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.

this article

This article is horrible. Anyone else agree? It's all over the place --no organization or coherence. RJII 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The "property" and "reconciling views" can be condensed down. Much of it is waffle. -- infinity0 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It needs an outline. Something like American individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism where each topic has a section and subjection. RJII 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. We should decided first what the outline is to be, before making any major changes, though. -- infinity0 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't succeed in getting me banned first. [1] RJII 20:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, you were being a dick. Let's forget that though. What headings do you suggest for the article? -- infinity0 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was not. I was correcting your POV editing. And, you've been trying to take advantage of my probation period hoping you can get your way by getting me banned. It's pathetic. RJII 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, whatever. What do you suggest for the structure of the article? -- infinity0 21:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

unbalanced

I put an "unbalanced" tag on the article. There is way too many anti-capitalist and anti-anarcho-capitalist sources. Needs some balanced by adding not-so-radically-biased sources. RJII 23:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I do love RJII's double standards. If a book says something he agrees with, it becomes a reliable source. If it does not, then it becomes "radically-biased"! And let me guess, an "unbiased" source would be one which says "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism, yes? BlackFlag 08:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not my point. Baised sources can certainly by credible sources. My point is that the article is unbalanced because the majority of sources are from rabid anti-capitalists. RJII 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So anarchist sources are "baised"? Really? Surely the best source for what anarchists think are the works of anarchists? The facts are that most well-known and respected anarchist writers do not consider "anarcho-capitalism" as a form of anarchism. The reference shows this quite clearly. It is not "unbalanced", it shows what most anarchists think about this topic. That RJII thinks this is "biased" says more about him than the references. BlackFlag 08: 47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it unbalanced if they represent the majority of anarchist opinion. -- infinity0 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Majority of anarchist opinion" doesn't matter. What matters is scholarly opinion. I think most scholars take it for granted that anarcho-capitalism is a type of anarchism. Pretty much the only people who dispute it are rabid anti-capitalists --mostly anti-capitalists anarchists. RJII 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that most anarchists *are* anti-capitalists is significant? As for "most scholars", "most scholars" do not write books and few, if any, are totally accurate (I've seen some obvious errors in quite a few books by scholars). Most scholars, incidentally, also note that most anarchists reject the notion that "anarcho-capitalism" is a form of anarchism. And I have to admire someone talking about "baised" accounts while at the same time talking about "rabid anti-capitalists"! BlackFlag 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia whose mission is to report facts. What facts you think "matters" is irrelevant. -- infinity0 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only thing missing from the intro is an anarcho-capitalist source saying they are anarchist. I do agree though that reference #4 is a bit heavy; we could move those books into a separate section, like "Further Reading". -- infinity0 14:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely that is redundant as the whole section is about the anarcho-capitalist claim that they should be considered anarchists. BlackFlag 08:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

why definition of anarcho-capitalism deleted?

Why was the intro that I added deleted, which gave a description of anarcho-capitalism? Doesn't it make sense to define what you're talking about in an article first? RJII 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what *links* are for. Anyone interested in "anarcho-capitalism" can go to the main entry and read about it. Having an advert for "anarcho-capitalism" is redundant. If it is to be included, why not also have an explanation of anarchism as well? Because it would be a duplication of information! BlackFlag 08:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No way. It should definitely give a brief definition of both. A good article defines its terms. This is one shoddy article. Defining anarcho-capitalism is not "advertising" it. It's not like the world is going to convert to anarcho-capitalism by learning what it is. Almost no one cares about any form of anarchism, as it is. RJII 16:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason we have links is to stop duplication. Why have a defintion of either when they can read about it in the main subject pages? BlackFlag 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Richard Sylvan

Richard Sylvan doesn't say he's a social sciences scholar. -- infinity0 14:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Caution: BlackFlag's sources

I don't have any non-circumstantial evidence for this, but it seems very clear that when user:BlackFlag wants to say something that he doesn't have a source for, he goes and writes something and creates new sections for a FAQ or contrives articles on the net anonymously then comes back and cites them. Look at the new sections tailored explicitly for the arguments I've been having with him on the Auberon Herbert article, that didn't exist a few days ago. There is a whole new section called "F.7 How does the history of "anarcho"-capitalism show that it is not anarchist?" [2] that is not on the FAQ on the Infoshop copy. [3] Is this how the FAQ works? Anyone can make things and sections up and anyone can come back here and cite them? I don't think so. He's been citing these things as sources on this article as well. Here is another article that magically appeared just a couple days after a dispute about Herbert for which he had no sources: [4]. It looks like BlackFlag is this "Anarcho" character. If what it appears to be true, is true (it appears to be too much of a coincidence to not be), then this is fraudulent. RJII 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a response I received from an administrator on the matter: "They don't look like credible sources to me. The first one (the geocities site) definitely isn't. The anarcho directory in anarchism.ws looks like a personal directory. Anything that looks like a personal website is disallowed, in part for the very reason you've given above, viz. that anyone could add whatever they want to a personal website then use it as a source for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)" RJII 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Anyone can make things and sections up"? So the sections in question are not referenced with the appropriate sources? As for who I am, it is not that relevant as it is the quality of my contributions which count, based on the evidence I supply. BlackFlag 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You have to cite "credible" sources. An anonymously written article by someone with no apparent academic qualifications that has never been published is not a credible source. You can't go contrive your own internet article then come back here cite it because you lack sources for your assertions on Wikipedia. RJII 14:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy not to reference any new sub-sections of section F of "An Anarchist FAQ" in the future -- I would hate to be considered "unethical" by RJII (whose grasp of facts is well known). However, I do wonder what will happen when "An Anarchist FAQ" *is* published. Does it become a valid source then? And what of articles written by anarchists who have "no apparent academic qualifications"? Does that mean we cannot quote anarchists who have only been published in anarchist papers? Just wondering... BlackFlag 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources RJII 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a primary source according to Wikipedia own definition. BlackFlag, 11:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, stop repeating this same point in all the talk pages you can think of. BlackFlag cited that source ONCE. Replide on Talk:Anarchism. -- infinity0 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No he did not. He used it on other articles besides this one. I posted this warning on all articles that I thought it was relevant. Everyone in the articles he works on should be warned. RJII 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondary source tag

