Talk:Anarchism in the United States/Archive 1

Page one

I'm not going to attempt to edit this article because RJ had shown a history of edit-war behivior, proposes that wikipedia is a perpetual edit war, refuses to compromise or join in on any attempts to reach consensus (indeed mocks them), and pushes he POV regardless of the cited facts presented to him. As such, I will simply provide evidence and tag this with NPOV:

1) The follow claim is given no source and is highly POV, "While individual anarchists of the anti-capitalist tradition are still active today, most individualist anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists"

Not only is is questionable that anarcho-capitalists are individualists, but there is no evidence that "most" individualist anarchists consider themselves anarcho-capitalists (or even that most consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of individualism).

It is false that there is no source provided. The link to it is right there at the end of the sentence. It says "This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as "true" anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as "anarcho-capitalists", whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power." RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This source does not demonstrate its own claim, it merely makes it. As such, the article should list it as "so and so says" rather than fact. Further, its inappropriate for this opinion to shape the article itself and be so prominent, it should be mentioned further down. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

2) Wendy McElroy is listed as an individualist anarchist. This is POV, at most she should be listed as considering herself an individualist given that she actively rejects much of their tradition.

She is an individualist anarchist. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, she isn't. She calls herself an individualist anarchist, while rejecting much of their tradition. Kev 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes she is. She's just not a traditional one. RJII 16:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a violation of NPOV to call her an individualist when some people believe she is not. It is all the more a violation when all the founders of individualism would have not considered her one. Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, find a source that says she's not an individualist anarchist then. RJII 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist? Yes [[1]]Kev 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

3) There is almost NO new information in this article not already covered extensively in the individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalist, and individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. It is, in fact, merely a POV fork being used by RJ to stress those particular views of the individualists he wants to emphasize and repeat them over and over across several articles.

This is not true. The individualist anarchist article gives the impression that individualist anarchists support private property. That's not universally true unless you're talking about American anarchists. There are enough articles out there about American individualist anarchism as being unique that it deserves its own article. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to me that a sentence or two indicating the fact that not all individualists support private property is sufficient, whereas an entire article created solely with the purpose of hammering this fact into the reader is a bit of a soap-box. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What American individualist anarchist doesn't support private property? Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that an American individualist anarchist doesn't support private property, I said that this distinction could as easily be indicated by one or two sentences in the individualist article. All that you have done in this article is copy and paste sections from other articles to repeat what has already been said. Kev 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies include:

1) "Lysander Spooner is an individualist anarchist who apparently worked without association with the other individualists of the time, but came to approximately the same conclusions."

Lysander Spooner was in fact in association with individualists like Tucker. "...Lysander Spooner, an independent radical whose political and economic writings paralleled those of the better known group for many years. Regardless of the use made of his works, Spooner remained apart from the individualists except for brief instances of association during his later life..." -James J, Martin, Men against the State. I'll modify it to say "brief instances." RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

2) Repeatedly individualist anarchists are refered to as having "supported private property" even with such adjectives as "strongly". However, no referance at all is made to the distinctions between normative private property and possession. RJ is well aware of these distinctions from his edits on other pages, but is purposefully leaving them out to create the false impression that the property supported by the individualists is the same as that supported by other ideologies.

There is absolutely no difference in regard to the private property in the produce of labor that is supported by other ideologies. Private property is that which is rightfully possessed by an individual and which he has absolute dominion over. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

When the individualists rejected rent from private property, interest from private property, and some rejected wage entailed from private ownership of the means of production, I would say that constitutes something more than "absolutely no difference" in their conception of private property from that of other ideologies. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Man, don't you get it yet? Unworked land is not private property, for individualists. It's illegitimately-secured material. Private property is the produce of labor ..the classical liberal conception --that which an individual mixes with his labor is his property. Individualists anarchists believe in private property, that is, they believe in the liberty of an individual to possess the produce of his labor and have absolute dominion over it. This has nothing to do with land. What are you talking about when you say "some rejected wage entailed from private ownership of the means of production"? Are you talking about land? RJII 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the fact that unused land is not legitimate private property to individualist anarchists. I'm also aware of the fact that it is legitimate private property as private property is commonly refered to, thus when you say they STRONGLY advocated private property, and only except unused land in elipses, it creates a false impression. And no, I am not talking about land when I said that they rejected wage from private ownership of the means of production, I am talking about their advocacy of interest free banking, the absence of which they decried given the fact that the version of private property they supported was far more limited than what is commonly refered to and was limited in more ways than just "raw land", as you constantly insert into articles. Kev 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. Do you? "rejected wage from private ownership of the means of production"?? is that a typo? Are you saying that they oppose private ownership of the means of production? If so, you're wrong. It's only land that one does not work or occupy where private ownership is opposed. I don't understand why you're bringing up banking. Don't you realize that a printing press would be used to print currency? That's a means of production. What are you trying to say? RJII 16:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No RJ, I am saying that they reject wage profit earned as a result of the private ownership of the means of production. If you can't figure out what that means, I guess you will just remain confused. Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No shit that they reject profit, period. What's your point? RJII 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There rejection of profit is one of several limits they place on legitimate property use, thus the point that the form of property they support and advocate is limited relative to normative property relations, and beyond the single factor of unused land. Kev 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the philosophy. The limitation is not on how property may be used, but on what is allowable as property. If it's private property, dominion over it is absolute --it's not a "limited form" of private property, as you like to say. RJII 00:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

3) Thoreau is listed as an individualist anarchist. While this may or may not have been the case, he never refered to himself as such, and this fact should be noted, especially since he was a contemporary of the individualists anarchists to it is quite possible that he knew of their existence. Kev 06:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Which of these guys did call themselves "individualist anarchists."? What makes them individualist anarchists are their philosophy. These guys are widely regarded as being individualist anarchists. RJII 14:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Thoreau did not refer to himself as an anarchist, despite the fact that he was a contemporary of theirs. It is thus historical revisionism to claim that he is without indicating that this is a belief, rather than a fact. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. That can be fixed. I'll just delete Thoreau. But it's pretty obvious when a guy says that he is in favors the lack of all government that he's an anarchist. RJII 22:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Then it would have been very easy for him to describe himself as such. If he didn't, perhaps he felt there was something about anarchism that did not fit with his ideals. That was his call to make, not yours. Kev 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to call yourself an anarchist to be an anarchist. What the hell kind of reasoning is that? It's your philosophy of opposing the existence of government that makes you an anarchist. Did William Godwin call himself an anarchist? Did Max Stirner call himself an anarchist? Do you deny they're anarchists too? RJII 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what makes all your edits so POV RJ. You fail to even recognise the undeniable fact that many people today and throughout history believe that anarchism means more than simply anti-statism. Some of those people (like Sam Spade), believe it includes a number of undesirable things, while others (like Kropotkin) believe that it includes a number of desirable things. It is POV for you to write an article based on your personal view of what is and what is not anarchist. If Thoreau chose not to call himself an anarchist, perhaps it was because he felt there were other aspects besides anti-statism to the anarchist tradition that he did not identify with. Historical revisionism (like you have been consistently doing with Warren, for example) doesn't help anyone. And yes, I do deny that Stirner and Godwin are anarchists. Stirner because he denied it himself, Godwin because he predated the origin of the term as a self-description. That does not mean they are not generally considered anarchism, nor that their philosophies are not for the most part parallel to anarchism, it simply means they are not anarchists any more than Lao Tzu was. Kev 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! So, to be an anarchist you have to call yourself an anarchist. But, then when Wendy McElroy calls herself an anarchist you say she's not. Which is it?

Stop putting words in my mouth. Just because you need to distort what other people say in order to fit your tiny categories does not mean that I conform to your skewed reality. I did not say that to be an anarchist you have to call yourself an anarchist. I am saying that for wikipedia to neutrally present someone as an anarchist, given that the definition of anarchism is so contested, requires that they believe it themselves. As for McElroy, self-description as an anarchists is a necessary condition to being refered to as an anarchists, but not a sufficient one. If it was then the definition of anarchism would not only be contested, it would be non-existent. Kev 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

But you're wrong. One doesn't have to call themselves an anarchist to be one. Does one have to call themselves a human to be one? You've got some really screwed up philosophy. A thing is what it is simply by virtue of it being that thing. One can say he is whatever he wants to say he is, but the fact remains that he is what he is. RJII 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you are purposefully misrepresenting me. I did not say that someone has to call themselves an anarchists in order to be one. In fact, I JUST told you that I didn't say it, so you clearly are either unable to read, unable to understand, or simply playing games. If its the first, learn, if its the second, I'm truly sorry, if its the third, go fuck off. Kev 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you did say that someone has to call themselves an anarchist in order to be one: "self-description as an anarchists is a necessary condition to being refered to as an anarchists, but not a sufficient one." There you have it. That's obviously your position. If someone doesn't call himself an anarchist then he can't be one, according to you. You're wrong. What makes someone an anarchist is their philosophy. RJII 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You have intentionally taken my words out of context in order to misrepresent them. As I said above, I do not believe that this is a general principle. I believe that in the specific case of a contested term in the context of an encyclopedia with a neutral POV policy it would be non-neutral to present someone who did not consider themselves to be an anarchist as one, as it would imply support of a particular definition of anarchism over and above all the rest, thus breaking any attempt to remain neutral in regards to the issue of the definition of anarchism. But I already made this very clear. If you insist on being intellectuall dishonest and representing what I say apart from the context of everything I have said, then I have no choice but to ignore your appeals. Kev 07:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Does your philosophy make you an anarchist or does calling yourself make you one? Obviously, the philosophy is what's important.

Of course, but as always you go for a false dichotomy. My answer to your false either/or is "both". And I agree with your second sentence, but that doesn't mean I ignore the other evidence. Kev 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're on your own claiming that Godwin is not an anarchist. Don't push your POV in these articles. If you find a source saying that Godwin or the others are not anarchists, then fine. But until then, keep it to yourself. RJII 17:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, many people believe that Godwin was a proto-anarchist. But that is beside the point. The burden of proof is on you to prove the positive assertion that Godwin is an anarchist, not on me to prove the negative assertion that he isn't. If you can find people saying that he is an anarchist, that is sufficient to claim that some people consider him an anarchist. If you can find many such people, that is sufficient to say that many consider him an anarchist. If everyone you find considers him such, that is sufficient to say that he is considered such (which is precisely what the Warren article said about Warren before you started butchering it). If he did not consider himself an anarchist, it is factually incorrect to call him one, just as it would be wrong to trot over the the Lao Tzu article and state definitively that he was an anarchist just because a large number of people consider him to have been one and there is no evidence in existence of anyone claiming that he wasn't one, just as it would be wrong to edit the Jesus Christ article stating prominently that he was an anarchist just because the christian anarchists believe he was one and no one can dig up evidence of someone explicitly saying otherwise. The burden of proof is basic logic RJ, learn it before you demand evidence from me.

But hey RJ, I like your logic. I think I'm going to head over to the Rothbard article and state that he was a motherfucker. Not only does he fit the definition, but I can cite people who have refered to him as such, and I'm willing to bet you won't be able to find any evidence of someone saying that he wasn't a motherfucker. Gee, this is fun. No... wait, operating under your standards is just lame. Kev 18:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're freaking out over nothing. RJII 14:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll note your personal opinion, for however much I think it is worth. Kev 22:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

RJII - Your portrayal of individualist anarchism is TOTALLY skewd (as pointed out above) towards pro-capitalist, 19th cent libertarians. Please leave the NPOV banner. -max rspct 18:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

19th century libertarians were AGAINST capitalism --against profit. These anti-capitalist libertarians are what this article is mainly about. There is only a small section on pro-capitalist anarchism --the anarcho-capitalism section. Your objection is incoherent. RJII 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-capitalist libertarians?? Oh come off it -" Private property rights includes a right to own the means of production (capital)," -max rspct 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

By most modern definitions of capitalism, it includes profiting. If there is no profit involved it's not capitalism. It's mutualism. If you want to say mutualism is the same thing as capitalism, fine, but individualist anarchism still EXISTS. I don't understand what your complaint is. You want to the article to be deleted so we can all pretend that there is no such thing? RJII 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have already given the reason above. The article is FULL of POV RJ. max rspct 13:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's start going through it then. Point out a statement that is POV and we'll fix it if it truly is. If you can't point anything out, you shouldn't be taken seriously. RJII 13:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

For a start "William B. Greene did not become a full-fledged anarchists until late in life" . I do not always have the time (unlike people like yourself i am neither retired nor paid to inhabit contoversial pages like this one) so you will have to suffer the banner and bear with me. -max rspct 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"[Greene's] life touched the radical movement with intensity only at intervals, and his conversion to full-fledged anarchist beliefs occupied only the last ten years of his life, despite an intimate acquaintanceship of a full three decades." (Men Against the State: Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908 by James J. Martin).

Next? RJII 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatddya mean? Fully-fledged anarchist beliefs? Is this right-wing libertarian (your "individualist anarchists"/anarcho-capitalists) or anarchist as in against social hierachy/capitalism? I note that the author of the book on WB Greene et al is an evangelical revisionist associated with the Institute for Historical Review (neo-nazi Holocaust denial). -max rspct 13:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course Greene was opposed to capitalism ..like the rest of the classical individualist anarchists. The sentence is just pointing out that it's only in the last 10 years of his life that his writings were explicitly anarchist (most people are probably not anarchists for the entire length of their lives). Is it that you don't think he was ever an anarchist? This statement by him in Mutual Banking is certainly anarchist: "Mutualism operates, by its very nature, to render political government, founded on arbitrary force, superfluous." By the way, that Martin book was written in 1953, so it's hardly "revisionist." It's considered a classic in the subject of individualist anarchism. Need a few more sources? "Individualist and mutualist anarchists like William Greene [Mutual Banking], Benjamin Tucker [Instead of a Book), and J. B. Robertson [The Economics of Liberty] viewed the money monopoly as central to the capitalist system of privilege." -(The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand by Kevin A. Carson). "Tucker met the anarchists Josiah Warren and William B. Greene in 1872 at a meeting of the New England Labor Reform League" [2] "The American anarchist, William Batchelder Greene recalled that he joined the order while overseas, studying the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and other French revolutionaries." [3] Dude, Greene is widely known as a being anarchist. RJII 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Banner suggestion to merge with minarchism

Max, are you out of your mind? Individualist anarchists are not minarchists. RJII 13:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Robert Nozick is on the minarchism page - Is he not an American individualist anarchist? Perhaps it should be merged with Anarcho-capitalism then? It's all part of pro-capitalist liberarianism...

This from the Anarcho-capitalism article - "Its grounding in liberalism is demonstrated by the assertion of many anarcho-capitalists that the first anarcho-capitalist was Gustave de Molinari, who argued for a free market and against a state monopoly on force" If thats your definition of Anarcho-C.. then it's almost synomynous (spellin?) with American individualist anarchism.

"..Likewise, Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists referred to "capitalism" they "meant state capitalism, the alliance of government and business."[24] This is something that anarcho-capitalists also oppose." (anarcho-capitalism article)

Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Wendy McElroy, refer to themselves simply as "individualist anarchists," however the term is usually used in reference to the classical individualists. All the radical American individualists oppose the initiation of coercion and fraud, believing that force should be reserved for defense. (American individualist anarchism article)

Is there that much of a distiction? Really it's all just right-wing libertarianism. The Anarchism tag is on both articles...but really, Anarcho-capitalism is the only living (well at least in academia), contemporary philosophy as is indicated in the Libertarianism template. Actually, I would be more than happy to rename THIS article something like "Early American libertarianism". Does that whet yer palate? -max rspct 21:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not all libertarians are anarchists, so no. Individualist anarchism is real and well-recognized. The distinction between classical individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (which is a newer form of individualist anarchism) is that the latter do not adhere to the labor theory of value. So, unlike the original radical individualists they don't oppose profiting from capital (capitalism). RJII 22:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you're going to put that vote for move notice on the article, you need to list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. RJII 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not notably anarchist! The 'individualist anarchists' are only pro-capitalist ones. They really are right-wing libertarians (the name given to this bunch years ago when it was obvious they weren't anarchists) The requested move has been requested. -max rspct 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course they are notably anarchist. I've never heard of anyone disputing that other than you. "Right libertarian" and "right anarchism" applies to anarcho-capitalism. Classical individualist anarchism is not typically seen as "right anarchism" since it opposes profiting from capital (aka capitalism). Though, it's not quite left-anarchism either, becuase it supports private property. RJII 19:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

American individualist anarchism → Early American libertarianism – Reasons: Creator of the page has written most of it.. and keeps creating new POV riddled pages when he can't get his edits accepted by other editors within other pages ..eg. Anarchism; Hence the Anarchist title misleading/dubious. Subjects are well within right-wing libertarianism and are pro-capitalist by orientation (not especially notable but more importantly not connected in any way with the 20th/21th century anarchist philosophy and movement). -max rspct 14:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. Individualist anarchism is a well-recognized anarchist school of thought. And, it's not merely "Early American" but continues to this day. It would make no sense at all to move it to such a title. "Max rspct" is apparently on a POV mission to monopolize the term "anarchism" to only include communist-type anarchism. RJII 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support --harrismw 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Discision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Max's deletion

Max, you deleted the statement: "Though most of these individualist oppose titles to unused land, as a general rule, they oppose violent expropriation. Rather, they prefer to educate the populace on their labor theory of value and effect evolutionary change." This is well-known. If you disagree, what individualist anarchist favors violent expropriation of unused land? RJII 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Individualists anarchists and anarcho-capitalists

I previously removed this statement because it was not supported by the text, "While individual anarchists of the anti-capitalist tradition are still active today, most individualist anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists according to Keith Preston Capitalism versus Free Enterprise."

In the text Preston does not state that most individualist anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. Rather, he states that most free market anarchists refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. This is a very different statement, as all it indicates is that there aren't very many individualists today.

