section, as it was an almost exact word-for-word copy
of the article at Criticism of anarcho-capitalism. Doing so also
removed the counter-arguments to that criticism added by JLMadrigal,
which at the time I was not entirely aware of- sorry about that! I
still think removing the section while the other article exists was
the correct move. The counter-arguments could be placed at the other
article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism of anarcho-capitalism is a very short article. I think a
case could be made that there is little point in preserving it as a
separate article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2015

        I don't know why 'Criticisms...' is a separate article- I
think it'd probably be better included in this article, but there's
little point doing so until the separate article is deleted.
PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            I don't agree. If the content would improve this article,
then it might just as well be added here now. FreeKnowledgeCreator
(talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Note that there is also a link to the criticism article
within this article. JLMadrigal @ 15:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms need to be in the main article. Whether it needs to be a
second article, I'll leave to others to decide. I'll also note that
PeterTheFourth appears to be stalking me. He made edits to three
articles I've edited in short succession. His history shows no
interest in this topic or topics like it. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk)
12:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @FreeKnowledgeCreator and SocialJusticeWarriors: Can we summarize
the other article and add the relevant cites? The recent content
dispute mentioned citations. I don't get why we couldn't just grab the
citations from the editable link for the criticisms article.
Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        Ya I think summarizing would be a good idea. That's what I
originally did but it got reverted because I didn't include citations.
SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism sections are always poor style and should not be used.
Instead criticism should be incorporated into the relevant sections of
the article. For example the contents in "Economics and property"
subsection of "Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism" should be included in
"Property" and "Economics" subsections of "Philosophy." Furthermore,
criticism should not be a random collection of negative comments by
all and sundry but should be arranged according to their weight in
reliable sources. For example, just how accepted is the view that
rejection of positive rights is selfish? The U.S. Bill of Rights for
example protects negative rights but not positive rights. TFD (talk)
20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        In this case I think it should be it's own section. And should
probably eventually be huge, like half the article or more. Because
the most notable thing about anarcho-capitalism is how controversial
it is and how idiotic and absurd many people find it as a political
ideology. A very small number of people actually believe this stuff or
take it seriously. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 22:49, 27 December
2015 (UTC)[reply]

            The same could be said about Nazism, and it manages to
explain the topic without a "Criticism" section. But articles are not
supposed to explain to readers what ideologies they should accept.
Readers want to know what it is about, not be lectured about what is
wrong with it. Your approach is anyway counterproductive. Lecturing
readers may have the opposite effect and would make them question the
fairness of Wikipedia articles in general. TFD (talk) 23:06, 27
December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                Hmm. SocialJusticeWarriors, would it help to insert
the most important or relevant critics within relevant sections of the
article, as opposed to just dropping criticism like a big sack of
potatoes in a separate section? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:20, 28
December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                    That is the way criticism should be included, if
at all. WP pages are meant, as noted, to explain what something is, as
explained in reliable and authoritative third-party sources, not to
advocate for or against it. As also noted, specific Criticism sections
are poor style and should certainly not be built up from the random
thoughts of WP editors or from observations randomly culled from any
old source. The separate Criticisms page should probably be deleted.
N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                        "WP pages are meant, as noted, to explain what
something is, as explained in reliable and authoritative third-party
sources" and what reliable third party sources say anarcho-capitalism
is, is an absurd political theory that has very few supporters and has
gotten tons of criticism. Bringing up other articles without a
criticism section is WP:OSE. SocialJusticeWarriors (talk) 11:28, 29
December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

                            Undone again. Please address the valid
comments on this talk page rather than citing your personal opinion of
being against the topic as justification for adding a laundry list of
uncited objections. (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2015