I put a tag on the article because the "An Anarchist FAQ" is being used as a secondary source on this article. According to Wikipedia policy: "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." I would call the origin website of the FAQ a partisan political source. So, it should not be used a secondary source. All statements cited by that FAQ should be deleted. What's especially troubling is that authoers of the FAQ who edit Wikipedia, when a source is requested of them, can simply add their original research to the FAQ and then attempt to cite the FAQ here (as we have seen above). RJII 20:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is it being used as a secondary source? Which sentence? -- infinity0 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All the sentences that link to footnotes 6, 12, 27, 33. Apparently you don't know what it means to be a secondary source. To use the FAQ as a secondary source would be to cite it as a source about anarchism. The most Wikipedia policy will allow with the FAQ is to use it as a primary source --to use it as a reference to things about the FAQ itself in the An Anarchist FAQ article. RJII 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The FAQ is a "primary source" on anarchism. It is written by anarchists and is about anarchism. Most anarchists link to it and a leading anarchist publisher is publishing it. It reflects the opinions of many (most?) anarchists. As such, it can be quoted according to the Wikipedia's own definition. And as I said, I'm more than happy to not use any new sub-sections of section F as a reference so that solves that problem (although I'm not sure what he will say if *other* people reference it or what happens when it gets published). BlackFlag 11:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No it can't be used as a primary source on anarchism. That would make it a secondary source. It does not have the credibility qualifications to comment on anarchism according to Wikipedia policy standards. I can't believe that you think you can go write things, get them in the FAQ, and then come back here and cite them. What were you thinking? The FAQ can be only be used as a primary source about the Anarchist FAQ in the An Anarchist FAQ article. RJII 14:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Being a primary source would "make it a secondary source"? Um. Noooo... The FAQ is quite obviously a primary source, usable wherever it is appropriate to cite expressions of anarchist belief. As with all such primary sources, it should probably be used in concert with other sources. It is fully "credible" as the expression of a prominent current within the anarchist movement. And, once again, by normal scholarly standards, it would be fully appropriate as a secondary source. It is only the peculiar prejudices of Wikipedia "sourceability" standards that raise questions in that regard here. Libertatia 13:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a primary source as anarchists obviously agree with it (hence the links, mirrors, etc). It is being published by a leading anarchist publisher, unlikely if it were not considered as representative of anarchist opinion. Is the problem that it is not actually in book form? Once it is, can it be considered a primary source? BlackFlag 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity0 using AnarchistFAQ as source

infinity0, stop using the Anarchist FAQ as a source for this article. It is not a credible source, according to Wikipedia policy. It cannot be used to comment on the views of anarchists. RJII 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a primary source, written by anarchists and extremely well respected (and linked and mirrored) by anarchists. It is being published by a leading anarchist publisher. What else do you need? BlackFlag 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can be used as a primary source. But, not as a secondary source. That means it cannot be used as a credible authority on anarchism. And, it is not published --"going to be published" is not good enough. To use it as a primary source means to use it in an article about itself (An Anarchist FAQ) to quote it to show what it says. RJII 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No. No. No. "To use it as a primary source" does not mean "to use it in an article about itself." If you quote Tucker on anarchism, it's a primary source. If you quote Tucker on Greene, it's a secondary source with regard to Greene's thought, and a primary one with regard to Tucker's interpretation thereof. If you quote Martin on Tucker and/or Greene, then it's clearly a secondary source (although it might be a primary source in an entry on, say "historians of individualist anarchism.") So the FAQ ought to be citable as a primary source anywhere where the question is "what do anarchists believe?" And it would be citable by normal scholarly standards as a secondary source, but Wikipedia recognizes the authority of institutional publication, rather than that of well-presented research. Libertatia 18:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you quote Tucker about about his own anarchism then, it's a primary source. If you use him for a source about the anarchism of anyone else, then you're using him as a secondary source. Citing the FAQ as to what "anarchists believe" is using it as a secondary source. To use it as a primary source is to cite it as what the "authors of the anarchists FAQ" believe --what their own philosophy is. You couldn't use them as a source to interpret the philosophy of others anarchists. Moreover, the authors of the "An Anarchist FAQ" are not notable people, so what does it matter what their own philosophy is? The only place it matters is in the An Anarchist FAQ article. RJII 18:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you quote him about the nature of anarchism in general, it is probably still a primary source. But all we're really doing here is exposing the inanity of the Wikipedia guidelines. If you can force the FAQ to fit only the "secondary source" category, then you can game it out of the entries. (Sorry, I've assumed good faith about as long as I'm capable of, in the face of an obvious vendetta.) Libertatia 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I do have good faith. But, I don't have faith in a FAQ written by a a collective of Joe Blow Internet Anarchists. And, I don't think you should either. It doesn't matter what anarchists think, unless they're notable anarchists. Don't you realize that? There is a reason for the policy. One of the things the policy helps prevent is people like BlagFlag from doing original research, and then when source is requested of him, going and adding it to the FAQ and coming back and citing it. Are you opposed to the original research policy? RJII 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What the policy actually prevents is doing much of any research whatsoever. TheWikipedia:No original research policy could be applied, by the rules, to the majority of material in any of the anarchism entries. The only synthesis that should exist here is one which is entirely uncontroversial. In the case of actively contested concepts like anarchism, you're not going to have that. You're also not going to have "notable anarchists," except in a totally skewed academic/Wikipedia sense. No wonder these entries are ultimately so awful. Libertatia 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what can I say. An anarchist FAQ written by anarchists which is linked to and obviously well respected by most other anarchists is not considered a "primary" source? Given that this webpage is going to be published by a (if not the) leading anarchist publisher, I think we can say it is a primary source. I'm sick of this. This is my last post (on this page). I've leaving Wikipedia (see my user talk page for details). For those anarchists who remain, please keep up your essential work. I'm just sorry I don't have the time or energy left to help. BlackFlag 08:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a primary source. But, it's not a legitimate secondary source --meaning it cannot be used as a source about the anarchism of anyone but the writers of the FAQ. RJII 14:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAQ is being published. I have confirmation from AK Press. -- infinity0 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