The text goes on to extrapolate more information not found in the source material, "Contemporary individualists in the anti-capitalism tradition, such as Joe Peacott, hold that anarcho-capitalism is a non-traditional form of individualist anarchism [4] "

Joe Peacott does not say this in the article, what he does say is that people who are anarcho-capitalists call themselves individualist anarchists, "There are all sorts of people who label themselves individualist anarchists and we often disagree among ourselves both about what to do now, and what the future might look like. For instance, the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists. However, there are other individualists, like myself and the individualists of the past, such as Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, and John Henry Mackay, who reject capitalism as much as they reject communism." In fact, in other texts he is much more clear on this point, stating explicitly that individualist anarchism is anti-capitalist and contrasting it to anarcho-capitalism, "At the opposite end of the anarchist spectrum are the anarchist capitalists, who envision a form of capitalism without the state, which would bear little resemblance to the economic system which goes by the same name today...There is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists" [5]

Further, while someone went out of their way to squeeze the very few instances of individualists and other anarchists being ambiguous on these points, they did nothing to give the overwhelming evidence that most anarchists of all varieties believe that individualism is anti-capitalist. So I will make all this clear in the text. Revkat 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Preston, he indeed says the most free-market anarchists today refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists. Maybe you're not realizing that the classical individualist anarchists were free-market anarchists. He's saying that most free-market anarchists today are anarcho-capitalists, rather than anti-capitalist free-market anarchists. Free-market anarchists and individualist anarchists are the same thing in this context. Regarding Peacott, maybe you missed this: "For instance, the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists." Obviously he's saying that they're individualist anarchists. RJII 22:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

He is saying that they refer to themselves and individualists. In another article, he makes it very explicit that individualists are anti-capitalist and contrasted with anarcho-capitalists, as the quote I already gave demonstrates. As for Preston, yes he is saying that most market anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, that does not in any way entail that most individualists are anarcho-capitalists, only that there are more anarcho-capitalists today than there are individualists. Again, you are adding a lot of interpretation that is unsupported, and at times even contradicted, by the text. 01:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Peacott indeed says that anarcho-capitalists are individualists: "the capitalist anarchists, like Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, and the Voluntaryists, are individualists." Dispute it all you want ..it's as plain as day. As far as Preston, you're ignoring that he's using individualist anarchism and free market anarchism interchangeably: "This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as "true" anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as "anarcho-capitalists", whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power." Everybody knows that anarcho-capitalists are individualists --they're certainly not collectivists! RJII 03:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Peacott also says that individualist anarchists reject capitalism, "There is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists" Dispute it all you want... its as plain as day. As for Preston, he is not using the terms interchangably, he never indicates that he is, and you have obviously run out of evidence. Your claim seems to be supported only by your assumptions, until you have actual evidence to back your claim beyond "anarcho-capitalists are individualists" because "everybody knows that" you are out of luck. It is strange that "everybody knows" this when Tucker didn't know it, Larry Gambone, Peter Sabatini, Iain McKay and Daniel Burton all seem to think it isn't true, and your best evidence that it is gives no such indication other than your own extrapolations. If anarcho-capitalists are individualist anarchists, why are all those individualists railing against capitalists all the time? Gee, they must be pretty confused. You should set them straight right away. First step, give some evidence of this undeniable fact. Revkat 06:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

How convenient for you to leave out the last part of second sentence out of the quote from Peacott above. Let's look at the whole sentence: "There is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists, who originated in the United States in the 1800s." It's clear he's talking about the original individualists and those who follow in that tradition. And, to answer your question "Why are all those individualists railing against capitalists all the time?" Because they were opposed to government-backed monopoly on credit and land (their definition of capitalism). Anarcho-capitalists are NOT collectivists. They're individualists who support profit making. Now, whether they're actually anarchists is where some debate could come in, but whether they are individualists is indisputable and is taken from granted by modern individualists in the classical tradition. Gambone explains the definitional issue. By the classical anarchist definition, anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism. Contemporary individualists in the 19th century tradition generally recognize that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and all, of course, accept without question that they're individualists. I know of none that think they're collectivists. RJII 14:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course RJ, I'm trying to cover up the fact that the individualists have been around for more than 100 years. I'm sneaky that way. Your interpretation that he is "only" talking about the individualists is not merited from the text, he is simply explaining when they originated, not implying that there is some "other" group of individualists who originated at another time.

I agree with you that anarcho-capitalists are not collectivists. This does not make them individualist anarchists, a tradition which rejects capitalism (at least according to the copious amounts of evidence I've supplied so far, in contrast to the one or two ambiguous quotes you dug up while at the same time ignoring statements by those same authors that contradicted your point). And I agree with who wholly, the question is whether or not they are anarchists, but you keep conflating the term "individualist" with "individualist anarchist" as though the two are synonymous, but we both know they are not. Now if there are so many contemporary individualists who believe that anarcho-capitalism is both anarchist and individualist, then why do they all say so explicitly that individualism is anti-capitalist? Really, you are only going around in circles here, you know the evidence does not support your viewpoint, and are only hoping to convince me by extrapolation. Sorry, the text reads differently, and can most certainly be interpreted differently then the round-about approach you are taking. Revkat 15:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I already answered that question. By capitalism, the classical individualists mean government-backed privilege for capital. Anarcho-capitalists also oppose capitalism as the classical individualists define it. Gambone explains this. RJII 15:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

overlap with Anarchism in the English tradition

There's overlap between these two articles American individualist anarchism. Maybe they should be restructured/merged.

Not sure how to handle that. For now, I'll put in a link to that article. RJII 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a merging of the two articles, together with an explicit acknowledgement that the category of "individualist anarchist" is partially anachronistic (in the sense that you'll be hard put to find anyone calling themselves an individualist anarchist prior to the 1870s) and hotly contested. NPOV can be maintained, I think, by acknowledging that the label "individualist anarchist" has always covered over a certain number of key differences, which can then be laid out clearly in the sub-sections. To lump Greene's explicitly Christian mutualism with Warren's individual sovereigntyism and the projects of Proudhon is both historically inaccurate and takes no account of the testimonies of the various early theorists. To begin with the opposition of individualist anarchism to "collectivism" can't help but be presentist and violate the NPOV rule, unless you can clarify your starting points and then deal adequately with the history. Again, focusing on Greene, his occasionally strong statements against "socialism" don't change the fact that he never seems to have abandoned the assumption, derived from Pierre Leroux's work, that human beings were unable to exercise the "holy" work of individual development without taking care of their connections to the "collective Adam."

If there's interest in tackling the merger in a historical fashion, taking account of contests over the meaning and content of the tradition, I would be happy to collaborate. Libertatia 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I [don't?] think know what you mean by a "lumping together." There is nothing wrong with having an article devoted to the American individualists. It doesn't mean they agree on everything. As long as you discuss the philosophy of each one, what is the problem? RJII 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing inherently "wrong" with a separate article for the Americans. There is also nothing wrong with discussing folks who wouldn't have thought of themselves as "individualist anarchists" in an article on that topic as long as it's clear what is being described and in what (presentist) terms it is being described. All of us doing historical research in this area have inherited arguably deceptive categories and analyses. I have an enormous respect for James Martin's work. (He was, by the way, explicitly a "revisionist" in the Harry Elmer Barnes tradition.) But Men Against the State probably wouldn't stand a Wikipedia NPOV examination for very long. He does, in fact, "lump together" mutualists, individual sovereigntyists, etc as precursors to the egoist individualism that is his primary, partisan concern.

I would think that in a case like this a primary criteria for deciding how many and what kinds of articles are developed would be the efficient presentation of clear facts in well-defined contexts. My personal sense, based on my researches, is that the differences between American individualist anarchists and other individualist anarchists are not greater than the differences between American individualist anarchists. The category of individualist anarchist itself seems to be presentist, and therefore to need some explicit explanation in the article regarding its origins and importance. It seems like we can achieve a clear, NPOV article more efficiently by combining the American and English discussions. Libertatia 19:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The first American anarchist?

The caption of the picture at the top of the page says "Josiah Warren is the first American anarchist". Any way to prove this? Let's suppose that a billionth of a second before the Declaration of Independence was enacted, a cobbler in Boston decided that government was unnessecary. Wouldn't that guy be the first American anarchist?

Ok, so he's the first known American anarchist then. RJII 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, he is known as the first American anarchist, thanks in large part to Bailie's book of the same name. Until there is some clarification of the article's criteria for inclusion, it's hard to know how to tackle this. Libertatia 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a PDF of Bailie's book here. Enjoy!

Max's deletions

Can you explain your deletions? Let's go through them one at a time.

• "American individualist anarchism includes strong advocacy of private property and a competitive free market economy. It is sometimes called market anarchism"

calling all American individualist anarchists as pro-private property is inaccurate and a generalisation. Even calling Tucker's philosophy is contentious/debatable - max rspct leave a message 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous claim. Anyone moderately familiar with labor/value individualist anarchism knows that they support private property. It's essential to their philosophy. Maybe you don't know what private property is. Private property is that which is owned by an individual, as opposed by the community collectively or by the state. They even use the term "private property." So, this objection of yours is baseless. RJII 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Despite the rejection of capitalism (in the sense of a profit-making system) by classical individualists, anarcho-capitalists who adopt the subjective theory of value have no such opposition to profit."

This article (that you started) is supposed to be about American individualist anarchists not anarcho-capitalists - edit that article for this. -max rspct leave a message 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

American individualist anarchists include anarcho-capitalists. This article merely focuses on the labor/value individualists since that's who the term is most associated with.

• "Some anarcho-capitalists, such as Wendy McElroy, refer to themselves simply as "individualist anarchists." However, the term is usually used in reference to the classical individualists, and its use by anarcho-capitalists is highly contentious"

speaks for itself -max rspct leave a message 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note that even though some anarcho-capitalists call themselves individualist anarchists, the article is focusing on labor/value individualists. That is an aid to the reader.

• "Most of the radical American individualists oppose the initiation of coercion and fraud, believing that force should be reserved for defense." (that should be all actually)

What is what context is coercian and fraud used? If you are extending this attitude to cover all American individualist anarchists (which would be inaccurate anyway) why have you used that in refering to "American individualists" -max rspct leave a message 15:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Coercion is the initiation of physical force or the threat of it. Fraud is stealing through dishonesty rather than physical force. What do you mean "which would be inaccurate anyway." Please name an American individualist that supports coercion and fraud? This is an important part of their philosophy --and hence, why they're libertarians. RJII 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On coercion and fraud I would like to point out that (in the absence of my collins english dictionary) the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists two things under coercion -

1 : to restrain or dominate by force 2 : to compel to an act or choice 3 : to bring about by force or threat

On fraud 1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

Now obviously it is unlikely that any philosopher or pundit would straight out admit to accepting either coercion and fraud. But on closer look it seems it all depend on what one is talking about. So further elaboration is needed. Would you exclude Voltairine de Clayre, Emma Goldman etc and put them as being outside the American individualist anarchist tradition if they advocated squatting, occupation of workplaces, civil disobedience (breaking of capitalist laws) and physical resistance to Lock-outs? Also, in the article you keep refering to "American Individualists" Or do you hold this to be synomynous with American individualist anarchists? Almost anyone in politics in the past 200 years would probably describe themselves as individualist or 'pro-individual'.
I think your claim that "Anyone moderately familiar with labor/value individualist anarchism knows that they support private property." is only marginally accurate when talking of a select bunch of individualists.. As as the article says they "oppose coercive privilege that they believe keeps capital concentrated in the hands of a few." But I think you would need to rename the article as it is toooo much of a generalisation when talking about 19th century american anarchists as individualism and equal liberty is at the core of anarchist philosophy. Over Xmas I managed to read some of Avrich's "An American Anarchist: Life of Voltairine De Cleyre" Very interesting stuff and her advocacy of debate and interaction between the various shades of anarchism quite emblematic in many ways. -- max rspct leave a message 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Emma Goldman was a commmunist, not an individualist. 2) The American individualists (individualist in this article is simply shorthand for individualist anarchist) opposed the use of coercion (physical force) unless used in response coercion --this is standard libertarian tenet. As a result, they abhored the use of violence (propaganda by the deed) and wished to dissosciate themselves from the violent communist anarchists. RJII 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No - your cunning 'shorthand' is misleading please don't do that. Emma Goldman was a communist? Are you joking? She was an anarchist and you know it. Why are you continously blurring distinctions? -max rspct leave a message 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

""Miss Goldman is a communist; I am an individualist. She wishes to destroy the right of property, I wish to assert it." -DeCleyre And, look at the lead sentence in the Emma Goldman article: "Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869 – May 14, 1940) was a Lithuanian-born anarcho-communist known for her anarchist writings and speeches." Everybody knows Goldman was a communist. Why don't you go try and change that if you think that's false? RJII 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As you well know - communist is not the same as or does not equal anarcho-communist -max rspct leave a message 16:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It does when we're talking in the context of anarchism! RJII 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You reverted back with the comment: "pov - calling all indi anarchists is america pro-capitalist esp. when they are against surplus value/land ownership is so badly inaccurate RJ" Where is that claim made? All it says is that anarcho-capitalists sometimes call themselves individualist anarchists, but that's is controverial use of the term, because the term is most often applied to those that are not capitalist --the labor-value anarchists. Let me ask you a serious question. Is english not your first language? Your edits and comments always seem really bizarre --like you're not reading and understanding. RJII 17:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No original research

This article has little to nothing in terms of reliable sources. Because of this, as well as the fact that this is a relatively obscure topic, I believe that there may be some original research. This can lead to point of view issues. I will expand on this in due time. --AaronS 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources

Many claims in this article are uncited. I will compile a list of uncited claims in due time. --AaronS 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Due to problems with sources and original research, I feel that this article might not present a neutral point of view. Namely, I am concerned that there are not many, if any, third-party (secondary or tertiary) sources backing up what is presented in the article. I will expand on this in due time. --AaronS 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

RJII's removal of tags

Please do not remove tags that have been placed in the article by other editors. --AaronS 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't violate policy by putting an NPOV tag on an article without explaining why in Talk so the perceived NPOV problem can be fixed. RJII 03:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't have time to be on Wikipedia all day. I believe that the policy, anyway, is to explain the reasons for the tag on the discussion page shortly afterwards, not immediately afterwards. --AaronS 03:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that you removed the tags again. Please stop. I've already commenced the discussion. Please take note of WP:3RR. Thanks. --AaronS 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're violating policy by placing an NPOV tag on an article without explaining why. Don't put it back until you explain why. Just saying you think it's POV is not good enough. RJII 03:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where the policy says that. --AaronS 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:NPOV "explain your reasons on the talk page of the disputed article." The tag is supposed to be a tool so we can fix any possible NPOV problem. If you can't articulate what the problem is the tag shouldn't be there. How is anyone supposed to know what to fix? You need to point to any specific NPOV problems you see so they can be fixed. RJII 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the policy. This is. Now, please review WP:3RR. I'd appreciate it if you ceased to revert my edits. --AaronS 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the 3RR, now you need to review it. Everyone is allowed 3 reverts. RJII 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

19th century definition of socialism

Webster's dictionary from 19th century: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Albert R. Parsons, What is Anarchism? Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, as Defined by Some of its Apostles (Chicago, 1887) This explains why some of the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves "socialists" while at the same time supporting private property (including the means of production) and opposing collectivism. Just for the record. RJII 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to consider what is meant by the word "harmonious." In the nineteenth century, harmonism and harmonists were precursors to socialists in the sense that we understand socialism. --AaronS 04:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Yet, historian Arthur E. Bestor, Jr. noted in his 1948 essay on socialist terminology that, between 1864 and 1914, "the most remarkable fact about socialist terminology was its relative stability. The general acceptance of socialism as the comprehensive name for the movement was largely responsible."[7]" Why even add that in? What value does it add? I think that only confuses things. Obviously Bestor wasn't aware of the individualist anarchist usage. Or, what "movement" is he referring to? RJII 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC) The same for "In 1880, even the conservative president of Yale University, Theodore D. Woolsey, considered socialism to be revolutionary, militant, and Marxist.[8]" Why?? Maybe you can put that in the socialism article. It's not relevant here. RJII 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was aware of it. In that essay, he discusses Proudhon's mututalism and the usage of the word individualism in relation to socialism. He claims that the two words were "paired." I added the quote, because you wanted proof that your wee Parsons quote was not the whole story. I think that it is very relevant for maintaining a NPOV. Otherwise, we risk writing away the socialist influences of individualism. Individualism is not so individualistic and socialism is not so socialistic as you might think. --AaronS 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What socialist influences of individualism? RJII 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are individualists who do not ascribe to the current notion of private property. You cannot deny that individualists themselves called themselves socialists. You are trying to do so by re-writing the contemporary definition of socialism, but you can't do that, either. That's not just original research, it's false. --AaronS 04:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course they subscribed to private property. What are you talking about? RJII 04:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the kind of private property that we or other capitalists/non-socialists ascribe to. --AaronS 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They mean exactly the same thing by "private property" as capitalists do. RJII 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion with you. You clearly have your own POV on this issue. The fact of the matter is that the individualists called themselves socialists, and they were well aware of the contemporary definition and understanding of the term. --AaronS 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How could they be aware of the contemporary definition? Could they see into the future? Obviously they didn't adhere to the definition that had to do with wealth sharing. What are you trying to do here? You're trying to equate them to communism. This is proposterous. RJII 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Being such an avid fan of Merriam-Webster, I figured that you of all people would have a proper understanding of the word "contemporary." Thomas Jefferson was John Adams' contemporary. Does that mean he was friends with Marty McFly, too? No. --AaronS 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to associate individualist anarchism with communism. It's ludicrous. RJII 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am balancing out your attempt to re-write the contemporary definition of socialism. That's all. Not everything is a big dark conspiracy. --AaronS 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rewrite the contemporary definition of anarchism. I accept the definition in Merriam-Webster [6]. All I was trying to do is to relieve the reader of some confusion when he sees that some of them called it "socialism." All you're doing is making it even more confusing just because you want to, wrongly, link it with communism. Look at it; it's a big mess now because I had to rebut your attempts to associate individualism with communism. Clearly, there is nothing communistic about individualist anarchism. RJII 05:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you accept that definition, since it really hasn't changed all that much since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Your edits have distinctly implied that there is nothing socialistic about individualist anarchism; that's misleading. You seem to want to imply that there is a stark, unassailable, binary dichotomy between socialism and individualism; that's misleading. My edits are just balancing that out. --AaronS 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept that definition as the contemporary definition --today's definition. The individualists anarchists are obviously not using that definition. There is a "stark binary dichotomy" between THAT definition of socialism and individualism. That's all I'm trying to point out. People today seeing the term "socialism" are accepting the modern definition of socialism and of course are going to be confused, so it needs to be pointed out that this is not what we're talking about when we say "socialism" in the article. 18:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't? Says who? Besides the definition that you provided from Parsons, which might be talking about socialism in terms of harmonism, I've never seen a definition of socialism that doesn't in some way incorporate some notion of at least some amount of collective ownership or limitation of liberal ownership. --AaronS 18:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's self-evident that they're not using that definition. They don't wish to abolish property property and collectivize the means of production. It looks like you're one of the people that needs the clarification in the article. It's precisely the confusion you're having that I'm trying to prevent by noting this in the article. RJII 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all definitions of socialism are so extreme. You're attempt to ease the confusion, however, does not demonstrate this fact. Rather, it defines socialism in a way that goes against all other definitions of socialism. It is possible to be a socialist and only be against some aspects of liberal ownership; it is possible to be a socialist and only advocate some level of collectivization. Your dichotomy might make things as clear as the difference between black and white, but that's not very accurate, because the difference is not so stark. --AaronS 18:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