This page has suffered for ages from being owned by people who appear
to be devoted partisans of anarcho-capitalism and want the page to
reflect that; having people who appear to hate it joining the party is
probably going to compound the problems with the page, not solve them.
Anyway, as I am sure you noted, OSE is an essay and so does not trump
WP:CRITICISM, which explicitly deprecates criticism sections. Plus OSE
in fact acknowledges that of course precedent and wider practice are
valid arguments re content and presentation. And, beyond that, perhaps
the WP:SOAPBOX section of the policy page WP:What Wikipedia is not is
the best place to look at to help clarify the underlying point. As for
what serious third-party sources say, I am not sure they are quite as
polemical and hostile as you suggest. And to the extent that there is
significant and substantive criticism within such coverage, no one is
saying it has to be excluded, just that it has to be presented, if at
all, in an encyclopedic and balanced fashion (without descending into
ever-expanding "he said, she said" argument/counterargument). N-HH
talk/edits 12:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        It was posted on a few months
ago. I warned the admins but they refused to protect the
page. (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Do you like apples, I would advise you to try to separate your minor
edits to this article from the more drastic changes. You have more
chance of getting them accepted into the article that way. If you
insist on combining minor and uncontroversial edits with drastic, and
controversial, changes to the article then it is likely that
everything will be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 4
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have already done that. I made more than a dozen edits. You are
just blindly rolling them all back. Do you like apples (talk) 22:24, 4
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        You were already reverted once by another user. You should
have taken the issue to the talk page immediately instead of simply
restoring your edits. As it now stands, you are edit warring against
multiple users, and have probably violated WP:3RR. Any attempt you
make to justify yourself while behaving this way is going to fall on
deaf ears. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016

            As I said, I made many separate edits to the article. If
you have a problem with individual edits, revert those and then state
your problem here and we'll attempt to work it out. Those you don't
have a reason for contesting, don't revert. Blindly reverting all of
my good faith edits is not constructive. Do you like apples (talk)
22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                Your disruptive behavior - edit warring against
multiple users - is objectionable in and of itself. It gives other
users a perfectly good reason to roll back your edits. Since you are
apparently a new user, you are perhaps not familiar with policies such
as WP:3RR, but that does not provide you with immunity against being
blocked for violating them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 4
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                    Please stop making this personal and attacking me.
We disagree about the content of this article. That should be the
focus here. I have already addressed that twice and you've yet to
respond. Do you like apples (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                        I am not attacking you by pointing out that
your behavior is disruptive. I am pointing out the obvious. If you
want to persuade other editors that you are editing in good faith,
then you should revert your most recent changes, as they involve a
WP:3RR violation. Have you read the policy yet? FreeKnowledgeCreator
(talk) 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                            Please stop trying to make this about me.
We disagree on content. I am asking you for about the 5th or 6th time
to focus on the content. Which of my edits did you disagree with and
why? Do you like apples (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                I'll continue pointing out that your
behaviour is problematic for as long as it continues being
problematic. You will likely not be able to continue editing at all if
you persist in behaving as you have thus far. To address your changes:
they involve major and unexplained changes of meaning, and many do not
seem to be improvements. For example, you altered the definition of
anarcho-capitalism, changing it from advocating elimination of the
state to advocating elimination of government. Government and the
state are not the same thing, and I don't believe your change is
correct. It should be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:55, 4
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                    If you'd like to change the
definition back to how it was before, I wont revert you. Do you like
apples (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                        How nice of you. If I revert
any of your other changes, would you revert me then? Do you accept
that revert warring is not an acceptable way to try to improve
articles? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2016

                                            Any individual change you
disagree with, I'm fine with you reverting, if you state here why you
reverted it, so we can discuss it. Do you like apples (talk) 23:02, 4
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                                Forcing your changes
into an article through revert warring is unacceptable regardless of
whether or not other users discuss each and every one of your changes.
I will take a look through your changes and consider which of them may
be improvements, but any changes that don't seem to benefit the
article will certainly be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:37,
4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                                    I ask you for
about the 8th time to focus on the content and stop trying to make
this personal. At this stage I feel this must be your strategy to
contest my edits. There is no other reason you would keep repeatedly
criticizing me. Do you like apples (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016