AK (UK) now has an announcement on their website. Libertatia 18:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity0 just emailed them and they replied to him, "Hopefully we'll see it in the next couple years" RJII 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"being published" is not good enough, according to Wikipedia standards. RJII 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V says: "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them." RJII 03:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I wondered how RJII would rationalise barring "An Anarchist FAQ" once AK Press announced that on its webpage it was publishing it. He is claiming that it is "self-published"! Sadly, untrue. AK Press is not part of "An Anarchist FAQ" or vice versa, so it is *not* self-published (as anyone with some knowledge of the anarchist movement would know). Unless he means that as AK Press is an anarchist publisher and the FAQ is written by anarchists and about anarchism then it is "self-published"? Which means he is arguing that anarchists cannot be quoted on anarchism. Now that there is clear independent evidence that it *is* being published by a leading anarchist publisher it cannot be denied by RJII that it is a primary source (according to Wikipedia rulers, it reflects "the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group"). Not that i think these obvious facts will make much difference as RJII's dislike of "An Anarchist FAQ" is well known. I'm sure that he will come up with yet another spurious reason for barring it now that this one has been debunked. Back to more important work, I may drop in again sometime... User:BlackFlag 12:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"An Anarchist FAQ" has not been published. Mere plans for publishing are not good enough. Please review our sourcing policies. What's more, it's written by nobody with any scholarly credibility. By "self-published" we're not talking about AK Press. We mean it's self-published on a web site by the writers of the FAQ. RJII 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How pathetic. AK Press has publically announced it is going to be published and, as such, shows that the AFAQ is a primary source, i.e. reflects "the opinions . . . of a larger group" (and that is ignoring the numerous links and mirrors by other anarchists). It is written by *anarchists* and, as such, is a credible source on anarchism. The fact that AK Press is publishing it and it is mirrored and linked to by numerous anarchist webpages shows that other anarchists think it has credibility. I'm not aware that Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, etc., had "scholarly credibility" -- did they have degrees in anarchism? And I've read enough people with "scholarly credibility" make serious and obvious mistakes about anarchism. The simple fact is RJII hates AFAQ and seeks any spurious reason to bar its use. I'm sure if it were saying how "anarcho-capitalism" was a form of anarchism, things would be radically different. The facts are that AFAQ is about anarchism, written by well-known anarchists (the main contributor is a regular writer for Freedom and other anarchist papers). It is linked to and mirrored by many, many anarchist webpages. It is being published by a (if not the) leading anarchist publisher. It is a primary source, deal with it. BlackFlag 08:34, 08 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not the opinion of a larger group. It's only the opinion of the nobodies who author the FAQ. And, of course it can be used as a primary source. That means it can be used in the An Anarchist FAQ article. To use it in this article would be using it as a secondary source. And, once again, it has not even been published. RJII 12:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

The second sentence of the article begins with, "As all traditional forms of anarchism expressly oppose capitalism ..." This seems odd, because the word capitalism doesn't seem to have been used until 1902. Since many anarchists lived and died before then, how could they have expressly opposed capitalism? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:\ I'm sure Marx used it, and Proudhon referred to capitalists. -- infinity0 17:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First known use was in 1854 by William Thackeray. But, it just meant the ownership of capital. And, it continued to only mean that for a long period of time. It didn't start referring to an economic system until the 20th century. So, yes, it is problematic to say that. Some anarchists never mention "capitalism." Also, when some do, they're just referring to ownership of capital --rather than a laissez-faire minimal state system it refers to now. RJII 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence is rather assertive. However, much of early anarchist theory criticises the structures and concepts which are generally known as capitalism today. -- infinity0 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It assumes a lot to say that what they were arguing against is what is now known as capitalism. People often mean different things by "capitalism". – Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. But what alternatives are there? How would you word it? -- infinity0 17:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a much more challenging request. Ideally, I'd like to do treat this entire topic without using the expression "capitalism" at all, because I believe that word lacks a stable meaning. However, I can see where this might sort of give the game away from your perspective.

Perhaps we could begin by listing a few of the major anarchist trends—say, three fairly representative trends—and mention that they vociferously denounce capitalism? That would avoid the problem of words like "most", "many", "all", etc. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly the problem you are stating? That the major forms of anarchism originated before the word "capitalism" evolved its current meaning? -- infinity0 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that, if we talk about a group of anarchists that continued to exist after the word capitalism came into common usage, then we can we can certainly say that they vociferously denounced it (assuming that that is, in fact, true). However, to say that all traditional forms of anarchism denounced capitalism assumes that all of them survived into the 20th century as major movements. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Terry M. Perlin, in Contemporary Anarchism quotes an early American individualist anarchist: "European anarchists are less introspective than us. They concern themselves more with the mass movement that we do; they fight the capitalist; we fight Comstock. Instead of participating in the trade unions, organizing the unemployed, or indulging in soap-box oratory, we rent comfortable halls and change ten cents admission...Instead of inspiring the workers with revolutionary ideas we teach them speculative theories of liberty." RJII 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism" -Benjamin Tucker (cited in Martin, Men Against the State) RJII 19:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a well-defined mutualist / individualist anarchist tradition that opposes "capitalism" (understood as what has developed in the name of the free market) with genuinely free markets. It appears in its simplest form in Tucker's "plumb line" anarchism and his opposition to "the four monopolies" which characterize, on his view, historical capitalism, and prevent the actual free operation of market principles. It is true that some proponents of "capitalism" mean something much like what mutualists mean by a "genuinely free market," which complicates questions enormously. There's no understanding the debate without grappling with the possibility that what we commonly think of as capitalism (the "actually-existing" variety) is not really a "free market." Formulas like Kevin Carson's "free-market anti-capitalism" are pleasantly clear, compared to specialized and purified definitions of "capitalism," because they at least make it clear that there is a question there. The term "capitalism" appears to go back to the early 19th century, and was, according to various accounts, used initially by opponents. We've actually been through this fairly recently, but I can probably dig up the sources again. Libertatia 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary notes uses of capitalism as early as 1854 in English, and for capitalist in the late 18th century. But William Batchelder Greene used "capitalism" in an essay in 1849, in the second part of Equality, where he, characteristically, damns capitalism, socialism and communism individually, and calls for a mutualist balancing of aims. It's likely that Greene, who embraced a sort of irreducible "tri-alectics" about the time Proudhon started to really wrestle with the "antinomies," intended a pretty broad criticism. Later individualists, like Tucker, began with a fairly simple critique, complaining only of the "four monopolies," but as time passed individualists like Tucker actually became more critical of capitalism, abandoning as impracticable some of the more laissez faire elements of their schemes. Libertatia 01:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note