SOMETHING needs to be said to show that they don't agree with the modern definition of socialism. I can't understand why you're trying to obscure it with all this nonsense. They fully support private property in the produce of labor (including means of production, capital) and a market economy to trade that produce --that's liberalism. What they don't support is private property in land (actually a few of them do), BUT they don't support collective ownership in it either. It's not related to the modern definition of socialism, and that needs to be made clear to HELP THE READER. Why confuse the reader? RJII 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, liberalism is more Lockean. That's mutualism. There's nothing confusing if we fully explain the individualist positions and then also note that they embrace a different approach to private property and also call themselves socialists. I'm not obsfucating anything. It may be clearer to the reader to say "They called themselves socialists, but they didn't mean it," but that's not honest. Accuracy is more important than simplicity. Simplicity is very important, but accuracy should never be sacrificed for it. --AaronS 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they have a different approach to property? What is different? Even Jefferson felt that there was no natural right to property in land, yet he was a liberal by every sense of the term --not a socialist. How are mutualists different in their approach to property??? RJII 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's your citation for this: "However, individualist anarchists opposed the communist notion of "common ownership," unless capital was created collectively." ? It sounds like you're trying to associate it with communist ideas where because something is made by the division of labor it then becomes owned collectively --a communist argument. The individualist didn't argue that. If a machine is made by the division of labor it belongs to whomever paid the laborers to produce it.RJII 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If nobody paid them to produce it, then what? --AaronS 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would they work without being paid for it? That would be communism. "Labor should be paid! Horrible, isn't it?" -Tucker criticising communism RJII 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Use your imagination. Forty people get together and decide to build something -- a mill, for instance. In an individualist society, the mill would then be collectively owned. --AaronS 15:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing individualistic about that. They didn't advocate that. They were arguing AGAINST collectivism, even if it was voluntary believing it to be unnatural and unnecessarily causing discontent and confusion. Of course, they would allow that, but they don't make such a point. Your statement implies that they do. RJII 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Greene is quite clear that the mutual bank would be supplemented by cooperatives in the realm of production and consumption. The "associated workshop" model of the time seems to have involved shared ownership of some basic capitals. The hard line you're trying to draw might apply to Warren—though the details of "cooperation without combination" come close to joint ownership at times—and to the liberty egoists. Spooner may fit. Greene absolutely doesn't. Some distinctions need to be made, or some generalizations need to be dropped. Libertatia 16:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you define a "cooperative," preferably with a source or quote from Greene? RJII 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go you one better. I'll have the whole 1850 Mutual Banking in a corrected edition online in the next couple of days. Then we can squabble with some confidence. ;) Libertatia 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a mutual bank is a collectivist means of production, anymore than a normal bank is.In normal banking, everybody's savings accounts goes into a big pool and it's loaned out to individuals from that pool, it doesn't make it "socialist" by the modern understanding of the term. RJII 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

European influences

• The case simply can't be made that, "Their intellectual development was not influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas, but rooted in the liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence." This presupposes that the tradition of the Declaration was not "influenced by European libertarian or radical ideas," which we might question. But we absolutely know that Tucker was influenced by Proudhon directly, and by Greene, who was deeply influenced by a variety of European sources, notably Proudhon and his fellow 48ers Pierre Leroux and Philippe Buchez. Libertatia 19:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. It should also be noted that the question of property was an important one in founding the United States. There was much debate between those who wanted to enshrine property rights and those who believed that the unequal distribution of property would destroy republican democracy. There is a reason why Jefferson did not write "Life, liberty and property," but rather "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I actually have a scholarly essay that deals explicitly with this question. When I get home, I'll review it. --AaronS 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson didn't believe in a natural right to property in LAND. RJII 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was also very concerned with the unequal distribution of property. --AaronS 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you going to say now. He was a socialist? RJII 19:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Senator McCarthy, I am not. --AaronS 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He was certainly not concernd about "unequal distribution of property." There is a difference between being concerned about equal distribution, and equitable distribution. The individualists were not for equalizing wealth, and recognized liberty lead to inequalities in wealth. What they found startling was the HUGE disproportionate accumulations that some had, which they felt was due to state intervention. Tucker felt this was because of the lack of free banking. RJII 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that he was. I'll have the reference soon. Jefferson was not afraid of state intervention -- the state governments were far more dangerous to the free market than the federalists hoped the new national government to be. --AaronS 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

True. I've been meaning to fix that. The quote was talking about the origins, and that does need to be made clear --it's talking about Warren and Andrews. Warren and Andrews weren't directly influenced by the Europeans as far as I know. They had no knowledge of Proudhon. RJII 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you had better check on Andrews. The guy who spoke a couple of dozen languages and wrote the treatises on "Universology" was certainly familiar with Fourier and Comte, and deeply influenced by both. I have the universological texts at home, so I can check a bit more soonish. Warren was certainly influenced by Owen, and would have known Gray's work. Again, this is checkable. The New Harmony Gazette is on Proquest, if you have university access. Libertatia 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I forgot about Owen. He rejected Owen's philosophy, but I think he still had some influence. I don't like the quote much either, but I was trying to defend against Aaron's trying to equate individualism with communism. RJII 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor you. :( I wasn't equating individualism with communism at all. I was providing contemporary definitions of socialism. That's all. --AaronS 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can we acknowledge that this is a question that needs some more work? And not do quite so much turf-defense in the editing? Proudhon says straight out that he is "synthesizing" (early) or "balancing" (late) "property and communism." Equating the two is going to be inaccurate, but the stark divide approach is also going to lead us astray. Greene is balancing socialism, capitalism and communism. Maybe if we do the work to clarify this apparent contradiction in early mutualism, some of our other problems will disappear. Personally, I think the entry should be inclusive. But is needs to be accurate above all. Libertatia 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Note this is American individualism, so Proudhon's influence might count, but not his philosophy per se. RJII 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But the two explicit mutualists of the period agree on the point, and subsequent individualists acknowledge influence from both. Libertatia 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson, antifederalists, and property

For your enjoyment:

• "The American revolutionaries developed a clear calculus for personal and social morality... 'a rage for profit and commerce,' qualities attributed to Georgian England, were bad... [while] 'prudence, virtue and economy' were good." Michael Kammen, "'The Rights of Property, and the Property in Rights': The Problematic Nature of 'Property' in the Political Thought of the Founders and the Early Republic," Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution, State University of New York Press, (1989) 5-6.
• "The fulfillment of Revolutionary aspirations for individual liberty could lead--indeed, had already led--to the acquisition of private property beyond any reasonable degree consistent with republican values." Kammen at 6.
• "In his draft of a constitution for Virginia, Jerfferson proposed that fifty acres of land be given to every grown man who lacked real property." Kammen at 6-7.
• "[The disciples of Jefferson] recurred frequently to 'the principles of a just and equal distribution.'" Kammen at 7.
• "The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on." Jefferson, cited in Kammen at footnote 17.
• "...writing to Jefferson from Quincy, [Adams] conveyed a sense of the inevitable in troubled tones: 'as long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families....So sure as the Idea and the existence of PROPERTY is admitted and established in Society, Accumulations of it will be made, the Snow ball will grow as it rolls.' Why was the accumulation of property in families and individuals problematic? Because it encouraged aristocracy which was antithetical to republicanism." Kammen at 7.
• "Noah Webster, a Federalist, insisted that 'an equal distribution of property is the foundation of a republic.'" Id.
• "The most prolific among Antifederalist pamphleteers, 'Centinel' (possibly Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania), also writing in October 1787, took the very same position: a free republican government could only exist 'where property is pretty equally divided.'" Id.
• "...a majority of polemicists on both sides, then, seemed to echo David Hume's dictum that 'the natural equality of property favors liberty.'" Id.
• "Many of those who have written about assumptions concerning property in America at the time of the Founding tend to provide an exegesis upon Locke's views of property in the Second Treatise and then leap directly to 1787 in a rather unhistorical way, as though no changes or modifications intervened that might have affected the attitudes of the Founders." Id.
• "Equally significant, and perhaps even more so, the Preamble to the Constitution--its clearest statement of underlying assumptions and values--never mentions property. It does mention liberty and justice, of course, as well as domestic tranquility. We know that many of the Framers believed that domestic tranquility depended upon the contentment contingent upona widespread and roughly equal distribution of property." Kammen at 9.
• "One of the most penetrating and forceful Antifederalists, writing as 'A [Maryland] Farmer,' summed up the outlook of many by asserting that 'the unequal division of property silently and gradually undermines' liberty and equality, two of the most vital props of republicanism." Kammen at 10.

Perhaps we should incorporate at least a tad bit of this into the article? --AaronS 02:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize when they talk about Jefferson and property, "property" is usually a synonym for land (as well as in most, if not all, of those quotes) rather than income. If you want a really great article, check out The Radical Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson: An Essay in Retrieval RJII 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Kammen makes it clear that they are talking about the accumulation of wealth in general. But thanks for the link. Unfortunately, even from my university, I don't have a subscription with Blackwell. --AaronS 03:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Natural wealth --natural capital. Not the product of labor --not income. RJII 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Income and profit do not necessarily need to come from labor. Even if they only meant "land" by "property" (and they didn't), they were arguing for the equal distribution of it. --AaronS 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson did at times suggest that people have an equal distribution of land. His position was that it should be up to the society to decide what land rights there should be --that there was no natural law one way or the other. RJII 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But he definitely did not advocate equal distribution of income. That would make him a communist. RJII 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps retroactively so. But there was no such thing as communism at the time, at least as a well-defined philosophy or movement. --AaronS 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Madison's definition of property was very broad: property "embraces every thing to which man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man's hand, or merchandise, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, and man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them." (James Madison, "Property," The National Gazette (March 29, 1792)) So, clearly, we're not only talking about land, here. --AaronS 03:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. I know that when Jefferson refers to "property" he's frequently talking about land, as are commentaries about him. Do you honestly think Jefferson advocated equal distribution of income? That's ludicrous. How detached can you be from the philosophy of liberalism? RJII 03:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it depends on the context. Jefferson may not have advocated for the equal distribution of income, but he certainly did criticize the stratification of wealth, i.e. all property, as being anti-republican. --AaronS 03:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He did have some concern for grossly disproportionate wealth, but he definitely was not concerned about "unequal" distribution of wealth. He thought individuals had the right to private property in the product of labor, like all liberals. RJII 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He wrote to Madison on October 28, 1785: "Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." His words, not mine. Then Kammen writes, as I noted above: "[The disciples of Jefferson] recurred frequently to 'the principles of a just and equal distribution.'" Further, he "perceived the alternatives in stark form: 'economy [as in thriftiness/frugality] and liberty, or profusion and servitude.'" --AaronS 03:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He did believe in natural rights, of course. That's well known. But, he didn't hold that there was any particular arrangement or distribution of land that natural rights indicated. It was up to society to decide exactly what the rules on land were going to be. His philosophy is scattered around in letters. There's nothing really comprehensive that you can read on his philosophy by him, other than probably Notes on Virginia. You have to piece stuff together, and not everything he says is in agreement. RJII 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberals had varying opinions on land, just like the individualist anarchists. But one thing that's constant in liberalism (including individualist anarchism in America) is the right to private property in the product of labor. And, another thing is advocacy of a minimal state. Or in the case of radical liberalism, no state. RJII 04:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose taking the all that mess out pondering over the definition of socialism and just put Tucker's apparent definition in there: "...the bottom claim of Socialism that labor should be put in possession of its own." RJII 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Property Systems

This section seems quite informative and well cited. It explains the individualist anarchist property system well, and shows the differences between it and the more well-known communist and capitalist alternatives. What objections, if any, are there to this chart? 72.204.5.50

For one, the chart is overly simplistic. Many individuals who fall under or are generally considered to fall under some of the categories in the chart do not hold the views it represents. Further, it is flatly inaccurate in many cases. For example, it claims that under anarcho-communists profits from labor, land, and loans, "should be confiscated". Yet, most modern anarcho-communists simply believe that no active protection of such property claims should be asserted. Similarly, the "are privately owned capital goods permissible" question is not applicable, as most anarcho-communists do not theorize about what is "permissible" in society but rather about what is desirable and just. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you have some minor quibbles about the wording, but on the whole agree with the chart. You indicate that you would switch the wording from "permissable" to "just" in one place, and "should be confiscated" to "should not be asserted" in another place. Is this the essence of your objection to the chart? 208.101.10.50

The chart is admitted POV. My edit summmary should read 'bias sources' - provide some independent ones (i.e not Elroy or anarcho-caps etc)and we can move forward. THe table is a complete no-no. Are you RJII or hogeye then? you are both banned no? --maxrspct in the mud 19:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I'm going to start preening this article for unsourced claims. --AaronS 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

Half of these anarchists are unknown. Why do they have major sections for them in this article? It could be condensed down, a lot. -- infinity0 08:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? Probably all are practically unknown to the general public, but there are some seminal figures in American Anarchism. Arker 10:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualism

Why was the article about individualist anarchism deleted? It was much more informative. America has some communist anarchists but communist anarchism was imported from Europe. Individualism is the native American anarchism and much more can be said about it. Maybe two subarticles can be made about the individualists in America and the communists in America. TheIndividualist 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See Content forking. It was a POV fork by a banned user. The Ungovernable Force 07:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As a political, social and cultural movement

I'm working on a new section to add to this article so that it will focus on not just american anarchist philosophy but also on american anarchist activity. See here to help. The Ungovernable Force 07:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard

This section does not conform to WP:NPOV. Namely, there is a dispute as to whether or not anarcho-capitalism falls under the rubric of individualist anarchism or anarchism generally. See Template talk:Anarchism for more discussion. I won't continue to reverse Intangible's reverting of my attempts to change this part of the article, because the last thing I want is a pointless edit war, but I'm placing a {{POV-section}} tag there for the time being. --AaronS 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a cite from the Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Have you ever provided cites? See also WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. This is simply ridiculous. Intangible 21:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, I am not the one making the positive claim. I'm not sure where your surprise is coming from, since you are involved in the discussion on Template talk:Anarchism, where it has been established that your claim is contentious and disputed. I suggest that you re-read those same policies and familiarize yourself with them, because it seems that you misunderstand them. --AaronS 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My claim? I have only presented reputable sources and references there. Your arguments all have been out of thin air. Intangible 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

CraP

This article is pure crap as it stands right now. I intend to overhaul it. Blockader 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Tothebarricades 02:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Why is this article historically all backwards? And why are the more significant American (individualist) anarchists all at the end of the article?

Whiskey Rebellion

19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but this article sucks. It's all over the place. hot 03:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Hot. Probably some highly opinionated authoritarian anarchists at work. Whiskey Rebellion 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Haymarket

Where's the Haymarket riot and the May Day Martyrs? It's probably the most influential anarchism-related event in history and it happened in the US. Donnacha 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Warren's influences and other historical holes

Warren was certainly influenced early on by Robert Owen, and later by Robert Dale Owen and Fanny Wright. His cost-price approach was a conscious competitor with the Rochdale cooperative model.

In order to fill out the origins sections of this entry, and to escape the individual vs. collective nonsense a bit, it might be worth including William B. Greene's mutualism and the nonresistance of W. L. Garrison and Adin Ballou. Libertatia 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Warren was also influenced, as all early anarchists were, by non-conformist Christian sects (particularly his focus on natural law). And, of course, all American individualists were influenced by those involved in the Independence Movement which was, in turn, influenced by a range of liberal and Masonic and pseudo-Masonic European movements. Donnacha 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

American individualist anarchism

I am an anarchocommunist myself, but I want an article on American individualist anarchism!

It'd be nice if one could learn about this philosophy from Wikipedia. I don't want a content fork where one branch assumes that individualist anarchism is correct (or more American, or pro-capitalist, or any other POV), nothing like that. Rather, I want an article that discusses the philosophy of such people as Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner, without mixing in (except for contrast and to cover criticism) the more communistic philosophies of Emma Goldman and the like. (I tend to agree with Goldman over Warren et al, but that is not the point.)

Not that this article should go, but I'd like the other one back!

—Toby Bartels 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be good. You say you want the other one back. Was there one? Was it erased?Anarcho-capitalism 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much way to make it without it turning into a pov fork. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "pov fork"?Anarcho-capitalism 05:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See the link "content fork" in the first post on this topic. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why an article on a certain kind of anarchism would be against the POV policy.Anarcho-capitalism 06:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

TUF: Why do you say that such an article can't be written without becoming a POV fork? That doesn't make any sense to me. We often have separate articles about various divergent philosophies; or is there POV dispute about whether Tucker et al had a different philosophy from (say) Goldman, Rothbard, and Bookchin? (It seems obvious to me that all of these 20th-century figures have significant differences from the 19th-century individualists, and often in different directions!) I agree that this version has POV problems, and the current reality may be that there is nobody with the required knowledge willing to write an NPOV article. But I still want to put on record my request for one! —Toby Bartels 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A-c: There was one at American individualist anarchism, later moved to Individualist anarchism in the US (an inferior title, in my opinion, but that's not important). This has now been moved here, but you can see its latest version just before the article's topic was broadened. There may be POV problems with that version, which is one reason that I don't boldly use it as the basis for a new article (I'm not sure what people found wrong with it). But it has a lot of information not found here now. What I'd really like to see is an article like it, but edited by many people, so that I could trust it! —Toby Bartels 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Let's bring it back and rename it back to American individualist anarchism. What is the problem with trust? There are a lot of sources and quotes in there. Bring it back and let people work on it. Who got rid of it? Was there a vote or something?Anarcho-capitalism 16:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard and McElroy

This page needs some serious revision. Rothbard is not and never has been an anarchist. I'm not sure if he ever called himself an anarhco-capitalist (which is an oxymoron). McElroy is an American Libertarian, not an anarchist. Chuck0 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for both that claim they are anarchists. I have yet to find (and probably will never) a source that says the contrary. Intangible 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For example, " The public choice theory of murray N. Rothbard, a modern anarchist" [7] is an article not positive towards Rothbard, but it still calls him an anarchist. Intangible 20:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Rothbard is well documented to be an anarchist. And he calls himself an anarchist as well.Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist as well, but she uses the more traditional term "individualist anarchist" to describe herself.Anarcho-capitalism 01:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more evidence for Wendy McElory being an anarchist, but U.S. anarchists do not see Rothbard as an anarchist. Him saying that he is an "anarcho-capitalist" doesn't make him an anarchist. Even if you granted him status as a quasi-anarchist, he is not a significant or influential person to the U.S. anarchist movement, either historically or currently. Chuck0 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy is an anarcho-capitalist but because she chooses the term "individualist anarchist" instead, you think that she's an anarchist but Rothbard is not. That's crazy. McElroy says she's a Rothbardian. You should become a little more knowledgable about anarchism before you start editing here. You are wrong to remove Rothbard. He's very significant. He is the most famous individualist anarchist of the 20th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your honor (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

And it doesn't matter whether social "anarchists" think Rothbard is an anarchist. What matters is what scholarly opinion is, and almost all scholars consider him an anarchist. Social anarchism, anarcho-communism and all that is really irrelevant in the U.S.