                                                        You have now
reverted yet another user, despite being told that edit warring
against multiple users is unacceptable, and despite being warned about
WP:3RR. At this stage, you deserve a block. Keep behaving the way you
have been behaving, and you will likely be indefinitely blocked. There
is no point in discussing content until you accept that you cannot
continue behaving in this fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04,
5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is no point in discussing content" just as I suspected. Making this
personal is your strategy for contesting my edits. Do you like apples
(talk) 00:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                                            You said
you were going to individually revert edits you disagreed with. If you
would do as you said, this would not be an issue. I should not have
all of my edits blindly reverted because people are too lazy to review
them individually. Do you like apples (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016

Collapse discussion thread started by sockpuppet of blocked editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

my edits

People are rolling back all of my edits, rather than reviewing them
individually. I'll list and explain them. Please note which you
disagree with and why.
edit 1

changed "advocates the elimination of the state" to "advocates the
elimination of government"

'government' is the widely used and neutral term. 'state' is a term
anarcho-capitalists have co-opted and use as a rallying cry, making
it's usage not encyclopedic. in articles about North Korea or Nazi
Germany, we don't use the propaganda terms of those regimes, we use
encyclopedic terms. we should do the same here.

    The "state" or "Etat" is the common word to define the ruling
construct in its entirety (i.e. a state is more then a government, but
also related customs, respect, ext.), very common in socialist
literature as well. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2016

edit 2

changed "security services would be operated by privately funded
competitors" to "security services would be operated by private

change to neutral and encyclopedia phrasing, from the
anarcho-capitalist preferred characterization. the idea that there
would even be competitors is theoretical.

    This states what anarcho-capitalist claim, you might not even
agree that private companies by themselves are possible, it doesn't
matter this is not stated as a historical fact. You seem to have a big
misunderstanding regarding how to NPOV. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:25, 6
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit 3

Changed "would be privately and competitively provided in an open
market" to "would also be provided by private companies."

Means the same thing, without the anarcho-capitalism preferred
phrasing (propaganda).

    See above. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit 4

Changed "Therefore, personal and economic activities under
anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute
resolution organizations]under tort and contract law, rather than by
statute through centrally determined punishment under political
monopolies" to "Personal and economic activities would be regulated by
victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract
law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment by

More encyclopedic and neutral and removes the propaganda phrasing.
edit 5

Changed "would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution
organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute
through centrally determined punishment by governments." to "would be
regulated by dispute resolution organizations rather than by

More encyclopedic and neutral and removes the propaganda phrasing.
edit 6

Moved the section of the lede that explains how the name
anarcho-capitalism came about, to it's own section at the top of the
body of the article. Moved 'history' section up to just below this

Lede was too big and this looks better. Style is also to have history
at the top of an article like this.
edit 7

Removed "Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism" section.
These are not similar to anarcho-capitalism and only serve to lend
credibility to the ideas. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda

    They are heavily referenced in anarcho capitalist literature.
Removal, instead of using better wording, is just not good faith
edits. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit 8

Removed a lot of promotional external links that are not appropriate.
edit 9

Removed 'further reading' list of pro-anarcho capitalism books and
publications. If these are notable they can be used as references.
edit 10

Removed flag as the source is not credible, it's some random website.

    The flag is correct, easily sourced from anywhere. This removal
borders on non good faith edits. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:12, 6 January
2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit 11

Changed 'statism' to 'government'. See edit 1: 'statism' is propaganda
and not encyclopedic.

    Nope, it's just the correct word. Etatism in french is also
common. Your change of government to state is also misguided.
--MeUser42 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit 12

Removed unsourced paragraph at the top of 'Classical liberalism' section.