I removed this sentence from the POV section of the article: "To abolish the state while having a monopoly law system seems simply playing with words." To describe it as wordplay sounds like unnecessary editorialising. Moreover, no ancap or private-law libertarian that I'm aware of has proposed monopoly law, making the sentence irrelevant to boot. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAQ

RJII, I count 4 users (User:Cews, User:Liftarn, User:BlackFlag, User:AaronS) (5 including me) re-inserting AFAQ refs after you have repeatedly removed them. Please stop it. Even if you don't like the source, why can't you FIND AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE instead of removing the whole sentence and the points it makes from the article??? -- infinity0 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So, four editors either don't know or aren't willing to follow Wikipedia policy. That's unfortunate. RJII 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've merged the American individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism into this one. Per the suggestion on that talk page. The talk page is copied below for reference. - FrancisTyers · 00:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied in from Talk:Individualist anarchism in the United States and anarcho-capitalism, go there for history.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2006. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS. An archived record of this discussion can be found on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

All of the information you have entered here is redundant to the anarcho-capitalism and individualist anarchism articles RJ. As such, it should either be removed from one or both of those articles, with a link provided to this one, or this one should be deleted. I don't see a need to fill up wikipedia with repetition. Kev 21:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

False. This article is almost totally original and distinct from the contents of that article, and better written, and more accurate. The Anarcho-capitalism section in the individualist anarchism should be shortened, regardless. RJII 22:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Almost totally original? Maybe you neglected to read the very first sentence. I recognised it, cause whadda ya know, I wrote it. The entire first paragraph says almost nothing that is not already said in the individualism article, and the other sections follow suit. Here are a few selections taken almost word for word:

"After the first generation of American individualist anarchists had passed away, a philosophy arose to claim the influence of individualist anarchism."

I kept that one setence and added much more..."After the first generation of American individualist anarchists had passed away, a philosophy arose to claim the influence of individualist anarchism. Whereas the traditional individualists adhere to an intrinsic labor theory of value that conflicts with an ability to profit, the anarcho-capitalists believe that the value of goods and labor are contingent upon the price agreement at which one is willing to part with a thing and the price at which one is willing to purchase that thing. The value of a thing, to anarcho-capitalists, is the eventual consensus of subjective value judgements and therefore ultimately subjective (see subjective theory of value). This theory opens the door for profit in wage labor since one could purchase an hour of labor for less than what that hour of labor produced if such a price is agreed upon by both parties. For traditional individualists, the proper price of labor is identical to the full amount that it produced, and hence, not contingent upon subjective valuations --what one hour of labor produces ought to be paid with what one hour of labor of someone else produces. This differences in theories of value fundamentally accounts for the different directions traditional individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism take in regard to both wages and ownership of land."..so you're full of it. RJII 03:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you "added" is merely a POV modification of what is already there. Kev 04:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That's very funny. My POV is NPOV and always has been. I have nothing to promote but honesty. You're paranoid. RJII 05:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Honesty? You? Great! Lets start by you being frank about your political views. You must admit that as a human being you are liable to err, so if other editors knew exactly what your political views are it might help them correct you whenever you (accidentally of course), import bias into your edits. So I'm all for honesty, you know my political views already, I've been totally open about them. What are yours? Kev 06:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Despite this disagreement over fundamentals, many of the conclusions of anarcho-capitalists and individualists were similar, due to the fact that both groups agreed that property distribution and control should ultimately fall to the level of the individual rather than to that of the state or society. As such, both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualist anarchists advocate private ownership of property, though the private ownership advocated by individualists..."

Don't lie. Those are your words but that's not what I put in the article. I changed that and added more .."Despite this disagreement over fundamentals, many of the conclusions of anarcho-capitalists and individualists were similar, due to the fact that both groups agreed that property distribution and control should ultimately fall to the level of the individual rather than to that of the state or society. As such, both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualist anarchists advocate private ownership of property, though the private ownership advocated by individualists can only legitimately come about as the result of one's labor --since land was not produced it cannot legitimately be bought and sold in its raw form. However, vacant land may be put into use, with the fruits of one's labor being regarded the private property of a person. This position on land, in various forms, is also shared by some early American liberals. Further, both philosophies argued for a free market to determine the distribution of goods, though the traditional individualists tend to reject institutions such as interest, rent, and profit as being antithetical to a free market relations since they regard this to allow the receipt of income without labor. They maintain that this is made possible by state- backed restrictions on banking and currency issuance as well as by state-backed titles to raw land). The anarcho-capitalists also oppose restrictions on banking and currency issuance, but do not oppose purchase and sale of raw land (and therefore do not oppose profiting from rent of land)."...so obviously you're full of it. RJII 03:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't lie, I said you copied it mostly word for word, and in the original version (which you have now modified further), you did. Kev 04:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"In modern times there is much controvesy over the legitimacy of various claims to the tradition of individualism. Collectivists argue that individualism is another side of the anarchist coin which both traditions share, since individualists argued so passionately for worker autonomy and control, and that anarcho-capitalist interpretations of the individualist tradition are misleading at best. They also point to some evidence, such as Tucker's repeated referances to himself as a socialist, his stated rejection of capitalism, and his belief that capitalism interfered with the free-market, as compelling reasons to reject anarcho-capitalist claims to the individualist tradition."