What matters is what anarchists think about who is and isn't an anarchist. American anarchists do not see Rothbard as an anarchist. If you want to check out my extensive library or talk to any of my real anarchist friends, you are welcome to. I've been an anarchist for 20 years and run the most popular anarchist website. People know who I am. Who are you? Why should anybody give your arguments any credibility? Chuck0 04:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think what anarchists think about who is and isn't an anarchist is what matters, then you don't know much about Wikipedia. Most self-described "anarchists" are not free to push their POV here. The opinion of "most anarchists" is not really relevant other than simply to state what they're opinions are, if you can source that. What matters is scholarly opinion. Almost all scholars regard anarcho-capitalism as one of the many forms of anarchism. I don't care how long you've been an anarchist. I don't consider you an anarchist. You're opinion means very little here, as does mine. (Infoshop is not the most popular anarchist website anyway. Anti-state.com is. But, that's irrelevant anyway.) You're deleting well cited information and being disruptive.

Cost the limit of price

To try to avoid a stupid, head-to-head edit war, let me just point out a couple of pretty serious problems with the current account of Warren's "cost principle." We can go from there.

• To start, it's pretty obvious that the full account given is not contained on the single page I cited in the earlier edit. Of course, on the Josiah Warren page, the same account is not sourced at all.
• The phrase "value the limit of price" does not appear to be either Warren's or Andrews'. In searchable texts online, it only appears in a review by George Ripley which characterizes Warren's system as "communism." (Hmmmm) If it actually appears in Warren, as the use of quotation marks suggests, it needs to be cited.
• The stock "based on the LTV" phrase, which an-cap editors are fond of inserting, in this case renders the paragraph incoherent. In the passages cited, Warren quite clearly associates value with any number of subjective factors.
• This confusion is compounded, as it currently appears that all goods sold by Warren were valued according to a simple labor-time formula of some sort, when what we know of Warren's practice is that his "cost-price" consisted of the cost to him of the goods (apparently at market prices), plus compensation for the time it took to sell the goods.
• The reference to Warren's labor notes is currently too little to help.

In order to get the section coherent again, the issues of "value theory" vs. "cost theory," source of wealth vs. principle of equitable commerce, time store vs. labor for labor exchange need to be dealt with, and not run together into the sort of mess they are presently. Libertatia 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Anarchism

This page has lots of problems. Where is the contemporary anarchist movement? There needs to be more here on anarchist groups, campaigns, controversies, culture, and so on. I've started making some changes, but this puppy needs lots of help. Chuck0 04:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are bad and should be deleted. You're deleting cited information and citing things with non-credible sources, such as an online survey from Infoshop.org. You're deleting the Rothbard section. Rothard is the most famous individualist anarchist of the 20th century. If you don't think he is an anarchist, that's fine. But don't come here and push your POV.

Who are you? Perhaps you can establish your identity before you vandalize more articles. I'm Chuck Munson, an anarchist of 20 years who runs Infoshop.org. I've been profiled by the New York Times and the Washington Post as one of the more notable contemporary anarchists. I'm currently editing an anthology titled North American Anarchist Thought Since 1960 with Jason McQuinn, another famous and influential anarchist. You challenged my link to the survey, but you have failed to source any of your own changes. The Infoshop survey is probably the most accurate and comprehensive survey of the U.S. anarchist movement in recent years. Now Rothbard may be a famous American Libertarian, but he does not belong in this entry on U.S. anarchism. The contemporary anarchist movement rarely talks about Rothbard, whereas there are numerous contemporary anarchists whose influence should be featured more than several paragrpahs on Rothbard. Chuck0 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that I don't care who you are. And neither does Wikipedia. Being a self-described anarchist for 20 years and running a website is nothing to brag about anyway. I consider that much of an accomplishment. Seems like a waste of time to me. Who you are doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Your opinion means nothing. What matters is what scholarly published sources say.

I'm not "bragging" about being a long-term anarchist and running a website. I'm pointing those things out because they qualify me to make informed, sourced changes, edits, and contributions to this entry. I'm a widely-known anarchist and I know quite a bit about anarchism. Infoshop.org isn't just the most popular U.S. anarchist site, it has a high Google rank and has been used as a source in numerous books and articles. I'm also a librarian of 17 years, which qualifies me to know something about encyclopedias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in case you didn't notice. If Wikipedia is going to be accurate and useful to people, then it has to give precedence to people who actually now something about these subjects. You have not identified who you are or your qualifications, so anything you say or do here should be be disregarded. Chuck0 04:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not qualify you to make informed changes. You're obviously not very informed about anarchism. Maybe your name floats around in nerdy internet anarchist circles. So what? You're not "widely known" at all. You run a cheesy internet social anarchist web site. So what? Above all, you need to learn about how Wikipedia works. There is a rule against "original research." Your, mine, and everyone elses's opinions are irrelevant. If you want to put information in the encylcopedia then it needs to be cited from a scholarly source.

Who are you again? Oh right, some coward who attacks people from the safety of an anonymous account. I understand how Wikipedia works. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for several years. I'm also a librarian, so I understand a few things about encyclopedias, reference tools, and sourcing information. You've established no credentials for yourself, so you are just a sniping coward. Now, if Wikipedia really mandated that *everything* be froma scholarly source, then there wouldn't be any Wikipedia! Whatever, you don't know what you are talking about. Chuck0 22:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Credentials don't matter on Wikipedia, don't you understand. The only information permissible on Wikipedia is sourced information from credible sources. This is not like Infoshop were you just say what you want and are able to censor sourced information.

If you've contributed to Wikipedia "for several years" as you say, then why don't you know theres a rule against original research? Your "contributions" need to be sorted out and deleted if the only thing backing them up is your opinion.

Are you for real? You are the last person here to be whining about original research. You posted some bullshit about me being a paid employee of the state. That isn't original research, it's a fantasy you pulled out of your ass. I haven't worked as a paid librarian in over 10 years! Chuck0 23:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The information you've supplied elsewhere said that you worked as a librarian. It's not my fault that the information was not up to date.

I am a librarian, just not one who is being paid these days. Chuck0 23:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag on Notable anarchists section

I put a Disputed tag on this section because "Chuck0" deleted Rothbard. Rothbard is the most famous individualist of the 20th century. There were like 10 sources in the section citing anarcho-capitalism as an individualist form of anarchism. But Chuck0 took it upon himself to enforce his POV that it is not a form of anarchism.

You just stated that Rothbard "is the most famous individualist of the 20th century." This is an entry on anarchism in the United States, not American small government conservatives like Rothbard. There were ten sources in that section? Sounds like somebody was insecure about putting (wrongly) Rothbard into this entry. Now I could cite several hundred anarchist books and magazines that rarely talk about Rothbard. The problem is that the reality of my collection of anarchist books, articles and other materials can't and shouldn't be cited here. You are making claims here as an anonymous, unregistered user. I've established myself as a person who is knowledgeable about contemporary American anarchism. I do run the the most popular anarchist site in the U.S., which should account for something here. Chuck0 04:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard is the most popular individualist anarchist of the 20th century. Again, we don't care you who are. Big deal, you run a website. Do you want a pat on the back? Your opinion does not count for anything here. Information on Wikipedia needs to be cited by published scholarly sources. We're not going to take your word on things just because you run an "anarchist" website (a website which by the way censors anarcho-capitalist content, because it's a threat to the rapidly disintegrating philosophy of social anarchism)

Actually, Voltairine de Cleyre was the most popular and famous individualist of the 20th century. "We don't care?" Who is we? Are you a sockpuppet for the anarcho-capitalist club at some high school? My opinion doesn't count for anything? How about the facts? Reality? Ever heard of that, Mr. Sockpuppet? Infoshop doesn't censor any content, but we do remove posts by anarcho-capitalists because they are just annoying and illiterate. Chuck0 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you remove posts from anarcho-capitalists because the rationality of anarcho-capitalist philosophy exposes social "anarchism" for the crock that it is. "We" is we, the users of Wikipedia. As far as you personally being a source for anything, we don't recognize your opinion as counting for anything. It doesn't count for anything. If you want to say something in an article then it needs to be cited from a scholarly source. Just coming here and boasting that you've been an "anarchist" for 20 years (big deal, whatever dude) and that you run a web site (who cares?) doesn't qualify you as an authority.

Main article: Murray Rothbard

(Rothbard circa 1955).

Murray Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American economist and political philosopher who is best known for theorizing anarcho-capitalism (also known free-market anarchism and libertarianism ), a form of individualist anarchism that opposes the state and supports a free market. Anarcho-capitalists do not subscribe to the labor theory of value of the early individualists, but, like them, they do believe that security should be provided by multiple competing businesses rather than by a tax-funded central agency.

Rothbard claims heritage in the individualist school and strongly opposes anarcho-communism and other related ideologies that would prefer that wealth be distributed collectively instead of held individually. In anarcho-capitalism, the individual has no obligation to any other member of the community that he does not impose on himself. In matters of security, the private sector supplies protection.

I would like to add that some of the people listed, like Rockwell, are not Anarchists. They would best be described as Minarchists or Libertarians. The idiots who wrote this page need to learn the difference between Anarchism, Minarchism, and Libertarianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.251.215 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Murray Rothbard doesn't belong on this page

Instead of getting into another revert war for this entry, I'm going to go into some detail about why Murray Rothbard doesn't belong on this page, at least not as a featured section. What I'm going to talk about here is something us librarians know about, but is a concept unfamiliar to many Wikipedia contributors. User Anarcho-capitalism is arguing here that it is established that Rothbard is an anarcho-capitalist and thus deserves to be featured in this entry on "Anarchism in the United States." The main reason why I'm removing Rothbard has to do with the way this entry is structured. Encyclopedia entries can be structured in several different ways. This entry on "Anarchism in the United States" is structured so that people are featured. Another valid way to structure this entry would be to describe the various anarchist ideologies held by American anarchists. Another structure could focus on anarchist organizations and publications. Another structure could focus on historical events, such as the Haymarket incident, Sacco & Vanzetti, the Palmer Raids, the Yippie movement, the continental gatherings in the 1980s, and so on. Of course, a really well-written entry on "Anarchism in the United States would attempt to cover all of these facets.

This entry also has a problem with its lack of coverage on contemporary anarchism in the United States.

If we just look at the current entry, which relies on mini-biographies of famous anarchists, there are standard rules of thumb when it comes to writing an entry such as this one. Featured biographies should focus on famous and influential anarchists who have had some impact on anarchism in the United States. I believe this is how similar entries on Wikipedia are structured. A person featured should be notable in some way, in terms of words or actions. Murray Bookchin, for example, is one of the most influential American anarchist writers of the past 40 years. He has published a significant body of works. His name and works are known to most anarchists and they have prompted a response by other anarchists (in this case, including several books criticial of Bookchin).

Anarchists also value deeds and activism. So this entry, if it focuses on individuals to explain "Anarchism in the United States," should include a few featured sections on activist anarchists. Keith McHenry, for example, is notable for co-founding the Food Not Bombs movement, which is now an international movement. Starhawk should be included for her activism in the anti-globalization movement, along with her work in the feminist, ecological, anti-war, anti-nuclear, and women's spirituality movements. How about people who have published magazines for 20 consecutive years, such as Jason McQuinn?

If you are going to base an entry on mini-biography sections, the people listed should be notable, famous and influential anarchists. Rothbard simply doesn't qualify and shouldn't be featured. Of course, it's really hard to establish how notable somebody is within a given subject area. Often you have to rely on experts and researchers to guage that influence. You can measure influence by citations of a person's work or their mention in both anarchist and non-anarchist media. I believe that Noam Chomsky is one of the most cited living scholars, which would also make him the most well-known anarchist. If you did a citation search on anarchist authors, who would be the most cited? I haven't done this, but I'd guess that Chomsky, Zinn, Hakim Bey, and David Graeber would score highly in any citation search. Citation counting has its limitations, even more so when it comes to the U.S. anarchist movement, which isn't based in the academy and whose publications are poorly indexed and rarely cited. So how does one go about establishing the notability of an anarchist within the U.S. anarchist movement. Those of us who are well-versed in the anarchist movement can give you some solid candidates for the most notable anarchists, but this isn't sourceable.

So let's take the case of Murray Rothbard. Is he notable enough to be featured on this page? I don't think so, because his affiliation with anarchism is contested and because he simply hasn't had much influence on the U.S. anarchist movement. Rothbard IS an influential Libertarian, but this page is about "Anarchism in the U.S." Rothbard's work has not been published in any anarchist periodicals that I know about. Did he ever attend any of the major U.S. anarchist conferences of the 1980s? I don't remember him ever speaking at an anarchist conference. Are his books caried by the largest anarchist publisher in the U.S., AK Press? I'm afraid not.

So far, Rothbard is batting .000 when it comes to being a notable anarchist within the contemporary anarchist movement in the U.S. I know that articles here and there in anarchist journals mention Rothbard, but I don't have the time right now to search my archives. I did pull out several of the most widely known U.S. anarchist anthologies published in the past 40 years. I looked at the Table of Contents and the indices in the following books:

• Howard Ehrlich and others. Reinventing Anarchy. What are anarchists thinking these days? Routledge, 1979.
• Howard Ehrlich and others. Reinventing Anarchy, Again. AK Press, 1996.
• David Apter and James Joll. Anarchism Today. Anchor Books, 1972.
• George Woodcock. Anarchism: a history of libertarian ideas and movements. World Publishing, 1971.
• Paul Avrich. Anarchist Voices: an oral history of anarchism in America. Princeton Univ. Press, 1995.
• Paul Nursey-Bray. Anarchist Thinkers and Thought: an annotated bibliography. Greenwood Press, 1992.
• Mike Gunderloy and Michael Ziesing, editors. Anarchy and the End of History. Factsheet Five/Lysander Spooner, 1991.
• Clifford Harper. Anarchy: a graphic guide. Camden Press, 1987.
• Irving Horowitz. The Anarchists. Dell Publishing, 1964.

None of these anthologies and books include articles or chapters from Rothbard. His name is only cited in two of the works. The Avrich book cites Rothbard in a footnote, but only to explain who anarchist Fred Woodworth is referring to when he mentions "Rothbardites" in his interview.

Rothbard is more prominently featured in Nursey-Bray's bibliography on anarchist thinkers. This is an academic book published by a press which specializes in reference works for libraries. Rothbard is featured, but the context is very interesting. The book provides three pages of books by and about Rothbard in a section titled "On the Margins of Anarchist Theory." Notice that Rothbard is singled out as being on the margins of anarchism. The bibliographer's intro to the Rothbard section is worth quoting:

"Either the inclusion or the omission of Rothbard as an anarchist is likely, in one quarter or another, to be viewed as contentious. Here, his Anarcho-Capitalism is treated as marginal, since, while there are linkages with the tradition of individualist anarchism, there is a dislocation between the mutualism and communitarianism of that tradition and the free market theory, deriving from Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, that underpins Rothbard's political philosophy, and places him in the modern Libertarian tradition."

Here is an academic source which clearly notes that Rothbard's status as an anarchist is contentious and that his writings and thought, while notable, are marginal to anarchism.

There is no one source which can be cited as to which anarchist is more important than the other ones (and anarchists would themselves be against such a ranking system). User Anarcho-capitalism is arguing that sources say that Rothbard IS an anarcho-capitalist. I have issues with his sources, but that's not what is at issue here. None of his sources establish that Rothbard was an influential anarchist to U.S. anarchism. On the contrary, as I've outlined above, if you go over the body of anarchist litertaure for the past 50 years, the absence of Rothbard is glaring.

You could argue that Murray Rothbard has been influential on U.S. individualist anarchists. If that's the case, then I think that some actual anarcho-individualists such as Joe Peacott should be featured before Rothbard. Anarcho-individualism is a minor tendency in U.S. anarchism, so I'd only feature one or two. This entry doesn't feature any contemporary anarcho-communists and they are one of the biggest tendencies in U.S. anarchism.

So, Rothbard doesn't belong in this entry because he isn't a notable U.S. anarchist who was active within U.S. anarchism. Chuck0 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard has been *extremely* influential in american anarchism - he's arguably the *most* influential figure in fact. Numerous sources have been given you for that fact. I realise that some socialist anarchists deny that anarcho-capitalism is anarchist at all (and the same accusation is often thrown back in the opposite direction) but it's not within our purview as wikipedia editors to take sides in such disputes. As you correctly point out - there is a sharp distinction between early generations of individual anarchism and the current one - and this distinction has primarily to do with the change from LTV to STV. This was in large part (though by no means exclusively) Rothbards influence.

If you want to write up some copy on some of the other figures you mention, I would support that. It would improve the article. Removing Rothbard, however, would not. Arker 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard will be removed from this article, once other Wikipedia users get involved and demand some accuracy. It just boggles my mind that people like you guys exist. I have an extensive collection of anarchist books and magazines. I'm hard pressed to find any mention of Rothbard in any of these materials and I'm going through them right now for a book I'm working on, an anthology on the last 40 years of North American anarchism titled North American Anarchist Thought Since 1960. There are several archives in the U.S. which have big collections of anarchist materials. I will ask the curators of these collections if Rothbard has been a notable anarchist or influence on U.S. anarchism. I expect to hear that he has not been a notable influence.