    I'm stopping reviewing your changes with this blatant vandalism.
All you edits should be first removed. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:27, 6
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit 13

Changed 'led the attack against' to 'criticized' as this is more encyclopedic.
edit 14

Removed non-encyclopedic words 'One notable was' and 'who'
edit 15, 16

Change 'the state' to 'government'. See edit 1.

Changed many more instances of 'state' to 'government'.

Do you like apples (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "State" is the correct term. "Statism" as a term is NOT
propaganda, and that you call it such means you are not editing in
good faith. As such: you're not going to get anywhere with your
obvious POV-pushing. If you would have made some suggestions FIRST and
not just demanded that we kowtow to your POV, you might have gotten
somewhere. But you didn't. You're going to have a really tough go of
it now. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        FWIW many of the edits look fine to me: some of the more minor
ones are simple copyediting (eg edit 14), and I concur with the
removal of many of the entries under further reading etc (eg edits 8
and 9), which seem to be simply promotion of fairly obscure essays and
websites for the most part. Others, such as edits 2 and 3 which remove
the stress on competition, and 1 re "state" vs "government", are more
moot, since they are minor changes, with pretty much interchangeable
phrasing/terms in the context. The attempted edits are certainly not
clear evidence of blatant "POV" though (I think there's a saying about
motes and eyes). Indeed, edits 11 and 13, which together rephrased
talk about people "leading the attack against statism" in WP's voice
are rather clearly de-POVing the text, one would have thought. I'd
disagree with edit 6, which removes arguably relevant historical
background out of the lead, but would agree that a lot of the material
removed outright in edit 7 is speculative and/or too reliant on blog
sources in part. N-HH talk/edits 19:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

            Some of the edits may be OK, but the edit warring user was
trying to change the article in an inappropriate way. The removal of
large parts of the article obviously needed to be discussed first. The
change from "state" to "government" is not a minor change at all. It
is a major change, and it is incorrect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)
19:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                I'm not sure the distinction is as significant as
that. They are not of course synonymous, but the terms "government"
and "state" are often used pretty much interchangeably when discussing
anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and in political discourse more
generally. Indeed the dictionary I just looked at prefers "government"
when defining what anarchism is against, as does Peter Marshall's
history of anarchism. As for anarcho-capitalism itself, Rothbard for
example seems to happily talk about "government" when talking about
what he is against. The switch certainly doesn't flip the meaning of
what's being said on its head. N-HH talk/edits 19:39, 5 January 2016

                        Well, do you want the article to be accurate
or not? There is a technical distinction between state and government
and it is relevant to understanding anarcho-capitalism, so one term
should not simply replace the other. What one dictionary says about
"anarchism" generally is not relevant, as the article is about
anarcho-capitalism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2016

                            Of course I want the article to be
accurate, hence why I cited some evidence as to usage; the point is
that I think this is splitting hairs. My comment acknowledged of
course that the terms are not universally synonymous – and also that
there is a distinction between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism – but
we just happen to disagree about how significant the difference
between the two terms is in this context. It's not that you want the
page to be accurate and I don't. Since I'm not favouring one term over
the other anyway, further debate on the point is fairly redundant
twice over. N-HH talk/edits 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                            From the opening paragraph of the
Anarchism article: "While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails
opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of
human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system."
Clearly--and I don't think you have an issue with it--statism as used
by anarchists isn't propagandist in the least. Yet if we turn to one
of the edit summaries of the edits-in-question, we find this "replaced
'state' with 'government' in most cases. government is the accepted
term. 'state' is used as anarcho-capitalist propaganda." That's just
one of the issues with this person. And then there's the question of
removing a swath of the article without so much as discussing it here
first! - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is my position that all these edits should first be reverted as
so many of them (though not all) are unencyclopedic. --MeUser42 (talk)
08:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        They already have been. The user who made them posted on the
talk page after they were (several times), trying to seek approval to
have them reinstated. As suggested above, some of the reaction to the
substance of the edits (as opposed to the edit-warring – and plenty of
people have edit-warred over this page) is a little OTT. Most of them
are not egregiously unencyclopedic or POV or whatever. Several of them
have merit; others are of marginal import. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 6
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements
from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for
fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is
entirely independent of the subject being covered." WP:THIRDPARTY