Same thing here. I significantly changed that and added more.. "There is often controvesy over the legitimacy of various claims to the tradition of individualism. Some collectivists argue that they share a common bond with individualist anarchists in their opposition to profit. They also point to the fact that some of the individualist anarchists, such as Tucker referred to himself as a "socialist," and explictly opposed capitalism. However, it must be made clear that though Tucker refers to himself as a socialist, he, like other individualist anarchists in the American tradition, dismisses the idea of society owning property as a collective, as do the anarcho-capitalists. His idea of socialism, rather, was concerned with individual control of the full fruits of one's labor (no deductions for profit). Anarcho-capitalists do not regard profit in wage labor to be diminishing an individual's control over his "full produce" but to be the actual exercise of that control if one who labors decides to trade away part of that produce in order to receive, in exchange, employment by another. Like traditional individualists such as Lysander Spooner acknowledge, they hold that the way to retain one's full produce is to be self-employed. However, while traditional individualists regard self-employment as a way to both make more money and help erode the profit-making capitalist system, anarcho-capitalists see it as an option for an individual to make more money and perpetuate the capitalist system by hiring employee labor for less than its full produce. Anarcho-capitalists do not deny the difference in their respective theories of value and the implications that follow from those; traditional individualist anarchists are well established to be opposed to capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists, however consider opposition to collectivism and advocacy of private property are essential aspects of the individualist tradition that establishes an essential link between traditional individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism."...so again you're full of it. RJII 03:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, all you added was a POV bias to insert into the pre-existing text. Regardless, it is still covering all the same areas of the article you copied from, thus redundant to it. If you love this new text so much, move it back to that article. Otherwise, remove the text from that article, provide a link to this one, and be done with it. Kev 04:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"There is disagreement amongst contemporary individualists as to the place of anarcho-capitalism in relation to their tradition."

You call that almost totally original? Give me a break. In fact, you are merely taking my words from the other article and adding your own unique bias, with a chart by Hogeye thrown in for good measure. Is this all to escape being NPOV? Well, you have two options. Either drastically reduce both the sections in the other articles where links are included to this one (and face the reality that I'm not going to simply let you redefine the entire thing to a POV in support of AC), or delete this article. Kev 02:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Dude, you're out of control. RJII 02:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorta out of responses when faced with the fact that you copied this article almost word for word? Must be doubly embarassing for you that most of the words were mine. Kev 03:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just showed above that you're just plain full of it. Case closed. RJII 03:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You're anti-anarcho-capitalist paranoia is quite hilarious. It seems you even think that I'm an anarcho-capitalist. LOL! Been to a doctor about this? RJII 03:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you are not interested in discussion anymore, since all you can do now is insult. Once you are ready to come back to the table, I'll be here. Kev 04:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Original research?

Of course not. Anarcho-capitalism has a natural relationship to individualism, but the reverse is not true. Obviously this is a topic which needs to be broached, and shouldn't be broached on a main subject page (as its of minor interest). What's needed isn't a comparative table (yuck), or a big uninterrupted splurge of text, but a rational organisation of the topic under sub-headings, and the chasing up of sources. Nice idea for an article, but the article is unreadable at the moment. An iconic image (maybe a silouette of a gender-neutral body contrasting against a silouette of a stereotypical capitalist (top-hat / bowler / fat / etc) to raise the issue? Fifelfoo 04:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, particularly the silouette idea, I'm sure that will definately be found acceptable to all parties ;) Kev 06:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. The same things in the chart can be said in an organized text. RJII 18:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they can be said better, with a more balanced and in-depth approach. Kinda what I had been telling you all along, but I guess you are just set to revert everything I do now automatically. Kev 19:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev Vandalizing the article

Kev, why are you deleting the whole redone page. If you have a problem with it, there are specific sections for each topic so that you can modify the wording. This is blatant vandalism. You are becoming increasingly destructive and disruptive to Wikipedia. RJII 19:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not deleting it, I'm reverting it. As to being disruptive, again, I need to remind you that you are the one who has repeatedly rejected various methods of reaching consensus in favor of an eternal edit war.

Wikipedia is one big edit war. I'm merely supporting the process. Consensus is the last thing Wikipedia needs. Consensus is stagnation. The incessant conflict of ideas is what's good about Wikipedia. Anyone who is against an edit war is against the very concept of Wikipedia. Whether the edit warring happens is fast and furious or in slow motion over the course of years, it amounts to the same thing. But there's a right way to "war" and a wrong way. The wrong way is to do wholesale reverts of several edits instead of modifying and discussing. RJII 22:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not one big edit war. I advise that you brush up on wikipedia policy. I have modified and discussed most of your edits. In fact, overall, I have edited your changes more often than you have edited mine, and I have certainly spent more time overall discussing the edits. I will repeat, once I have time I will try to salvage your good edits from your intentionally antagonistic ones. You could help me by trying to more closely adhere to NPOV, or you could continue to be belligerent. Kev 00:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because despite the fact that the reorganization itself was a good idea, you imported so much POV junk into it that it would have taken hours to sort the good from the bad. And worse, I'm pretty sure you knew already that it was POV and unacceptable. But regardless, when I have time I will happily reinsert those edits you made that were worthwhile, I just didn't want you to waste more time editing an article that you had already pushed too far when it would only have to be reverted eventually anyway. Kev 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I took the time to edit your words instead of wiping out the whole thing and starting from scratch. You should show the same respect and edit my words instead of reverting in total a few hours of work. You are disease to Wikipedia. RJII 22:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've listed my reasons, I won't continue to engage you unless you can at least try to be civil. Kev 00:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You call this civility?....