You say that "some" anarchists think that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist? Dude! Most anarchists laugh at the idea that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. How can an oxymoron be a credible political philosophy? Anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism and the state. Anarchists have written and spoken at length over the last 130 years about how the state and capitalism are hopelessly interlinked. Rothbard simply isn't an anarchist or an influence on anarchism. Chuck0 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You think Joe Peacott is more notable than Rothbard? Are you serious?! Hardly anyone has heard of him and he's had negligible influence. Rothbard is the most famous of the modern individualist anarchists, by far. "This volume honors the foremost contemporary exponent of free-market anarchism. One contributor aptly describes Murray Rothbard as 'the most ideologically committed zero-State academic economists on earth'." Review by Lawrence H. White of Man, Economy, and liberty: Essays in honor of Murray N. Rothbard, published in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XXVIII, June 1990, page 664." But, not only that, he's more well-known that all of the 19th century individualists. Anarcho-capitalism is probably the most popular type of anarchism in the U.S. According to this source it was the most popular type in the 1970's: "Despite this diversity, we can categorize all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion the growth of the individual within a community (Anarcho-Communists, Christian Anarchists, and most Anarcho-Pacifists) and right-wing libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalists, and ultraindividualists) who are most egoistical and stress the individualism of the unregulated marketplace. Since the social ethic of American is not communal but is based on a private world of personal fulfillment and satisfaction (the self-made man, not social man) it is not surprising that what I call right-wing libertarianism was the predominant element of the new, explicit anarchism." DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. John Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. 123 If anything, it's probably even more popular today. And Rothbard is the most famous anarcho-capitalist.Anarcho-capitalism 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my explanation? I guess not. Rothbard is a famous and notable American Libertarian. Rothbard is NOT a notable anarchist nor has he had any notable influence on anarchism. In U.S. anarchist circles, people are going to know who Joe Peacott is. If you ask them to name an individualist anarchist, his name will come up. Rothbard's will not. Your assertion that Rothbard is an individualist anarchist would be disputed by even individualist anarchists. You are engaged in original research here, in claiming that Rothbard is an influential U.S. anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT the most popular form of anarchism in the United States. There are only a handful of anarcho-capitalists out there, which probably number fewer than the least popular form of actual anarchism. Your argument here is just laughable. If anarcho-capitalists are the biggest type of anarchists in the U.S., why doesn't AK Press carry any of their books? Why aren't there any anarcho-capitalist speakers at anarchist conferences? I could dig up more facts about U.S. anarchism, but I've already documented above why the Rothbard section is totally out of place on this entry. Chuck0 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a famous and notable "libertarian" is identical to being a famous and notable anarchist. There are left libertarians and right libertarians. As the source just above says, "all anarchists as essentially left-wing libertarians who champion the growth of the individual within a community (Anarcho-Communists, Christian Anarchists, and most Anarcho-Pacifists) and right-wing libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalists, and ultraindividualists) who are most egoistical and stress the individualism of the unregulated marketplace." And, the other source I gave you said that Rothbard is "the foremost contemporary exponent of free-market anarchism." AK Press probably doesn't carry any of their books because it's run by a bunch of anti-capitalist "anarcho"-collectivists. On the other hand, there are plenty more outlets that carry books dealing with right libertarianism. Right libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) is much more popular in the U.S. than left libertarianism ("anarcho"-communism, and the other collectivist philosophies).Anarcho-capitalism 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are conflating Libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. This would be news to many American right-wing libeterians. You aren't credible and are using Wikipedia to push your original research. Chuck0 02:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That which is cited is, by definition, not original research.Anarcho-capitalism 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? Are you really this dense? I have outlined above why Rothbard is not a notable anarchist, based on anarchist sources. You have cited a variety of mostly non-anarchist sources. As a librarian, is this the point where I give you the lecture about why reference books are not always accurate and are often filled with errors? Like Wikipedia. What's revealing about all the sources that you've attached to the Rothbard section is that you know that your position here is weak. Rothbard may be a notable Libertarian, but this is an entry on Anarchism in the United States. Rothbard should not be featured on this page. Chuck0 04:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that says someone has to be an anarchist to a reliable source on the study of anarchism. Non-anarchist sources are legitimate sources. You want an anarchist though? Here you go: *"Individualist, as distinct from socialist, anarchism has been particularly strong in the USA from the time of Josiah Warren (1798-1874) onwards and is expressed today by Murray Rothbard and the school of 'anarcho-capitalists'." Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications The reason so many sources are listed is not because it's a "weak position" that Rothbard is an anarchist. It's to show that it's the mainstream common view that Rothbard is an anarchist. If there were only two sources, you would claim there weren't enough sources - that it was a minority view. Well, here's lot of sources then. There are thousands of sources. Almost all scholars consider it to be anarchism (of course). On the other hand, very very few writers say that Rothbard is not an anarchist, and guess what, they're all "anarcho"-communists. Among reliable sources, the claim that Rothbard is not an anarchist is the extreme minority fringe view.Anarcho-capitalism 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Want another? "[Rothbard's] work constitutes perhaps the most powerful and sophisticated case for individualist anarchism [in the twentieth] century, if not in the entire history of this particular social philosophy." Cited in Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism, Penn State Press. 2000, p. 201. From Norma Barry 1987, page 173Anarcho-capitalism 05:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain this one last time. Rothbard doesn't belong on this page--even if he were an anarchist--because the section on him is out of balance' with the subject of the page. He has had no influence on Anarchism in the United States Above I cited several anthologies on American anarchism published over the past 40 years. I pointed out that AK Press, the largest anarchist publisher and distributor in the U.S., carries NO books by or about Rothbard. I could dig through my library of anarchist magazines for days and not find a reference to Rothbard. The fact that you've spent so much time adding citations to the Rothbard section is evidence that you know that you are engaged in original research on this page. You are attempting to use this page to continue your campaign of using Wikipedia to normalize anarcho-capitalism as a part of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists have been fighting for years on Wikipedia to insert their original research on anarchism-related pages. We don't even need to talk here about how anarcho-capitalism is a total oxymoron. As I've stated above, there are far more real American anarchists who should be featured on this page. I know that you don't give a damn about facts and sources, but you are simply embarassing Wikipedia here. Chuck0 05:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AK Press is an anti-capitalist outlet. Why would they carry books by or about Rothbard? If you're only looking in anti-capitalist sources, you're not going to find references to Rothbard as an anarchist. Has it not occured to you that it's highly unlikely that someone who calls themself an anti-capitalist anarchist is going to say that Rothbard is an anarchist? Few can put their POV aside and be objective, but some can (because I have sources from honest anti-capitalist anarchists saying that Rothbard is an anarchist). The sources have been provided to you. You don't like they exist, but they do. So, there's nothing you can do about it. The Rothbard section is going to say.Anarcho-capitalism 05:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you claim that Rothbard is an anarchist, then doesn't it undermine your position that the largest anarchist publisher and distributor in North America, AK Press, doesn't carry ANY books by or about Rothbard? AK is very good about carrying the full range of anarchist thought. They also carry tons of stuff by Marxists, communists, liberals, and more. AK Press is so well-respected and carry so many books, that they are a primary distributor for many small bookstores and infoshops. Yet, they carry no Rothbard. Chuck0 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. You're being circular. Your premise is that AK Press carries a "full range of anarchist thought." You then say that they don't carry books by Rothbard. You conclude that therefore Rothbard is not an anarchist. It's your premise that's wrong. They don't carry a full range of anarchist thought. They may even say they do, but they don't.Anarcho-capitalism 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not being circular. You can keep making this personal, but I'm trying here to cite real word facts. If you want, I'll send emails to the curators of anarchist collections in the U.S. and ask them about Rothbard. Jesus Christ, LOL. How can I be more clear about this issue. AK Press is the significant anarchist publisher in the United States. They don't carry Rothbard. Or go walk into any anarchist bookstore. Find me a book by or about Rothbard. You won't. Rothbard is not notable as an American anarchist. Chuck0 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still being circular. You don't consider any outlet that sells anarcho-capitalist books an anarchist outlet. So, you narrow down your choice to outlets that don't sell anarcho-capitalist books and say that they're the only anarchist outlets. Then you say, "Look, they don't sell anarcho-capitalist books." Well, no duh. You've already decided for yourself that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 21:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be an ass here Chuck0, but AK Press doesn't carry anarcho-primitivist lit either. But I bet you'd agree that Zerzan is a noteworthy anarchist, right? - N1h1l 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found 5 books by John Zerzan listed in the 2006 AK Press catalog, including a new book titled Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections. They carry Anarchy and Fifth Estate magazines, which have published articles by and about primitivists. I'm still not finding any books by or about Rothbard in the AK catalog. Chuck0 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected :) - N1h1l 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Duh. It's not real surprising that AK Press doesn't carry books by Rothbard as it is run by collectivist anarchists who oppose capitalism. Elodoth 16:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All anarchists oppose capitalism. That's Anarchism 101. AK Press is widely recognized as the biggest anarchist press and distributor in North America. Chuck0 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're just giving your opinion that all anarchists oppose capitalism. That's fine, because that's your POV. But your POV doesn't matter because there are a tremendous number of sources that disagree with you; almost all scholars agree that it's anarchism. The very few scholars that do claim it's not anarchism happen to be anti-capitalist "anarcho"-communists (of course). The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that it doesn't allow you to push your personal POV that it's not anarchism. The reason AK Press doesn't carry anarcho-capitalist material is because they're anti-capitalists. They're simply not a comprehensive anarchist outlet.Anarcho-capitalism 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck, please stop the vandalism

I think you have the ability to make valuable contributions to this page. It does appear to have been written primarily by anarcho-capitalists, and good additions from anarcho-socialist voices are needed. Make those and I'll back you up. However, deleting accurate, sourced material because it violates your dogma is not acceptable. It will only be reverted again, and if you keep it up you'll be reported to administration and find yourself blocked or worse. Arker 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing anything. I know something about this subject matter, in fact, I'm writing a book about it. Are you interested in a factual entry on this subject, or something that makes a mockery of even Wikipedia's loose factual standards? A factual entry is not something that evolves out of the frantic typing of people with a bizarre take on the subject matter. And as real anarchists have pointed out numerous times on Wikipedia and elsewhere, a small group of "anarcho-capitalist" zealots have been engaged in a long campaign to impose their crazy take on anarchism on Wikipedia. Ya basta! Chuck0 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody's "writing a book," so what? That doesn't qualify you to disrupt Wikipedia as if you're some kind of authority here, which you're not. The authority on Wikipedia is the scholarly sources. They override any personal opinions you might have. You're POV pushing and being vandalistic.Anarcho-capitalism 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When are you going to stop vandalizing Wikipedia entries? I'm tired of this crap. I just put over an hour of my time into improving this entry only to have you vandalize it. Chuck0 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean you wasted an hour of your time deleting cited information and citations.Anarcho-capitalism 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I spent over an hour of my time improving this article, fixing the accuracy of the content, adding citations, and adding links to a range of articles by U.S. anarchists. You, on the other hand, are intent on using Wikipedia to establish an inaccurate overview of this subject. Chuck0 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't improve it. You damaged it. Don't deleted cited information. It's disruptive.Anarcho-capitalism 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had it. I'm initiating action against you as a troll and disruptive user. Chuck0 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck, the fact is that in your own book you can define anarchism to mean whatever you want. You can say it means strawberry ice cream if you want. Here, we rely on established scholarly sources, and MANY have been cited for you already to justify the inclusion of *both* individualist and socialist schools of anarchism, as well as to establish Rothbard in particular as an influential 20th century figure among the former. You can define individualist anarchism out of existence in your own book if you want. You may not do that in the wikipedia article. I was hoping you would contribute some positive work to expand the coverage of the social anarchists here, but it seems you have no interest in that, you simply want to remove the inclusion of those you believe are wrong, in violation of WP:NPOV among other things. My reverts were completely proper and defensible. So please, go ahead, report me. If you aren't willing to work within the rules here then an admin will have to be involved anyway. Arker 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want Wikipedia to be a factual source or would you prefer that your work here be dismissed as a joke?

My book will have extensive coverage of individualist anarchism, including articles and excerpts from a broad range of anarchist individualist writers and thinkers. But it will be an accurate and factual book which focuses on U.S. anarchism over the past 40 years. Your reverts are ridiculous, because you basically disappeared the facts about U.S. anarchism that I had added to this entry. What knowledge do you have about American anarchism? Have you written any articles for anarchist journals or spoken at any anarchist conferences? I have. I know this subject and people know me to be an open-minded and inclusive person when it comes to anarchists and anarchism. Who are you? What gives you the right to help Anarcho-capitalism establish a fantastic mass of misinformation? Do you understand anything about citations? Just because you can cite something doesn't mean that it justifies something being in this entry. As I and others have patiently explained, anarcho-capitalism is a bunch of nonsense believed by a handful of people in the United States. On the other hand, there have been millions of anarchists around the world, almost all of whom have not been anarcho-capitalists. By preventing my contributions to this entry, you are writing these people out of history and out of this subject. As I've also pointed out, Anarcho-capitalism has cited sources by non-anarchists. This is problematic because non-anarchist reference sources, books and articles have a history of misrepresenting anarchism and the anarchist movement. Normally, citations for most subjects are credible, not so for most non-anarchist sources on anarchism. Chuck0 01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If some of you don't understand what I'm talking about when it comes to the credibility of the citations that Anarcho-capitalism keeps using, I sugest reading the user page for Libertatia. This user is an anarchist and they explain the problem with using certain non-anarchist sources. Chuck0 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Libertatia actually makes some cogent observations. You haven't done that here, you've simply kept asserting that anyone outside of *your* view of anarchism isn't an anarchist, and that neutral scholary sources cannot be used as citations. Arker 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Those observations make my point about the citations concerning Rothbard. But this completely misses the bigger issue, that including Rothbard on this page, even if you grant that he is an anarchist, is out of balance with what belong on this page. The edits I made tonight, which were vandalized by you and Anarcho-capitalism, were an attempt to flesh out this entry. I re-organized sections, expanded on several sub-topics and added links to a variety of important and relevant anarchist articles. The "External links" section was even skewed towards obscure individualist articles, which may be of interest to the marginal group of anarcho-capitalists who exist, but aren't important enough for this article. The article as it currently stands, is a grossly inaccurate overview of U.S. anarchism. It doesn't even go over the huge amount of anarchist activism that has happened in the last 20 years.

My take on anarcho-capitalism as being outside of anarchism is a commonly held position among anarchists who know about anarcho-capitalism. Every anarchist I've ever talked to considers anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron or worse. The Anarchist FAQ goes into detail about why anarcho-capitalism is a bunch of hogwash. But you are assisting Anarcho-capitalism in his vandalism of entries on anarchism. I haven't done any digging, but given your assertions, I will have to assume that you are part of the anarcho-capitalist circle which routinely vandalizes Wikipedia and drives away good users.

You've picked a fight with the wrong person. I won't go away and I'm bring in more people into this. Chuck0 03:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You say, "Every anarchist I've ever talked to considers anarcho-capitalism to be an oxymoron or worse." You're being circular again. If you don't consider the anarcho-capitalists you've talked to as being included in the anarchists you've talked to, such as me, then you're restricting those personal experiences to only include anti-capitalists. I'm an anarchist that considers anarcho-capitalism be anarchism. And all the other anarcho-capitalists, who comprise a very significant amount of anarchists, especially in the United States (which is what this article is about) consider it to be anarchism. And, most scholars who are self-labeled anarchists who are not anarcho-capitalists consider it to be anarchism. And, all scholars who are not anarchists consider it to be anarchism (which is the most trustworthy because they can be more objective).Anarcho-capitalism 12:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what is circular about my experience as an anarchist and familiarity with many American anarchists. I've been an anarchist for over 20 years, have edited several anarchist publications, run the most popular anarchist website, and have attended many anarchist conferences. When I've brought up the subject of anarcho-capitalism with anarchists, they either look bewildered, laugh out loud, or just dismiss the idea out of hand. An Anarchist FAQ is still the best source for explaining why anarcho-capitalism is nonsense.

I think I've only met on person who considers himself to be an anarcho-capitalist. I haven't had a chance to talk to him at length, so I don't know what he really believes. Your statement that anarcho-capitalists comprise a significant amount of American anarchists is just absurd. This is a total fantasy. As far as some of us have been able to determine, there are only a handful of anarcho-capitalists. You yourself troll Wikipedia under several accounts, which you are confronted about on a regular basis. As I've pointed out before, the number of anarcho-capitalists in the United States is insigificant. You have no business using Wikipedia for original research. Chuck0 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to add in my two cents: this is another American anarcho-capitalist here who's read Rothbard, and he definitely is influential. I've heard a lot of anarcho-capitalist debates that quote him at one point or another. Fephisto 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is about "Anarchism in the United States," not "Anarcho-capitalism in the United States." The number of self-identified anarcho-capitalists is very small. Rothbard might be influential in that circle, but he isn't influential on the much bigger anarchist movement in the U.S. The number of anarcho-capitalists may number in the dozens while the number of anarchists numbers in the tens of thousands. The prominence of Rothbard in this entry is out of whack with his influence on U.S. anarchism. Chuck0 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, is your qualm that Anarcho-Capitalism is identified as Anarchism and it shouldn't? Or that Anarcho-Capitalism is being included in this article because 'it's voice is too small'? Or something else entirely? Fephisto 05:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My objection as an anarchist and person who knows alot about this subject is that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. The ironic thing is that former anarcho-capitalists agree with me on this point. More importantly, as a Wikipedian, my objection is that this article is unbalanced and in places represents the opinion of just one person. Even if you grant Rothbard and anarcho-capitalists as subjects worthy of coverage in this entry, the sections on them should be smaller than the sections on other anarchist tendencies and personalities. If the anarchist movement outnumbers anarcho-capitalists by 1000:1 or some similar number, shouldn't an article about "Anarchism in the United States" reflect those numbers? If we were talking about an article on a subject like Christianity, for example, most of the article should treat major branches such as the Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists and so on. What Anarcho-capitalist wants here is an article on Christianity which is written by proponents of some obscure sect, like the Satanists or something like "Buddhist-Christians." This article is just unbalanced and inaccurate in parts that have nothing to do with Rothbard or anarcho-capitalism. Chuck0 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Chuck, it is not an oxymoron for anyone who understands free-market economy. It is in fact very obvious that it is a type of anarchy of the individualistic umbrella. Maybe it is just me... But do one really need to be a scholar to understand basic concepts such as liberty, property and pursuit of happiness? Many left people seem to have the definition all messed up to the point that the words means something entirely different and can only be used to further their goal. Lord Metroid 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Productive editing

Due to unproductive edit warring I've protected the article temporarily. It should remain protected until opposing editors can come to agreement on compromise text. It doesn't have to make anyone happy, just to be tolerable. Please seek consensus. -Will Beback · † · 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that. What reason does the person (Chuck0) that was deleting the well-sourced Rothbard section out have to come to any consensus now, since it's been locked into place sans the Rothbard section?Anarcho-capitalism 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do? Just sit on our hands and hope he decides to talk even though it's in his interest not to, now that the article is frozen the way he wants it? Is there a time limit?Anarcho-capitalism 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a start, albeit a very imperfect solution. The problem with freezing this article is that is freezes the inaccurate one that is basically original research and fantasies concocted by Anarcho-capitalism. When this article in unprotected, we'll be back where we started. People like me will be unable to correct this article and improve it, because Anarcho-capitalism is using this article as part of his campaign to use Wikipedia for original research about anarcho-capitalism and its relationship to anarchism. This is an example of one of Wikipedia's biggest flaws, which is that the most dedicated editor will prevail over more rational, normal people who don't have time for this insane edit-warring. Anarcho-capitalism and his pals have already driven away other quality editors. With me, they've run into a mountain which will eventually bury them. It would be good if we could come up with consensus on how to write this article, but this is simply impossible when one of the people involved is a dogmatic zealot with little regard for facts or reality. Wikipedia needs better procedures to deal with this problem. In the meantime, I'm going to go find other anarchists to help me intervene in this situation. Chuck0 06:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not going to go anywhere if you keep falsely accusing me of original research. Learn what "original research" means here. If something is cited, then by definition it's not original research. Original research simply means something that not cited or that can't be cited.Anarcho-capitalism 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then let's take a look at how Wikipedia defines original research