The only source in this article that meets that criteria seems to be
Playboy Magazine. All the rest are primary and secondary sources that
are unsuitable as references. That is, Anarcho-Capitalists writing
about their own ideas or about topics they are not independent from. I
suggest this article be deleted as 95% of the information in it is not
properly sourced. A new article can be written, conforming to policy.
EoT State (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In other words, this is article is not encyclopedic. It is Anarcho
Capitalism, as defined and explained by Anarcho Capitalists. A
violation of WP:NPOV. It needs instead to be Anarcho Capitalism, as
defined and explained by neutral and reliable third parties. EoT State
(talk) 06:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note EoT State has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of
DegenFarang [1]. --TFD (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

    Mostly agree. However being independent does not mean not sharing
the same ideas, it means having a financial interest. The sources
nonetheless fail rs as secondary sources. Look forward to you
re-writing the article with reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:18, 7
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

        To be fair, there are a few more legitimate third-party
sources than that currently being used. Plus primary sources are not
barred altogether, it's just that you have to be wary of
overinterpreting them. Rothbard's work can be cited and quoted
directly, for example, as evidence of what his positions were. But the
direction of the page is very much evangelical. N-HH talk/edits 10:52,
7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

            It's interesting that we have a brand new account
proposing to remove most of the article's content starting up
immediately after an older account was blocked for attempting
something very similar. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 7 January
2016 (UTC)[reply]

                The following are some independent, reliable sources
that can be used in the article. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7],
[8]. For example, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, the source of
the first, seventh and eighth references listed below, is quite
reliable. North America1000 03:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    "Contra Anarcho-capitalism"
    "Crypto Anarchy".
    "Political Ideology Today".
    "The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism".
    "Alternative Vegan".
    "Chaos Theory".
    "An American Experiment in AnarchoCapitalism: The -Not So Wild, Wild West"
    "Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism".

                    What leads you to believe these sources are
reliable, with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? An
Anarcho-Capitalist writing a book does not seem to meet that
requirement. #7, from a University, may work. But #3, for example,
clearly would not. I can write a book that says I'm Santa Claus. That
doesn't mean I am or that Wikipedia should say in its voice that I am.
EoT State (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Below is a partial summary about source #3 above, Political
Ideology Today, from this source. The book is published by Manchester
University Press, which is the university press of the University of
Manchester, England and an academic publisher of academic books and
journals. It is clearly an integral and reliable source. The book was
written by Ian Adams. You assume that Adams is an anarcho-capitalist,
but provide no qualification for your assumption. Are you sure about
that? North America1000 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Political Ideology Today – This second edition of an established
textbook on political ideology provides a comprehensive, up-to-date
introduction to the powerful and persuasive ideas which have motivated
the actions of both political leaders and the electorate.

        I'm not sure there is a lot of point explaining reliable
sources to someone who does not want to be convinced.
FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

            You are the one pushing a clear POV. I'm here to improve
the encyclopedia. STOP ASSUMING BAD FAITH. EoT State (talk) 04:49, 8
January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                It would be easier than it is to assume good faith if
you could have provided a convincing answer to the question I put to
you on your talk page; as it is, you are quite likely to be blocked
for disruption. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2016

                    I said I have no idea who that is. I'd like to
improve this article. I'd appreciate it if you could either help or
leave me alone. Your emotional drama does not interest me. 04:58, 8
January 2016 (UTC)

                        I think that your most recent edits are not
helpful, and should be reverted. I will probably revert them myself
soon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