"To be as polite as possible, fuck you and your "eternal war" wikipedia philosophy..."
Personal attack overlooked. RJII 15:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are an idiot RJ, overlook that as well. Kev 19:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personal attack overlooked. RJII 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you are a barbarian, behaviorally and intellectually. And, extremely immature. RJII 00:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I will freely admit that when your arrogance reaches its peak, and you are constantly undoing good edits by others across articles and importing your own bias whilst being totally condescending, I lash out. In fact, I may continue to do so. But here I have been very civil to you, and attempted to be constructive, yet you continue to focus on personal attacks. And really, I'm quite happy to be equated with the "strange" and "foreign" barbarians, if you'll accept the mantle of an egotistical dictatorial Roman. Kev 05:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RJs revert war

As the history shows, I was in the middle of reimporting a few of RJs good edits to separate the legitimate from the obvious POV violations. However, his eagerness to revert is making it more difficult for me, and has sapped my desire to compromise for the moment. RJ, if you decide to stop throwing a tantrum and start being constructive, then I will work again at restoring what little there is left to restore. Until then, I will have no guilt about reverting your attempts to go back to that awful version. Kev 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You are no one to be talking. You are one of the most disruptive and unreasonable individuals I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that some people can't disagree with others without being completely paranoid and taking edits as a personal affront. It's obvious that you see Wikipedia as a war between different political factions. Some of us don't. Some of us are just trying to present the facts. You're really hung up on this bizarre idea you have of an "anarcho-capitalist" front that's trying to control the Wikiverse. I'm telling you, you're paranoid and not grounded in reality. You really need to get over it, for your own sake, and everyone else's. Otherwise, you're going to go insane, if you're not there yet. RJII 23:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You continue to focus on my personal character, knowing that you've run out of arguments to support your POV edits. Kev 01:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime

While I wait for enough time to elapse to revert Kev's vandalism, I demand a source for Kev's bizarre claim that individualists anarchists say that anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. "While anarcho-capitalists are individualists of a sort, the claim that they are anarchists, or individualist anarchists, is disputed by many collectivist and individualist anarchists" Please name a few of these alledged individualist anarchists. RJII 00:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Other than the fact that all the original individualist anarchists rejected capitalism as necessitating the presence of a government to enforce its type of property claims? Well, how about Larry Gambone? For anarchists, capitalism is the result of the development of the state and therefore, all capitalism is in one sense, state capitalism. [5]

He's not talking about anarcho-capitalism there. Besides, on that same page he says "The most radical of the free marketers like Murray Rothbard endorsed anarchism..." So, you can toss that one out, without even having to ask, where he or anyone else says he's an individualist anarchist. RJII 14:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't know that Larry Gambone is an individualist anarchist? Gee wiz RJ, go edumacate yourself. As to him saying that Murray Rothbard endorsed anarchism, that doesn't mean Murray Rothbard was an anarchist. Nice try though. RJ, I've already watched how you weasel out of all evidence that goes against your pre-conceptions, so I'm not going to actually buy this attempt and devote anymore time to it. You have your evidence, if you don't like it, take it up with someone else. Kev 15:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You're unbelievable. You accuse *me* of "weaseling out of evidence"? He says right there that Rothbard endorses anarchism. And, you have no source saying Gambone is an individualist anarchists. Who is the weasel? RJII 15:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Yes, he says that Rothbard endorses anarchism. He does not say that Rothbard is an anarchist. He DOES say that capitalism requires the state. Now unless you are going to posit that the state is compatible with capitalism, that would -necessarily- entail that capitalists cannot be anarchists.

Are you that dense? Someone that advocates anarchism is by definition an anarchist. Also, waiting on a source for your claim that Gambone is an individualist anarchist. RJII 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I provided you the direct source, the man himself. And did you know that there is a difference between the word "endorse" and the word "advocate"? I'll make you a deal RJ. If you can logically present a case in which a person can be both a statist (as Gambone claims capitalists are) and an anarchist, then I will happily accept your weaseling. Kev 16:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

A difference between the world endorse and advocate? LOL. Now you're really grabbing for straws. What kind of anarchism does Rothbard endorse? Anarcho-capitalism? Yes he does. By the way, I don't make "deals." RJII 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You want a source for Larry Gambone being an individualist anarchist you lazy sap who can't be bothered to even google or read a list of modern day individualists? Here is your souce: [6] [click the little button that says "email" and ask him yourself]

You ask him. You're the one making the claim. Regardless, it wouldn't count since that's original research. Obviously the Gambone thing is a dead end for you.RJII 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Its original research for Gambone to identify himself? lol, RJ, you have no idea what you are talking about. Fine, since you clearly are not familiar with many modern individualist anarchists (Gambone is fairly prominent in their circles), I will throw some bones your way:

He is suspiciously listed amongst "Prominent individualist anarchists and fellow travelers" [7]. Now I know what you are thinking, he must only be a prominent traveler, couldn't possibly be an individualist, but hey.

He writes rants advocating non-violent disobedience to the state, illegal yard sales, and the virtue of individualism. (which was reprinted by the libertarian alliance, you know how they like to print commies) [8] But of course he isn't an individualist, who knows what he could possibly be?

He writes screeds on What is individualism? Just out of academic curiosity I'm sure, where he insists that liberty is more important than equality.

He writes extensively concerning relatively obscure individualists (who, by the way, are further evidence against your false American=individualism/European=communism divide) [9]. Again, this is just a pure coincidence, it could mean anything.