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The last part is what's applicable here. You are engaged in original research, which is Wikipedia's way of saying that you are using Wikipedia to advance your take on this subject matter, which is substantially different than what is commonly accepted by U.S. anarchists and scholars. Remember how I cited those important anthologies which didn't have anything on Rothbard or anarcho-communism? Or the fact that AK Press doesn't carry anarcho-capitalist books. Or the fact that most anarchists would agree that anarcho-capitalism is a marginal part of anarchism, if they recognize its legitimacy at all. The body of anarchist writings shows that anarcho-capitalism is marginal and those writers who do talk about anarcho-capitalism almost always point out that anarchists dismiss the concept or see it as a contentiou s issue. You've also shown a tendency to make some preposterous claims, like that anarcho-capitalists make up most of the anarchist movement. I think everything you've contributed to Wikipedia and your constant edit-wars with other volunteers, confirms the fact that you are using Wikipedia to create a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" about anarchism. Chuck0 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're still being circular. You're claiming that anarchists don't consider Rothbard as an anarchist, but you're excluding anarcho-capitalists at the outset from being included in those anarchists. So, what you're saying is meaningless. If one includes anarcho-captalists in the set of "anarchists" then there are many anarchists that consider Rothbard to be an anarchist - that is, virtually all individualist anarchists regard him as an anarchist. Your POV is just that the Rothbard is not an anarchist and not an important one. So you conveniently exclude anarcho-capitalists from the group of "anarchists" that you claim don't consider him to be an anarchist. Then you conclude that anarchists don't consider Rothbard to be an anarchist. It's a blatantly fallacious argument. But, you can't push your POV here, because there are so many sources from anarchists (including pro and anti "capitalist" anarchists and scholars) and non-anarchist scholars that regard Rothard as a notable anarchist - as one of the most notable, if not THE most notable, individualist anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you continue to push your POV and your original research here. Sure, anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be anarchists, but how many of them are there? A dozen? Less than 50? Compare that to the millions of anarchists throughout the history of the U.S. who have not been anarcho-capitalists. I would think that an accurate entry on this subject would reflect the reality of American anarchism and not some fantastical revisionism that you are pushing here. You are digging yourself into a deeper hole with your latest comments. You say that "virtually all individualist anarchists" consider Rothbard to be an anarchist. What are your sources? Have you polled all of these individualist anarchists on this question? I think that your statement about individualist anarchists won't stand up to scrutiny. I've read comments by some of them which express anger at being associated with anarcho-capitalism. The other day I was going through my archives and found an issue of Instead of a Magazine which mentions Rothbard. These guys were individualists and they didn't have kind words to say about Rothbard. I'll see if I can dig up the exact quote. But your claims about Rothbard being a notable anarchist are fallacious. I've already disproven this with citations up above. Chuck0 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a safe bet that most anarchists in the USA are individualist anarchists, and almost all these don't hold a labor theory of value (in other words, they're anarcho-capitalists). Anarcho-capitalists theorists far outnumber "social anarchist" theorists in the U.S. "Social anarchism" is so passe'.Anarcho-capitalism 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and most reference works have higher standards than relying on "safe bets." Your claims here have no basis in reality. Individualist anarchists are in the minority within American anarchism. I've done polling and surveys and found that the number of people who identify as individualists is fairly low. And if anarcho-capitalist theorists outnumber other anarchist theorists, then why can't I find any of their work in anarchist books and journals? Do they publish using invisible ink in invisible journals. How about if I ask some anarchist archivists about how much publishing the anarcho-capitalists have done in the U.S.? Chuck0 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Some individualists not having kind words to say about Rothbard is not the same thing as claiming that he's not notable. Individualist anarchists have always argued amongst eath other. Each one has his own philosophy and thinks his own is the best.Anarcho-capitalism 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the silly "An Anarchist FAQ". Though it's full of bad scholarship and lies, it devotes almost the whole thing to anarcho-capitalism (and creates publicity for it). They think he's notable, even if they don't like him. They claim he's not an anarchist, but then they're devoted anti-anarcho-capitalists so that's to be expected. It's just POV. Social anarchists don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism (and often don't think 19th century individualist anarchism is anarchism either). But, one is hard pressed to find an individualist who says Rothbard wasn't an anarchist. Of course he was. But again, it doesn't matter what self-styled "anarchists" think if they haven't published a work. There are plenty of sources from published anarchist scholars (including pro and anti "capitalist" anarchists) and non-anarchist scholars that regard Rothard as a notable anarchist - as one of the most notable, if not THE most notable, individualist anarchistAnarcho-capitalism 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly? Really? Iain and others have spent 10 years on that work. It is well-sourced, drawing information and content from a wide variety of anarchists and anarchist publications. It does devote some of its content to debunking anarcho-capitalism, but that is a product of its origins. The FAQ was started in part to refute the anarcho-capitalists that the anarchist movement discovered in the mid 1990s. Most of us had never heard of anarcho-capitalism before a few nutcases started spewing that nonsense on the Internet. Some of us at the time dismissed the anarcho-capitalists as a handful of Americans who were familiar with American libertarianism but were ignorant of what anarchism is about. Chuck0 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that one of the ways that this dispute could be resolved is by mentioning Murray Rothbard in a similar way to Ward Churchill is. Something like: "Murray Rothbard considered his anarcho-capitalist ideas to be in line with anarchist thought." I will say this--the guy wrote the libertarian manifesto. While he might of considered his ideas in line with anarchism, he didn't seem to define himself as an anarchist. Or he would have written the anarchist manifesto. or you could even say instead "Many individualist anarchists look to Murray Rothbards writings and consider him an anarchist." BTW, I hope we don't start equating libertarians with anarchists, because libertarians are crazy--and that is my own original research.Butterflyvertigo 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Rothbard did consider himself to be an "anarchist," - not just "in line with anarchist thought." He thought anarcho-capitalism was the pure anarchism. And it's not just that he thought himself an anarchist. So, do tons of sources. Anarchism, as ordinarily defined, is simply opposition to the existence of a state. So, of course the sources say he was an anarchist. Each anarchist has his own philosophy beyond that basic requirement. The problem is that each type of anarchism thinks theirs is the true anarchism, so they argue that the other type isn't a true type of anarchism. It's just POV wars. For example, my position is that social anarchism is not true anarchism (but of course I don't push that POV in articles). Chuck0 wants to delete the section because he's POV pushing his POV that anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism.Anarcho-capitalism 02:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not pushing my vision of "true anarchism" here. True anarchism is not even an issue. I'm interested in making sure that this is a fair and accurate article. I'm widely known within the anarchist movement as a "big tent anarchist," which means that I think that anarchism is made up of many different strains and that anarchism should be as inclusive as possible. The Infoshop.org website is a good example of my approach towards anarchism--the 32 varieties of anarchism are welcome there.

I'm pretty open-minded about what constitutes anarchism. I even see the mutualists as being part of anarchism. A mutualist is what you should really be calling yourself, not the oxymoron known as "anarcho-capitalism." As anarchists have pointed out, anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction because anarchism opposes capitalism and the state. You simply can't have capitalism without the state. How are you going to force people to be wage slaves in your anti-statist anarcho-capitalist society? Which free person would volunteer to be exploited in your system? It's just illogical.

Butterflyvertigo has offered an interesting compromise based on fairly standard Wikipedia practices. Rothbard coul have his little section at the bottom of the page after the Churchill section. Rothbard could be included in a section on outlier anarchists, in other words, people whose identification as an anarchist is poorly sourced or contested. But Rothbard shouldn't be included on this page until it has more content on the history of U.S. anarchism, notable anarchists, notable projects and publications and so on. I was trying to improve the page the other night before somebody vandalized it and started reverting my changes. Chuck0 03:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think I should call myself a mutualist instead of an anarcho-capitalist, that shows how little you know about anarchism. Mutualists have a normative labor theory of value. Anarcho-capitalists don't. Therefore, mutualists think people should by paid according to labor instead of how much someone else subjectively values their labor. They erroneously think people are being "exploited" because they're not receiving an amount of money commensurate with their labor. And, mutualists believe it is OK to steal land and homes that someone purchased or transformed through labor if the person chooses not to use them. Anarcho-capitalism is definitely not mutualism. And, anarcho-capitalists do not seek to "force people to be wage slaves." Wage payers don't force people to work. They simply offer someone the opportunity to earn money. Take it or leave it. Of course you can have capitalism (private ownership of the means of production and a free market) without a state. As to your offer, I don't accept your offer to represent Rothbard like that. Rothbard is just too notable to be relegated to a section portaying him as if he's not. He's not an "outlier." He's right there in the middle of it. He's the most famous of all the modern individaulist anarchists. The sources are there.Anarcho-capitalism 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that you can have capitalism without the state, you are seriously deluded. Capitalism requires the state in order to function. I could cite the voluminous number of writers who have pointed that out over the past 150 years, including Marx and Bakunin. If you want some kind of economy with trade, but without the state, then you don't want capitalism. Capitalism is a system of exploitation of workers. It's a lot more than that, but I don't need to go over the basics of capitalism on a talk page. If you consider yourself to be a libertarian, then you have to oppose capitalism and the state. How can you as a libertarian support a system of exploitation? Again, you are completely wrong about Rothbard. You are engaging in original research here about Rothbard being a notable anarchist. This cannot be tolerated here. Chuck0 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that you can't have capitalism without a state? Ownership of the means of production would be protected by private defense, as would freedom to trade. Some people would be self-employed, some people would choose to be employed for others for a wage. That's capitalism. As defined in The Merriam - Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, "an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." Anarcho-capitalism 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you aren't very credible on these topics. I see on your user page that you claim that you are an anti-communist anarchist. I'm sure that most anarchists would laugh at that, if they aren't shaking their heads in disbelief. Anarchism is inherently socialist and communist. That's why most anarchists don't even bother to hypehnate their anarchism with economic prefixes. They understand that anarchism is anti-capitalist and for sharing of economic resources. You claim that the means of production would be protected by private defense. Why would any anarchist or libertarian support such a system? This goes against everything anarchists believe. Private defense forces have a habit of becoming larger systems of coercion, i.e. states. Why would you even have a private defense force in an anarchist society? Are you defending some anti-social dick who doesn't want to participate in the community? What would these forces be protecting? Private personal property? Anarchists aren't against private personal property, but we are against people who amass large amount fo property at the expense of others, i.e. capitalism. Chuck0 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep showing how little acquainted you are with the various philosophies. You seemed to accept that Benjamin Tucker and the other 19th century individualists are anarchists, but they support private defense too. Tucker said, "[D]efense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." And, he said, it "does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." If anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists for supporting private defense of person and property, then why would the 19th century individualists be anarchists? You have a strange definition of capitalism. You're making up your own definition when you're defining it as "amassing large amount of property at the expense of others." That's not how capitalism is defined. It's defined as private ownership of the means of production and a free market. And, yes, wealth distribution would of course not be equal because it's market economy. The reason you need private defense is to protect yourself from anarcho-communists and others who want to expropriate the legitimately-acquired property of others.Anarcho-capitalism 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm an anarchist in the 21st century, not the 18th. I really don't care what Tucker said about any of this, there have been lots of anarchists since him who have weighed in on these issues. I know what capitalism is--it fucks me over on a daily basis. I'm just trying to figure out where you really stand on capitalism. It sounds like you are one of those right-wing American libertarians who want to keep your class privilege and property, but doesn't like the government. Anarchists are against capitalism, even the individualists. There are anarchists such as the mutualists who talk about having a mixed economy with trade and currencies, but they don't call themselves anarcho-capitalists.

Let me ask you a question: are you a capitalist? Do you own your own means of production? You seem to have a serious disconnect with the practical aspects of libertarianism and anarchism. You come across as somebody who sees this as a semantical game about theory. Chuck0 22:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I want to keep my "class and property." Is there something wrong with that?! I have earned my property. I've worked, been paid for it, and purchased it. And you're wrong that individualists anarchists are against capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists are individaulist anarchists that are pro-capitalism is its purest form. And, yes I do own means of production. I've paid for them with my labor. And I'm not going to let any "anarcho"-communist expropriate it. How is capitalism f*ing you over? If it has anything to do with the state interference with capitalism, then it's not a complaint against capitalism but the against the state. Capitalism is defined as a private system, not a state system - private ownership of the means of production and private markets. The state interferes with capitalism. The only thing that can prevent capitalism from happening is the state. The less control that state exerts over an economy, the more capitalist an economy is. The more control a state exerts, the more socialist an economy is. If someone is a real anarchist then they prefer less state control over more state control. And, again, less state control over the economy results in more capitalism. No state control results in pure capitalism, because people naturally want to own the product of their labor (including if that product is a means of production) and engage in trade - they want to engage in capitalism. (Maybe you don't, but you don't have to if there is freedom. You can go set up a collectivist commune with your buddies if you want. And yes you have to buy the land, because stealing is bad. But, you could take state-"owned" land, and that wouldn't be stealing because the state doesn't buy land but steals it, or buys it with stolen money - taxes). I don't know what you call "capitalism," but when I'm referring to capitalism I'm referring to laissez-faire capitalism. Is it your position that the U.S. is laissez-faire capitalism? Anarcho-capitalism 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all off-topic, but with as many lines already spent on it I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents. The largest part of your disagreement stems from using the same word to refer to two different things. When an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-communist use the same word, they don't refer to the same things. Until adherents realise that the arguments will be endless.

Both schools stem from a philosophical rejection of coërcion. When an anarcho-capitalist says 'capitalism' he means an economic system based on voluntary exchange. When an anarcho-communist says 'capitalism' he means a system built from the ground up on coërcion. So naturally each school sees the other as non-anarchist or even anti-anarchist.

It's not *merely* a semantic disagreement, because while the 'capitalism' each refers to is different, there are shared characteristics, because each is an idealisation based to some extent on what the rest of the world means by the word. There are fundamental differences that exist behind, and to some degree create, the disagreement on what the word means - but you'll never even approach them until the semantic impass can be transcended.

Nevertheless, this is all entirely off-topic to the purpose of editting this article. This is an encyclopædia. It is to be based on neutral reliable sources. It is not the place to debate the finer points of anarchist philosophy. It is the place to work on an article which communicates to the reader from a completely neutral point of view the very highest points of Anarchist philosophy and history. Anarcho-capitalism believes that the anarcho-communists are not real anarchists. He's entitled to that belief, he's entitled to write it and argue it in the proper place. This is not it. He's been around long enough to get his head around that fact, and he knows better to try. Chuck0, on the other hand, is a new arrival who still hasn't quite figured out what the constraints are here, and rushes in removing anarcho-capitalists because of his belief they aren't actually anarchists. This is no more acceptable than it would be for anarcho-capitalist to run in and delete Emma Goldman from the article. That's the issue that needs to be dealt with here - the rest of it may be important to you two personally, but it doesn't belong here.

Oh, and to Chuck0 - pulling in friends to try and back you up won't work. The policy issue is non-negotiable. You appear to have lucked out in that the first admin to get involved didn't take the time to figure out what was going on - he just froze the article and told you two to work it out. That's normal. But if the problem isn't resolved by this, more admins *will* examine the issues involved, and you won't like what happens next. So please, accept the limitations policy put on you here, quit trying to censor the content you don't agree with, and do something positive - like adding some good material on American anarcho-socialists. Arker 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I'm wasting space debating/teaching. I'll try to stick to discussing what matters - whether things are sourced; and, keep trying to get Chuck0 to understand that that is what matters as well, instead of his, or my, personal opinions on whether Rothbard is an anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 22:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Arker, but your attempt to dismiss me here as a "newbie" is just laughable. I've been a Wikipedia editor for several years. I know how the process works around here and I'm a smart enough guy to see through your game. I'm also a well-known anarchist of 20+ years and I'm a professional librarian. Lecturing me about what a neutral point of view means is silly as I am a librarian with a professional understanding of how reference works are constructed. What annoys me in this stupid debate is how little regard Anarcho-capitalism and you (to a lesser extent) have for people with a knowledge of this subject area. You all are turning into a case examples of why people don't take Wikipedia seriously. You all want to fight anybody who attempts to write an accurate and neutral article about this subject. You guys aren't going to win, because more people will come along, read this entry and go "What the Fuck?"

Your choice of words here indicate that you are part of Anarcho-capitalism's circle of friends. Anarchists do not call themselves "anarcho-socialists." The socialism part of anarchism is seen as a given, which is why anarchists don't identify as "anarcho-socialists" except in some situations where we want to make it clear that anarchism is anti-capitalist and for communism, socialism, cooperation or some other kind of anarchist economic system (i.e. the mutualists). The term anarcho-socialism is a redundancy.

Arker, please spare everybody the nonsense claim that I'm censoring this entry, when you yourself removed a significant contribution to this article. When this article in unlocked, I will again make those contributions, as they are a factual overview of this subject. I will get more anarchists involved in this entry. I'm not going to go away guys. Sorry. Chuck0 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that you have knowledge of anarchism but you keep showing that you don't. For instance, you showed that you thought mutualism and anarcho-capitalism are the same thing when you said I should call myself a mutualist. And you showed that you had no knowledge that the 19th century individualists supported market-provided police, courts, and jails when you said that you believed they were anarchists, because you claimed that anarcho-capitalists were not anarchists because they support private defense. So, no, I don't regard you as knowledge in anarchism. But again, whether you are knowledgeable is not relevant. What matters is SOURCES.Anarcho-capitalism 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add material about the American neo-conservative movement to a wikipedia article on fascism. My contributions were reverted and I was accused of vandalism. Just because something has some aspects of fascism doesn't make it part of the historical fascist movement according to wikipedia's standards. Just because something has some of the attributes that define anarchism (lack of a state) doesn't make it part of the historical anarchist movement. This article is supposed to be a history of anarchism in the United States, not an overview of all the abstract theories that have been described as anarchist. Lots of dictatorships have claimed to be democracies, yet a wikipedia article on democracy will not mention them because most real democrats would not consider a dictatorship a democracy. I don't think anarcho-capitalists have played any part in the historical anarchist movement. If someone can find examples of anarcho-capitalists contributing to anarchist movements, then the thinkers behind anarcho-capitalism may deserve inclusion. I don't think this is possible because anarcho-capitalism has no history. It's a mid to late 20th century idea dreamed up by capitalist Libertarians.