                            I know you think the purpose of talk pages
is to harass people, but actually they are intended to discuss
disagreements with content. If you have an opinion on the sources in
the article and why they are from reliable, independent third party
sources known for fact checking and accuracy, this would be the place
to share your views. Unilaterally declaring good faith edits "not
helpful" is itself, not helpful. EoT State (talk) 06:07, 8 January
2016 (UTC)[reply]

                                OK then, your edits seem unhelpful
because they remove content based on what is apparently nothing more
than ideological disagreement with the sources used. Thus, they should
be reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2016
                                @EoT State: I'm concerned about your
analysis methods of what constitutes a reliable source, per discussion
about source #3 listed above (Political Ideology Today). You state
above that it is clearly not reliable, but my research and commentary
above indicates that it is clearly entirely reliable. You also deemed
the author to be an anarcho-capitalist, but provide absolutely no
qualification to back up your opinion. You seem to base source
reliability upon a preconception that supports your view about
virtually none of the sources being reliable except for the Playboy
Magazine source, per your statement above and at your nomination at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-capitalism, which comes across
as confirmation bias. So, it's understandable that people are
questioning your removal of content from the article per your
statements that the sources are not reliable, because per the above,
it's unclear if you're familiar with identifying reliable sources for
Wikipedia's purposes. North America1000 06:54, 8 January 2016

                                    You made a reasonable argument
that #3 is an RS, noting things I hadn't seen. After looking closer at
sources in the article, some of them do appear more reliable than my
first impression indicated. There are still many sources in the
article I do not think meet the requirements of a reliable source.
Self published pro-Anarcho Capitalism material, for example. The
article relies far too heavily on content from Anarcho Capitalists, in
general. The result is a non-neutral article. We need to trim down the
pro-Anarcho Capitalism sources and add neutral third party sources.
EoT State (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the examples cited above are clearly fine, but no 2 has rather
obviously lifted the excerpt linked to from this very page. Much of
the recent activity on the page has not been helpful, and has
exaggerated the paucity of sources, but it has nonetheless highlighted
the unsuitability of many of the sources currently used and hence of
the material derived from them. Content should not be sourced to blogs
or overreliant on anarcho-capitalist writings, which are arguably, in
effect, primary sources and have an obvious bias – as noted above,
that does not bar them, but it means they need to be used with caution
and greater reliance placed on third-party analysis, esepcially
academic writings on the topic (which do exist). If editors could
assess each source and the derived content on its own terms, rather
than reacting based on their views of other editors' activities and/or
their own views on anarcho-capitalism, that would help, but it seems
rather unlikely to happen. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 8 January 2016

    Political Ideology Today is a tertiary source, an introductory
politics textbook, and therefore not an ideal source either. There are
no footnotes so if there are any disputes about what it says, there is
no way to resolve it. @FreeKnowledgeCreator:, if you suspect another
editor of sockpuppetry, you should take it to SPI instead of
discussing it here. TFD (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how do we proceed?

My edits to the article keep getting reverted, yet those reverting me
are not participating in discussion here. How do we proceed? There
appears to be consensus for removing at least some sources. It's not
helping matters that the blatant POV pushers seem to think they are
above consensus building and are content to simply tag-team revert any
changes to the article. EoT State (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2016

    First, I'd suggest you stop edit-warring over the content (as
should others). Even if you are "right" or have a plausible case, it
rarely gets you anywhere, not least because others will, as you have
noticed, start knee-jerk reverting on the assumption you are up to no
good, whether justified or not. Secondly, you should take on board
that sources do not have to be "neutral". Equally, Self-published and
primary sources are both acceptable, with some limitations and
qualifications. The writings of Murray Rothbard and other notable
anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-capitalist sympathisers for example can
be cited, directly if necessary. That said, I can't quite believe that
people are repeatedly reverting this content back in for example,
sourced to another wiki and a dead site of unclear repute
respectively. But then we're back to the point about self-defeating
actions. N-HH talk/edits 11:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list