And yep, that is all I'm gunna give you. Go ahead and call me a vandal, and call me a liar, its fun to watch you bluster about and get all defensive when you think you are up against a wall. Kev 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Peter Marshall is an anarchist who has been called an individualist on occasion:

As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might thereforebest be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists. [10]

Who calls Peter Marshall an individualist anarchist? RJII 14:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Joan Clark, for one. Kev 15:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's see a source then. RJII 15:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are a maroon RJ, Trumpeter (1992) ISSN: 0832-6193 Joan Clark Kev 16:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see her saying that in the book. Can you point to a quote? RJII 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Its not a book, and you clearly don't know how to look things up. Its an article in a zine, the article is called World Wide Web, since you don't know how to type numbers apparently. Kev 16:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, where in the article does it say that. I'd like a quote. Otherwise, we'll have to assume you're lying. RJII 17:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean the source is valid? She doesn't even have an article in that [11] RJII 13:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to show you how to look up an ISSN number? You aren't even looking at the right volume. Try 9.2. I could even provide you a link, but it seems to me that you could at least expend a little effort looking something up for once in your life. And from now on out, I'm leaving you on your own to actually learn to look up citations. Kev 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Where do you look up ISSN numbers? I checked the WP article at "ISSN", and the link to the official ISSN site from there, but couldn't find any place to look up what periodical a particular number corresponds to, or its URL if any. WP has an automatic hyperlinking of ISBN numbers (for books) that gives lots of choices to look them up, but nothing similar that I know of for ISSNs of periodicals. I suppose one could paste the number into Google and hope that there's some reference to it in the publication's site that would be picked up there. *Dan* 15:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well at least you've got enough sense to simply ask, many public libraries and university libraries have ISSN searches. The library of congress has one as well, but it only searches their online material since ISSN is not a library of congress catalog. So usually any search from a big library will work [12], [13]. I'm sure there is a more comprehensive one somewhere, but I've never needed it. And actually you were right, a google search would work as well. Though probably only because the material happens to be online in this case. Kev 16:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in 9.2 either [14]. RJII 14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My gosh, you are a total invalid [15]

I don't see here saying Marshall is an individualist anarchists in there. Where does she say that? RJII 15:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

She says that he "sees the need for a theory that goes beyond the individualistic, non-holistic aspects of rights theory and utilitarianism." That's saying that he's not an individualist anarchist, if anything. RJII 15:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that utilitarianism or rights based morality was a limit for individualism, merely that they are one means by which some individualists justify themselves (and not the only ones). Further, she explicitly states, "Marshall seems to be reading some of his own individualist, moral-extensionist presuppositions". That entails that he has individualist, moral-extensionist presuppusitions. So, if he is an individualist and an anarchist, what does that make him? Come on, think of a good way squirm around and mold that meaning to your preconceptions. BTW, have you finally given up on Larry Gambone, or are you going to continue to apply your keen sense of delusion to all the evidence above? Kev 15:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm finished with the Gambone thing. He says that Rothbard endorses anarchism. The system that Rothbard endorses is anarcho-capitalism. Case closed. No need to even go into your claim that Gambone is an individualist anarchist. Now on to the Marshall thing. Just because someone has some "individualist presuppositions" doesn't make one an individualist anarchists. Many "collectivist" anarchists aren't entirely collectivist unless they're purists, but primarily collectivist. Does Marshall support private property and markets? That's the kind of individualist anarchism this article is talking about. RJII 15:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if all you do is revert my attempts to reach a compromise, I'm not going to be very inclined to continue to educate you on this stuff. Kev 03:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Kev, that's more like it. Edit, instead of vandalizing. RJII 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You call it vandalizing because you don't like it, but it wasn't vandalism by any standard, you just like hyperbole. Kinda like you called the anarchism article POV because you didn't like it, when in fact it was being disambiguated so that it wasn't POV. But your hypocrisy is showing RJ. I mean, you edit the libertarianism article, but you have done nothing to add a libertarian socialism section, or even disambiguate it so that the meaning libertarian socialists use is clearly distinguished, despite your claims to objectivity. Aparently your "conduit of knowledge" is clogged up somewhere, maybe in the region of your colon. Kev 04:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Current state

Even though you're still fighting over content, I'd have to say that both of your versions are vastly improved on what was there a few weeks ago. Well done, lets hope you just get that edit war resolved. Fifelfoo 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. But, let me say that edit-warring is effective for producing great articles. It's the revert warring, where someone wipes out a whole series of edits instead of taking the time to go through them and edit them to their satisfaction that's the problem. That's what Kev has been doing, which makes it necessary for me to revert back. (He even reverted out the photographs last time) RJII 16:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You've reverted my edits to several pages far more than I've reverted yours RJ. You just don't notice because your stuck in your own world. Kev 23:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. RJII 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

From Ancap Article

IMHO, the following was clogging the drain on the ancap article and should be inserted here in some fashion Saswann 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC) There are several points of similarity and divergence between individual anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

Both philosophies favor individual private property including capital. However, individualist anarchists opposed titles to unused land, and income from the lending of capital, since that would be income without labor.

Both individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists advocate "free banking" where any individual or group of individualists would be allowed to create and lend private currency. Traditional individualist anarchists, however, believe this would eventually lead to the inability to make a profit through lending due to competitive pressures.

Anarcho-capitalists have no ethical objection to wages being diminished by a profit allowance if both parties agree to such an arrangement. Individualist anarchists regard profit being deducted from wages as exploitative, but oppose forcibly intervening in such a contract.

Both individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists advocate private "defense associations" and private courts, though they disagree on some aspects of their jurisdiction.

The individualist anarchists tended to consider "usury" (i.e., profits from labor, rent, or interest) to be an unjust source of income made possible by government-backed monopolies. Interestingly, Tucker eventually argued that usury was possible even in the absence of the state, if vast concentrations of wealth had been accumulated due to government-backed monopolies. Anarcho-capitalists believe that profit earned through consentual interactions are permissible, and generally praiseworthy.

Both anarcho-capitalists and traditional individualists do not object to unequal wealth distribution itself. [16] However, the traditional individualists believe that state-enforced monopolies on banking and land cause extreme accumulations of wealth in than hands of a privileged few.

Source requested for Kev's claim regarind Gambone and anarcho-capitalism

Kev, you say that Gambone does not regard anarcho-capitalism as indivualist anarchism. The quote your provided earlier was "For anarchists, capitalism is the result of the development of the state and therefore, all capitalism is in one sense, state capitalism." Where do you see anarcho-capitalism in that? What he's saying is that anarchists use the term "capitalism" in the sense of state capitalism. He says nothing of anarcho-capitalism. If you read his writings he usually refers to capitalism as "state capitalism," presumably precisely to avoid the confusion between stateless capitalism and state capitalism. Do you have any other source? That one clearly does not hold up. RJII 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it holds up. He is stating that for anarchists all capitalism is state capitalism. That is a direct attack on the concept of anarcho-capitalism. Kev 08:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I found this from Gambone which further explains his point: " I am a classical anarchist, although I have a great deal of respect for Free Market Libertarians. (hereafter FML's) One difference has to do with the definition of capitalism. When Proudhon, the first anarchist theorist, coined the term, he applied it to those who had gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government. Most of our FML friends, tend to regard capitalism the way Marxists do - they regard the essence of capitalism as exchange. Hence, anarchists are for free exchange but against capitalism and most FML's are for free exchange which they call capitalism, while at the same time they are opposed to government aided business - which they call mercantilism." My note: He's referring to modern libertarians as FML's, and he's right that classic anarchists used the term "capitalism" to refer to state-backed privilege rather than a free market situation. So, I'd say your using this guy as a source is a dead end. RJII 04:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of how the term is generally used, it fact remains that he stated explicitly that for anarchists all capitalism is state capitalism. Again, you can ignore this evidence if you want, but removing it in an attempt to bias the article is pretty low. Kev 08:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude, are you blind? RJII 13:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If it helps for you to understand, he was responding to a letter to him that said "Are you an anarchist or a libertarian? Although they mean essentially the same thing, here in the USA they fall on different end of the political spectrum. Anarchists would be considered ultra-left wing and libertarians definitely ultra-right wing. Libertarian ideas are very prevalent among business people here. They are pro-capitalist, meaning that they advocate the idea of unfettered capitalism...." One can definitely not conclude that he thinks anarcho-capitalism as anarcho-capitalists define capitalism as being incompatible with anarchism. He's making it clear that he opposes capitalism as traditional anarchists define it...which is state capitalism. He's making a very good point. The 19th century individualist anarchists also defined it that way. If you notice that whenever Tucker talks about capitalists he's explicitly talking about people that are working with the government to get favors. RJII 14:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

Revkat, explain this statement: "After anarchism split from Proudhon between collectivists and individualists, and the first generation of American individualist anarchists had passed away, anarcho-capitalism arose and claimed the influence of the early individualist anarchists." What are you trying to say? It makes no sense at all to me. RJII 16:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm merely reinserting a previously written statement. It looks to me as though it is indicating that anarcho-capitalism arose after the first generation of american individualists had passed away, and after anarchism had split from Proudhon between the individualist tradition and the collectivist tradition. I would assume it is refering to Tucker and Bakunin, but I dunno for sure. Revkat 17:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

..."after anarchism had split from Proudhon between the individualist tradition and the collectivist tradition." This is what doesn't make sense. It's horribly written whatever it's trying to say. Anarchism didn't split from Proudhon. Proudhon *was* an anarchist --an individualist anarchist. Some individuals, including Proudhonians, rebelled against Proudhon's support of private property and a market economy --and developed anarcho-communism. I have to delete the sentence ..it defies understanding. RJII 17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The individualist tradition as it stands today did not begin with Proudhon, it followed him. To call him an individualist comes from subsequent reading of him and comparing him to those who described themselves as individualists and followed from him. Some might read the individualists as closer to Proudhon than the collectivists, but that is a subjective call and not something to base wikipedia on. The fact is that both traditions claim him, both claims are legitimate in that each tradition borrowed some stuff while rejecting others, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that after Proudhon there was a split in anarchism. Revkat 17:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Even if that is true, this statement makes no sense: "anarchism split from Proudhon." Anarchism did NOT split from Proudhon. Proudhon WAS an anarchist. SOME ANARCHISTS split from Proudhon, but anarchism itself didn't split from Proudhon. The sentence defies logic. But, even if that is fixed, what it the point of the statement? Why is there? What does that have to do with individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism? It's bizarre. 18:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Radical Mallard's edits

"It has been difficult for many to actually accept that such capitalists may actually oppose the state since they do not in any way participate in opposing corporations and state corporate-welfare in protests or direct action." This is a false statement. This is from the anarcho-capitalism article: "One social structure that is not permissible under anarcho-capitalism is one that attempts to claim greater sovereignty than the individuals that form it. The state is a prime example, but another is the modern corporation — defined as a legal entity that exists under a different legal code than individuals as a means to shelter the individuals who own and run the corporation from possible legal consequences of acts by the corporation. It is worth noting that Rothbard allows a narrower definition of a corporation: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation [...]."[13] However, this is a very narrow definition that only shelters owners from debt by creditors that specifically agree to the arrangement; it also does not shelter other liability, such as from malfeasance or other wrongdoing." Also, anarcho-capitalists indeed oppose corporate welfare. And the stuff about cowboys and pirates being examples of individualist anarchists that oppose private property is just bizarre. There's other problems too --these edits needs some major reworking. RJII 13:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Page name?

Umm, did anyone else notice that the name of this page has a typo? Hbackman 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. LOL. RJII 03:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

Hey, so I was just thinking, just to add some more work onto the plate of getting this all straightened out :), it might be more effective to converge the arguments between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism to Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. As there is a dispute between Anarcho-Capitalism's existence amongst other factions of anarchism, it would seem to fit. Thoughts?

Dispute tags

Aaron, you're putting dispute tags on the article. Please discuss here what you think the problem is so we can remedy it. Don't put a dispute tag on an article without explaining. Where is the article POV? And, what specifically do you claim to be original research? RJII 21:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a hectic week, so, if it makes you happy, you can take down the tags. I'll put them back up this weekend when I have time to explain my reasoning. I would have done that in the first place, but I didn't think you'd mind waiting. If you do, that's fine. --AaronS 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If we must have a revert war, it may as well be over something other than content! —Tamfang 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironic, that an article about a dispute should be so disputed - even over whether not there is a dipute about the dispute! --albamuth 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0

I see that you have put some dispute tags in the article. However, you didn’t said what the problems are. -- Vision Thing -- 09:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)