It is also not a viable theory. Before the development of modern capitalism, it might have been possible to have an anarchist system with private ownership of the means of production because each worker would be a simple farmer or artisan and could own his or her own tools. However, with modern technology, the means of production consist of massive constructions: factories, computer networks, railways, and etc. No individual can build these things on their own, nor produce enough wealth to afford their cost within his/her lifetime. They cannot work these machines by themselves and therefore must work with democratic collectives (anarchism) or under an oligarchy (capitalism). If you allow individuals to own the means of other people's production, then they can dictate how other people work. Control of the labor of others means controlling their means of living. This is inherently exploitive. People will seek to collectively operate their workplaces. They will want some control over their own lives. The only way that owners can exercise their "right" to their property at that point would be to crush the unions or workers councils by force. Max Weber defined government as an entity that claims a Monopoly on the use of force. If capitalists were the only ones with the official "right" to use force, then they would be government. Anarcho-capitalism may look like a modern nation-state, but it would be a system of government, a plutocracy, not anarchy! Delirium of disorder 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said! Some of the anarchists I've talked to about this conflict have pointed out that for such a large movement, anarcho-capitalism doesn't seem to exist outside of the theories of a few Internet-based people. There aren't any anarcho-capitalist organizations. No journals. They never table at any anarchist conferences. Their articles are never published in any anarchist publications. They aren't involved in any of the social movements. The main thrust of their activism seems to be posting to Internet websites. Chuck0 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of the Journal of Libertarian Studies? Can you stop being circular? Your premise is that anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists, so you single out organizations or journals that don't deal with anarcho-capitalism and conclude that anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. Of course it's not a "social movement." Individualist anarchism, from Benjamin Tucker on through Rothbard, is traditionally philosophical anarchism for the most part, not a "social movement."Anarcho-capitalism 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Chuck0: Although Anarcho-capitalism has conceded that anarcho-capitalism is not a social movement and has not had much historical impact, there are anarcho-capitalist journals. In fact, they were the first places that Chomsky's politics were published:

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings. http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html

Delirium of disorder 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say it has not had much historical impact. How is one to know if it has or hasn't? Philosophy is philosophy. What is its impact? It's hard to say because it's indirect. It affects the way people think and how they shape the world. But it has had strong influence in American anarchist philosophy, for sure.Anarcho-capitalism 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism: if you want a somewhere to express you ideas, wikipedia may not be the best place because of NPOV. There is an Anarcho-capitalist wiki. I'm sure it's users would welcome your contributions. see: http://billstclair.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl Delirium of disorder 07:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute settled

I think the two settled down. It has been a month since they debated. Unlocking it should be fine now, right? Lord Metroid 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been locked for an unreasonable amount of time.Anarcho-capitalism 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The dispute has not been settled. I am going to edit this article and leave the stuff alone that has been the center of this dispute. I will leave the section about Rothbard alone. If User:Anarcho-capitalism interferes with my efforts to improve and expand this article, we can move this dispute to formal conflict mediation. I'm willing to compromise here, but only if I can make changes without having everything fucking reverted all the time. Chuck0 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Major splits in American anarchism

In my experience, there can be an important split between class struggle anarchism (aka workerism) (on the one hand) and primitivism and post-leftism (aka lifestylism) (on the other). This mostly splits social anarchists and other socialist anarchists. Jacob Haller 08:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there can be a three-way split, though the text doesn't completely accurately describe it, between (1) libertarian socialism/social anarchism, particularly communism, (2) the libertarian left, particularly mutualism, agorism, and geoism, as well as the non-mutualist 19th-century individualists (Spooner et al.), and (3) the libertarian right. But (1) and (2) are more alike than (2) and (3) in my limited experience. Jacob Haller 08:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spooner is more like a anarcho-communist than like Rothbard? Is that what you're saying? You can't be serious. Anarcho-capitalism 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, from the sources I've seen I don't think there's a consensus on whether non-anarcho-capitalist individualists are left libertarians or right libertarians. This source seems to say that all individualist are on the right: "Usually considred to be an extreme left-wing ideology, anarchism has always included a significant strain of radical individualism, from the hyperrationalism of Godwin, to the egoism of Stirner, to the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists of today." (Brooks, Frank H. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908). Transaction Publishers, 1994, p. 8) Rothbard considered himself to be on the left, for what that's worth. I think today, left is considered collectivist and right is considered individualist. Anarcho-capitalism 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are probably "right" and "left" Rothbardians. SEK3 also considered himself on the left, as do most current agorists. The brand new Alliance of the Libertarian Left and Agorist Action Alliance certainly emphasize left connections, right down to a considerable overlap with SDS/MDS membership. Libertatia 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical liberalism" was on the Left, hence the term "liberalism" as opposed to "conservativism" which was on the Right. So, historically speaking, laissez-faire capitalism is a philosophy of the Left. Business/government partnership and mercantilism was conservativism, and therefore on the Right. That's why Rothbard considered himself on the Left. For some strange reason free-market capitalists are often considered to be on the Right now. They themselves, though, often don't consider themselves to be on the Right or the Left today. The philosophy doesn't change so much as what's considered "Left" and what's "Right" changes over time. Anarcho-capitalism 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about abstract associations, really, or distant history. Market anarchists affiliated with, for example, the Movement for a Democratic Society, are "left" presently, and organizationally. Agorism, with its goal of a "movement of the libertarian left," envisions an active engagement with the present left. If you look at the relative "closeness" of factions, I think it's hardly contestable that A3 agorists and other conscious, explicit "left-libertarians" (such as ALL members) are closer to mutualists and geo-libertarians than they are to the sort of "free market capitalists" who would never consider joining SDS/MDS or the IWW. Libertatia 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How are agorists closer to mutualists than anarcho-capitalists? They don't have a labor theory of value, don't support occupancy and use restrictions on land, and are not money cranks. Agorists are Rothbardians. Konkin described agorists as "strict Rothbardians." If you're a Rothbardian, you're an anarcho-capitalist. Please state a material difference in their philosophy from anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalism 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all well and good for you to say that "if you're a Rothbardian, you're an anarcho-capitalist." However, that's not the way a significant number of actual agorists see it. Perhaps this is only semantics. Do your variety of anarcho-capitalists recognize organizations like the SDS/MDS, and radical labor unions such as the Industrial Workers of the World as their logical allies in the struggle for genuinely free markets (whatever you want to call them)? Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, and Kevin Carson all do, as do members of the geo-libertarian Democratic Freedom Caucus, and the new Alliance of the Libertarian Left is an expression of that similarity, which those involved think is much more important than the disagreements about land tenure, or the different emphases with regard to theories of value. Someone like George Reisman, and many of the libertarians I know, obviously doesn't see things that way. Are "anarcho-capitalists" (according to your definition) more like the first group or the second. If you're more like the first, perhaps we should be collaborating, rather than arguing all the time. But I suspect the theoretical issues too important to you, placing you at some distance from the first group. Am I wrong? Libertatia 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in buddying up with "International Workers of the World." I suspect they support statist intervention in the form of minimum wages, and other such invasions, and foment class warfare as if capitalists (business owners and investors) are the enemy. I've never heard of the "SDS/MDS." I'm opposed to class warfare, unless the class being fought is parasite class - the state and those who use the coercive powers of the state for enrichment. Business owners/employers who operate as businesses, rather than as seek favors and legal measures from the state to stifle competition, are not my enemy but my friends regardless of the wages they pay. Those who create jobs are doing a service to humanity. Those who loan money for interest are doing a service to humanity, regardless of the interest they charge; people should be allowed compensation for investment risks they take. As far as who I'm going to associate with I can't speak for all anarcho-capitalists, only myself. But who someone associates with is not really relevant. Agorists are anarcho-capitalists, regardless of who they associate with. It's basically just a name change for marketing purposes. I have no disagreement with them at all. I could have easily chose the username "Agorist" and have the same philosophy that I do now, and you're opinion of me would be different. I think the term "capitalism" throws you off. We anarcho-capitalists simply use the normal definition for capitalism, which is a free market economy. Konkin said the goal of agorism is "relations between people are voluntary exchanges — a free market." Me too. There is no difference.Anarcho-capitalism 19:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with SEK3's description of the goal as well—as far as it goes. And I consider a number of individuals who choose to call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" close comrades, with philosophies ultimately compatible with my own. Does that mean that there is "no difference" between my philosophy and yours? It certainly doesn't look that way. SDS/MDS is, of course, Students for a Democratic Society/Movement for a Democratic Society. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you have no knowledge of that organization or, apparently, of the IWW. You seem to get stuck at the level of abstractions. Konkin was explicitly a revolutionary. Libertatia 19:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add, if there were a group of anarcho-capitalists that had meeting, I probably wouldn't associate with them either. What could be accomplished? Anarcho-capitalism is an evolutionary thing, that won't be acheived for long time, could be hundred years or more, with the gradual illumination of the human mind. Philosophy works toward that, not meetings and back-slapping. Also, you mentioned Roderick T. Long. Long is an anarcho-capitalist. Konkin was not a revolutionary, if you mean violent revolution. He simply believed in black markets in order help wither away the state. I fully support that. That's like David Friedman who thinks that anarcho-capitalism will be acheived my the gradual privatization of things that government has been involved in, eventually resulting in privatization of everything. I will definitely not support a "Democratic" movement. I as an individualist oppose democracy, naturally. I disagree that anarcho-capitalist philosophy is compatible with your own if you're a mutualist. A mutualist by definition thinks that rent and interest, unmatched labor costs, are exploitation, etc, etc. Anarcho-capitalism 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Empty wordplay. You oppose a word, "democracy," based on what you think it must mean. And then you attempt to attribute some other quality ("violence") to "revolution," though it should be clear that the movement that advocates "Anarchy! Agora! Action!" isn't a quietist, "evolutionary" one, like your "anarcho-capitalism." The agorists who are involved with MDS (heck, Long is on the board!), and/or support the IWW certainly don't fit your description. BTW, Long seems to be calling himself a "Dialectical Left-Agorist" at the moment. He's also maintaining one of the two ALL websites. Some pesky mutualist is taking care of the other. I think your claim to be "closer" to people with whom you would not affiliate in any active sense is fairly hollow, particularly in light of the active alliance-building going on in what are now increasingly joint agorist-mutualist-geo-libertarian circles. All of this is silly, really. Division among market anarchists does not advance anyone's agenda, particularly if our goals are a long ways off. Libertatia 22:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Democracy usually means majority rule. I oppose majority rule. That's what I mean when I say I oppose democracy. You can call people by whatever label you want. My philosophy is what it is. You can call it anarcho-capitalism, agorism, whatever. It is what it is. I support a world a person has a right to own his body and the product of his labor as long as he does not use them to aggress against others. That's my whole philosophy in once sentence. Call it what you want. Call it left. Call it right. I don't care. I simply call it anarcho-capitalism. Long and I are in agreement. Mutualists' support for ownership of the product of labor is incomplete. They don't support the product of labor as property if it's labored upon land or buildings. They condone theft of those things. The philosophy is incompatible with anarcho-capitalist philosophy. Maybe anarcho-capitalists and mutualists can work together for some common ends, but eventually they're going to come to that point of conflict. Either people have a right to own the product of their labor or they don't. Make up your mind. (Roderick Long was callig himself an anarcho-capitalist not too long ago. He can call himself whatever he wants. I see you got that off his blog. That looks like a joke to me. I'm in in general agreement with his philosophy, but I call myself an anarcho-capitalist.By the way, see Roderick Long's criticism of mutualism: [8] ) We anarcho-capitalists will allow mutualist activities to exist among mutualists. The problem is, mutualists, won't allow anarcho-capitalist activities to exist among anarcho-capitalists. I'm talking about land and building. Mutualists condone taking over land and buildings that are not in use. Anarcho-capitalists will allow mutualists to contract with each other to allow each other to give up ownership rights of things they purchase if they stop using them. But the reverse is not true. They don't recognize "absentee ownership" as legitimate. Because of this mutualism and anarcho-capitalism are fundamentally incompatible. Mutualists and anarcho-capitalists would be at war, with the capitalists protecting their unused land and the mutualists trying to take it for their own use.Anarcho-capitalism 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Splits (2)

I hope these subthreads improve navigation.

What you suspect about the "International Workers of the World" need not match the position of the Industrial Workers of the World, although some of the language can be off-putting to any market anarchist (abolition of the wage system). Wobbly literature generally leaves plenty of room for different socialist or workerist strains, so it can be rather vague. My first encounters with voluntary socialism (widely scattered) and propertarian socialism were in official or unofficial Wobbly literature (in The Centralia Conspiracy, with Chaplin quoting Lamb):

There is only one reason why--they were defending their own legal property against unlawful invasion and attack; they were defending the dwelling place of Britt Smith, their secretary. And they had full right to defend their lives and that property and that home against violence or destruction; they had a right to use force, if necessary, to effect that defense.

Chaplin, an anarchist, favorably quoted Lamb, probably to highlight the hypocrisy of the "defenders of property" in the conspiracy. But this shows how often the "Proudhon standard" and the "Locke standard" converge. AFAIK, the general ALL/MLL/market-left-libertarian position basically respects local standards. If some people expect Lockean standards in a mutualist community, or mutualist standards in a Lockean community, and they expect somebody to defend their claims, well, that's their mistake. As for LTV, even Proudhon argued that value was subjective and contractual, and that labor was an approximate limiting factor (long-term price hovering just above long-term cost). Labor creates value, and labor predicts value in stable free markets. As for money-crankery, I suggest reading Tucker or Greene on the subject. They are scathing about real money-cranks (including Greenbackers, and other fiat-money supporters, as well as both gold-only and gold-and-overrated-silver supporters). Mutual banking is not fiat or fractional-reserve banking. It is secured-loan banking. Jacob Haller 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"If some people expect Lockean standards in a mutualist community, or mutualist standards in a Lockean community, and they expect somebody to defend their claims, well, that's their mistake." No it's not a mistake. I would defend my unused land from being taken over by mutualists. I don't know what you mean by a "mutualist community" and a "lockean community." One shouldn't have to leave his home to enjoy an anarcho-capitalism. Truly compatible systems would allow all individuals to live in the same place. The neighbor on my right might be a mutualist, the neighbor on my left might be a communist. The mutualist would have to respect my right to defend my unused land and buildings from being taken over. I would respect the right of mutualist to contract amongst each other to allow their unused land to be taken over. The problem is, mutualist don't respect a right to own land and buildings that I purchase if decide not to use them. They clearly say that taking those things over by use is legitimate. As far the LTV, "value" refers to "market price," not worth. (I keep seeing people on Wikipedia making the mistake of thinking "value" in LTV and STV refers to worth). The mutualists thought market prices in a free market are proportional to labor exerted (that's the labor theory of value of Ricardo and Smith). The mutualists think state intervention prevents prices of goods and labor from being proportion to labor. When they see people working the same amount getting different pay, or someone working little and being paid a lot, they conclude that someone is being exploited. But we know today that prices are not proportional to labor in a free market. They are proportional to marginal utility. There is no reason to think that someone is being exploited if he's not paid according to how much labor exerted. As for money crankery, Tucker and Green are money cranks. It's totally flawed understanding of money and interest rates. Increasing the supply of money would not bring interests to to zero or near zero. That's not what determines interest rates. And they're wrong to think that the money supply would increase in the first place. If there is no authority regulating the money supply, it is self-regulating and prevents inflation.Anarcho-capitalism 15:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism is not some "quantity theory" of money. The point of a mutual bank is to create the right currency for the job, not simply to make more. The earliest land banks grew out of periods where there was a genuine shortage of circulating medium, but under present circumstances the advantage of a mutual currency would be its relative cheapness and security. As for the supposed conflict between LTVs and marginal utility theory, it should be obvious that the two theories address different questions. You may disagree about the "productivity of capital," which was the question the LTVs most directly addressed. But marginal utility theory simply doesn't address that point. The shift of emphasis to subjectivism does not address that point, and was, of course, merely a shift in emphasis, as subjective elements were well-represented in most of the LTVs. Now, the sort of extreme subjectivism that makes a self-evident "right" out of absentee ownership is, of course, something that mutualists would take exception to. But so might strict proviso-Lockeans. You would certainly have to make a better case for that "right" than you have done here in order for anyone to take it seriously. Oh, and the present economy tells us very little about free markets, as it is conditioned throughout by state intervention. Anyway, off in more interesting forums, the prospects for broad left-libertarian cooperation are improving all the time. Libertatia 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to make a better case for "right" to absentee ownershipo. I'm not asking for a right to absentee ownership to be taken seriously. See Long's essay for that, or my essay. I am saying that anarcho-capitalist rights as they conceive them are incompatible with mutualism, because mutualism condones the taking over of property that is not in use. Mutualists and anarcho-capitalists cannot exist in the same community without war ensuing (unless mutualists simply keep themselves to theory). You are hung up on labels. I can see that now. If I could have called myself a "left" agorist, while having the same philosophy I do now. My philosophy is no different from agorism. I certainly don't consider myself on the right. I don't consider myself on the left-right scale at all. You keep showing you know nothing about marginal utility theory when you say "Oh, and the present economy tells us very little about free markets, as it is conditioned throughout by state intervention." We can still see free market in operation. You can set one up in a classroom and do experiments. Prices won't prioritize according to labor exerted, but according to marginal utility. Nobody cares how long you labor to produce a useless product. Anarcho-capitalism 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a damn about labels, and have consistently emphasized the way that they distort the entries here. If your philosophy is indeed no different than agorism, then we won't have a problem "after the revolution." But, having enjoyed Konkin's hospitality on the old Movement of the Libertarian Left list, and having played some part in the discussions that led to the creation of the new A3 and ALL, I have my doubts. In any event, what matters are the substantive discussions, which aren't taking place here, and the actual engagements with actual differences in theory, which it seems to me you consistently evade, in favor of some claim about what others "know nothing about." It's absolutely true that nobody cares how long you labor to produce a useless product. Proudhon said as much, as did Greene and Warren. Neither Kevin Carson nor I would disagree. "How long you labor" is, of course, the measure of "amount of labor" that both you and I have already explicitly rejected as the mutualist measure, so I'm not sure what your point is. Mutualism has, with rare exceptions, treated that issue of "amount" in highly subjective terms. You don't seem to realize that the slogan of the labor movement was never "All Labor Creates Wealth!" LTV proponents were answering these objections in the mid 19th century. This stuff is extremely old hat. Libertatia 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By "how long you labor" I meant how much labor was exerted. You know that from previous discussions. It's not just that people don't care how much labor you exerted when they decide on a price to pay for something, it's that prices in a free market simply don't line up with labor exerted. And, there is no reason to think that they would. The Theory is wrong. Even Ricardo himself said that he was not satisfied with the theory. He didn't believe it himself. My god, economics has advanced since then. You're in the stone ages. Price prioritize according to marginal utility, not labor. And, as I said, that can easily be verified by settting up a free market experiment. And, yes labor creates wealth. But it also destroys it. I can apply labor to something, and in the process turn it into something less useful. The market price is naturally going to decrease, even though more labor was applied. Labor is irrelevant. It does not predict prices in a free market. More important, there is certainly no ethical reason why it should. Why should you receive more income simply because you work harder than the next guy? It's not how hard you work that matters, but how useful to society that is which you produce. It's a caveman-like entitlement mentality to think that you deserve something simply because you work. If you're one of a million burger flippers why would you deserve anything more than what someone was willing to pay you (which is far below "minimum wage"). If you want higher wages with the same amount of labor, choose an occupation which takes the same amount of exertion, and in low supply and society finds useful. It's that ratio that determines prices, not labor exerted. Anarcho-capitalism 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought Geico had given us all our Cavemen Sensitivity Training, but, whatever, you're missing the point. Mutualism's engagement with the LTVs has not been primarily predictive, and the "prediction" of cost-price convergence is fairly trivial when you understand that the LTVs were primarily a protest against the ability of capital to command labor. Allow me to repeat: nearly all theories that could be called "mutualist" have taken into account the nonproductive character of labor in fields that find no market. This "caveman-like entitlement mentality" is a product of your own active imagination, and was something explicitly rejected by mutualists back in the "stone age." You obviously missed the difference between the slogan "labor creates all wealth" and the notion that "all labor creates wealth." The first is not adequate as anything other than a slogan. The second is that misconception you keep attributing to radicals who explicitly rejected it. Acceptance or rejection of the "productivity of capital" has no bearing whatsoever on a recognition of the predictive power of marginal utility. And in a free market—defined as one in which labor will not be at the command of capital—we certainly might expect that labor would get its just rewards (in a highly subjective sense, no doubt) in the marketplace. That's fairly orthodox mutualism, though the language is more modern. Libertatia 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well what do you know. You don't even know what a free market is. A free market is not "one in which labor will not be at the command of capital." A free market simply a market of voluntary exchange where government does not regulate price, supply, or demand. I'm always amazed and amused just how alien liberalism is to you. You can't understand any of this stuff if you don't understand the basic principles and language. Anarcho-capitalism 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BIG Yawn. You're something of a one-trick pony, with your "you don't understand" routine. I guess it saves you actually making any substantive responses. Libertatia 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi ... If you can't even recognize that you are lacking information in a field and hence refuse to ask yourself the questions that will lead you to abolish the ignorrance you have swept your view of reality in. User:Libertatia, may I ask you, what substantial proof of facts that you have which backs up your argument? Obviously not both views can be correct at the same time. So by showing some facts of what you try to argue is probably a very good idea. Because as we have seen above, opinions alone are not enough to persuade an end to this debate hence arguments needs to be backed up by logical reasoning and facts that strenghten those logical reasoning for the feud to come to a conclusion. Lord Metroid 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner

Is there any reason that Lysander Spooner is not included on this page?

Nope. Go for it. Libertatia 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I readded Lysander, who was deleted (by mistake?) some time ago, along with Andrews and Heywood. They perhaps need to be trimmed down. PhilLiberty 04:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reordering the notable anarchists section

I think this sections should be in rough chronological order, something like:

• Warren (late 1820s)
• Thoreau
• Greene (by 1849)
• Andrews (by 1851)
• Spooner (by 1867)
• Heywood (well before 1873)
• Tucker (between 1872 and 1876)
• Labadie (by 1883)
• de Cleyre (around 1887)
• Goldman (by 1890s)
• Berkman (after 1887)
• Nock (timing is debatable)
• Sacco and Vanzetti (trial is 1927)
• Rothbard (um, should we take the debate as read?) (around 1949)
• Bookchin (by the 1950s)

The section doesn't say much about when each person started writing, so I'm not sure if my order is accurate in detail. Jacob Haller 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's roughly correct for the anarchist writings. Libertatia 13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added dates mostly based on the articles here. I would also suggest including one entry on the Haymarket martyrs. Jacob Haller 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We should try to cover Dyer D. Lum, C. L. James, and probably Moses Harmon and/or E. C. Walker. Lum and James were everywhere in anarchists circles for a long time. Joshua King Ingalls is also probably essential as an early anarchist land reformer. More concise coverage, with links to individual articles, should make this page most useful. Libertatia 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mississippian indians

As far as I know, Mississippian indians such as the Cherokees did not have a state (traditionally, anyway, i.e before the 1800s.) Law enforcement was done by clan, not state. There was no legislated law. There were peace "chiefs" and war "chiefs" without legislative or ruling power. There was village/local/"commune" autonomy. And so on. Saying that they are statist like the Incas and Aztecs is ridiculous. PhilLiberty 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't keep my reference books on new world archaeology, but we're talking about c. 1000-1500, not c. 1800. Mississipian groups built stockaded cities like Cahokia, Spiro, etc. Jacob Haller 05:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is there something inherently statist about building a stockade or barricade? PhilLiberty 17:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cities, large-scale warfare, elite goods, substantial wealth differentiation, etc. also show up in the archaeological record, and are generally associated with statist societies - states or chiefdoms. I can't source anything without reference works. I suggest leaving it cn for someone else to deal with. Jacob Haller 18:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard, et al. redux redux

my last edit i accidentally posted without a summary, so here it is. jacob haller, i was refering to your last reversion. skomorokh never said anything, so i dont know what youre refering to. your first edit summary i already responded to, so theres not much more to say other than to please stop reverting my edit, and that this section needs a better title. Bob A 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your constant removal of sections has the effect of pushing a very narrow POV. It is no different from the various christian/muslim/jewish/etc sects all editing the main pages of their religions, taking out the sects they think aren't "correct" or the "One True Way^TM". It's a No True Scotsman tactic, and it does not help. In fact, since the discussion has been had a couple times already, your editing has strayed into vandalism territory. --Knight of BAAWA 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

i think perhaps you should read the article on the no true Scotsman fallacy again. anarchism by definition is opposed to private property, while rothbard fully endorses it. chuck0 has already explained at length why rothbard isnt an anarchist. the only reason a bunch of liberals are calling themselves anarchists is that one person, murray rothbard, decided to call his rather authoritarian philosophy "anarchocapitalism". including them in this article would be rather like including kent hovind in an article about american scientists. Bob A 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no one issue that all anarchists agree on, whether it's in regard to private property or anything else. Operation Spooner 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thats not exactly true. all anarchists oppose authority, and private property is one of the main instances of such. but even if you were right, rothbard isnt exactly a marginal case. Bob A 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"There is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." Anarchism. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 31 Operation Spooner 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

as i said, rothbard isnt a marginal case. if were going to use that argument to include liberals, why not to include hitler? Bob A 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe most anarchists oppose private property, I don't know, because I don't know how many anarchists there are of each type. It depends on whether most anarchists are communitarians. But, the individualists support it. Operation Spooner 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

no, they dont, not in the sense that i used the word. tucker doesnt, kevin carson doesnt, and neither does any other individualist anarchist i know of, with the

I'm wondering why you're singling out Rothbard and leaving in people like Spooner. Spooner supported private property. None of the individualists were for common ownership, but for private ownership. That's part of what being an individualist is, i.e. the right to own property as an individual instead of having it taken and communalized. Operation Spooner 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

mainly because he opposed capitalism, so i'm not going to touch him, even if i were convinced that he wasnt an anarchist. note, however, that he never called himself an anarchist. and i already said that none other of the individualists supported property in the sense that i use the word. Bob A 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In what sense did Spooner oppose capitalism? There is not a thing which he opposes having a right to do that Rothbard supports having a right to do. And in what sense then are you referring to private property? Tucker didn't use the term in any special way. Private property is simply whatever is owned but not owned by the state or in common. Whatever a person is buying and selling is private property. They support markets don't they? What is traded in markets? Private property. Operation Spooner 18:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

in the sense that he opposed profit. he wanted a society where everyone was in control of their own means of production. he thought a free market in credit would lead to near zero interest rates, compensating only the labor of the banker. instead of saying whats already been said, however, i think ill direct you here: [9]. Bob A 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He supported free banking, and Rothbard supported free banking. Spooner thought it would cause perpetually low interest rates, Rothbard disagreed. Rothbard simply had a different prediction of what would happen under free banking, because he was actually an economist. Because of that, he's not an anarchist? That makes no sense whatsoever. Operation Spooner 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

no; its because he supported capitalism. and rothbard was a crank as far as economics goes. he was in the school of "austrian" economics, which is about as unscientific as economics gets. Bob A 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

oh, and i believe tucker used the word private property in the traditional sense. in any case, he most certainly didnt support a free market in "whatever is owned but not owned by the state or in common"; he opposed the sort of property that didnt arise from possession. you can call the latter private property if you want, but thats not what the term usually means. Bob A 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about land then. How about all the other things that can be private property? He supported private property in everything else. On land he supported private use. Spooner supported private property in land. No two individualist anarchist have exactly the same ideas. Rothbard is just one more individualist anarchist with his own ideas. Operation Spooner 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

you think rothbard was an individualist anarchist? now its clear you really dont know what youre talking about. go read the article on individualist anarchism. Bob A 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. The very first source listed in this article says, and I quote, ""Individualist, as distinct from socialist, anarchism has been particularly strong in the USA from the time of Josiah Warren (1798-1874) onwards and is expressed today by Murray Rothbard and the school of 'anarcho-capitalists'." Ostergaard, Geoffrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Operation Spooner 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i forgot that that article is bogus too. Bob A 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism, by definition, is simply not wanting a government/rulers at all. Your proposal is the same as someone saying evolution includes wanting to eliminate christianity or that all atheists like Douglas Adams, and then saying that anyone who supports evolution but doesn't want to eliminate christianity, or who is an atheist but doesn't like Douglas Adams, doesn't really support evolution/isn't really an atheist (thus the No True Scotsman reference). You've added more than what the definition truly is. Chuck0 can "explain" whatever he wants, but he too is pushing a very narrow POV. You can feel free to create your own wiki site about anarchism where you don't allow anarchocapitalists or any other "undesirables" you may think are out there. But in here: this is NPOV-land. You don't get to push your narrow view onto everyone else, Bob, nor does Chuck0. As long as the person is against government qua government, the person is an anarchist. Period. And what the person endorses is anarchism. Period. Full stop. End of story. Rothbard called himself an anarchist. Others call him an anarchist. Those are the facts. --Knight of BAAWA 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

more specifically, its not wanting authority. im not adding to the definition at all, and as i explain below this has absolutely nothing to do with pov. and it should be obvious that because a small group of people use a word in a certain sense doesnt mean wikipedia should follow suit. Bob A 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalists are opposed to authority too, if you mean by authority, someone requiring someone else to do what they say. Operation Spooner 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

no they wouldnt, unless you can find one that would say that people can just ignore their bosses and landlords. Bob A 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They are against people forcing others to work for them. That would be slavery. They support a person having freedom of speech, such as asking someone to work for them, but that's as far as it goes. There is the right to say no to such a request. That's not support of "authority" in any meaningful sense. In regard to landlords, if a person is in one of the bedrooms in your house, then of course they support your right to kick him out or ask him to pay rent in exchange for the room. For the intruder to say in the room against your objections is forcing authority on you. To allow someone to have dominion over what is his is not support of "authority," again, in any meaningful sense in regard to anarchism. Operation Spooner 04:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

that only works if you assume capitalist property rights. otherwise tenants have just as much of a right to charge rent of their landlords, and wage slaves to give orders to their bosses, as vice versa. its just the commonsense view that when you can take something away from the person using it, you have power over them, even if not unconditional power. thats what private property means, and even most liberals will admit that. furthermore, what exactly is the difference between the authority of a landlord over a tenant, of a government over a citizen? Bob A 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple: the landlord and tenant have a contract. The citizen and government do not. Further, if I lend you my bicycle and take it back after a few days--do I actually have power over you? No. Knight of BAAWA 04:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

what exactly is the difference between a contract (in that context) and a constitution? Bob A 06:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One has the explicit consent of the individual; the other is force upon the individual. I'll let you figure out which is which. Knight of BAAWA 12:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

citizens "consent" when they choose to become a citizen. whats the difference? Bob A 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the implicit consent argument doesn't work, and you fail to take into account those who are citizens by birth. Still, discussion with you isn't going anywhere. You have your stance, and that's fine. You're welcome to it. Just don't think that you can impose that view upon others, especially since your entire argument for removing the section in question is "the early anarchists were against capitalism, therefore all anarchists must be against capitalism". Seriously: do you have any idea how many fallacies I can list from that? Knight of BAAWA 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

of course the argument doesnt work; the point was that its no different from the argument applied to landlordism. and i ignored the case of citizenship by birth because many people are born into tenantship also. calling what i want "imposing that view upon others" isnt helping anything, and neither is blatantly ignoring my earlier comments and continuing to misrepresent my argument about earlier anarchists as a deductive one. Bob A 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If the tenant charges rent to the owner of the home to live in his own home, then he would be depriving the home owner of the fruits of his labor, in that the home owner is the one that built the home or bought it. The tenant simply walked in. He didn't build the home or buy it it. According to individualist anarchists, what makes something belong to a person is that he built it or bought it (and that's it's not a purchase of stolen goods). That's the origin of private property, and the difference between individualist and communitatarian forms of anarchism. If you deny a right to private property, you are denying the right of an individual to own the fruits of his labor. If you don't think a person has the right to own the fruits of his labor, such as anarcho-communists believe, that's fine. But, believing that is not a requirement of being an anarchist. Operation Spooner 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

it really seems like you dont know what the hell an individualist anarchist is. all individualist anarchists oppose private property. if you still deny it, just name one selfdescribed individualist anarchist who supports private property. anyway, most landlords didnt build the buildings on the land they own, they either had their wage slaves do it, or bought them from another capitalist. and in the case of "homeowners associations", the tenants actually did buy the buildings and land they occupy. and what about the land itself? that certainly wasnt the fruit of their labor. finally, what if a capitalist were able to acquire all the land in a small town (by building the town itself or otherwise) and charge "rent" to the people who live there? what would be the difference between that and a government? Bob A 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's you that doesn't know what an individualist anarchist is. All individualist anarchists that are market anarchists support private property. You can't have a market without private property. There has to be something to trade. When you buy things, you are buying private property. Ownership of the private property is being tranferred to you, and vice versa, whether it's food, cars, a home, a yard, or whatever. That's quite different from anarcho-communists like Kropotkin who say "houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation and money, wages, and trade would be abolished." Operation Spooner 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i think i already pointed out that youre misusing the word private property, that you can have a market without private property, that is, a market in possessions, and that all individualist anarchsts, with the possible exception of spooner, that is, tucker, kevin carson, et al., oppose private property in sense of legal property which isnt possession. if you continue to put forth your uninformed nonsense about "private property" and "individualist anarchism", im going to assume that youre just talking to hear yourself talk. Bob A 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not musing the the term private property at all. If you own something, that's your private property. It's very simple. The only property that is not private property is public property. "A market in possessions" is no different from a" market in property." Your posssessions are you property. Property is a right of ownership that can be transferred. If you're buying and selling thigns, you're buying and selling property. All the individualist anarchists support "legal property." They support law and protection of property. Some of them differ over land though, such as Benjamin Tucker who before he became an egoist was against protection of land if someone wasn't using it. So Tucker support a modified from of private property in land. Other individualist anarchists such as Spooner and Rothbard supported normal property rights in land. Operation Spooner 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And since not wanting authority means no authority at all--taken to the extreme--there would be no "authority" for any language as to what words mean. No sports governing bodies (so no FIFA, no NFL--none of that). No authority at all. In fact, no one would be the authority over his or her individual body. Taken to the extreme. Which is what you seem to be desiring. Further, you seem to be playing the Argumentum ad numerum card. Really: fallacious means of getting your point across will probably not help to convince others of your way. Knight of BAAWA 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

thats a rather different sense of the word authority. and appeal to numbers obviously isnt fallacious in the context of social conventions like language. Bob A 04:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's still authority, and people in those groups have to follow what the FIFA officials, etc. say. Now you're getting into Special pleading. Knight of BAAWA 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

whoops, i didnt read your post carefully enough. my above comment refers mainly to the language part. anyway, yes, actually, i think most anarchists, even individualists, are opposed to professional/commercial sports. as for "authority" over ones body, i think most anarchists would find the question nonsensical in much the same way as the idea of "self-ownership". Bob A 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Even with the language part, you're still wanting some people to be an authority on what words mean, i.e. the early anarchists who were against capitalism. So not only do you have an authority, but you have a narrow POV and Argumentum ad antiquitatem, combined with No True Scotsman for all who do not accept your view. As for the sports, I was speaking in general terms of the rules of the game, and who someone would go to about the rules when they were violated. For if we can do as we please in a game, then there's no such thing as the game. It's just chaos. As for the authority over your body: if you think it's nonsense, then just who is it who is typing all of these messages and signing your name to them! Some Homunculus inside you? Knight of BAAWA 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

when most people speak of authorities on language, they mean authority in a different sense than the anarchist one, as i explain below. otherwise, i dont want an authority on language, e. g., the academie francaise. the claim about appeal to antiquity is too bizare for me to figure out. no true scotsman refers to things like special pleading and moving the goal post, and im doing neither of those, only arguing that the common definition of a term doesnt describe certain phenomena. as for sports, if you were speaking in general terms, then i (mis)understood you correctly and my comment and language applies. as authority over your body, its generally not called for much the same reason that suicide isnt called murder, masturbation isnt called sex, etc.. Bob A 05:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they mean it in the same way for language, for otherwise we cannot have any communication. Each person (and the dictionary in a way) exerts an inter-subjective authority over others in order that we will use words correctly, lest we not be able to communicate with each other if we just do something like snarfle widget purple monkey diswasher. Nor could we have any games. Take Bingo, for example. You obey the bingo-caller and the rules and don't just shout out "BINGO" willy-nilly. The bingo-caller has authority over you, as do, in a way, the people who created the game. You play by the rules. Now if you cannot see how this is the same as with capitalism, then honestly that is something you need to work on. Please take that constructively. Also to be constructively taken is your (tenuous at best) grasp of proper argumentation and identification of fallacies. I can recommend to you several good books or websites on the topic, if you like. I'm being sincere, and I hope you do not think I'm being patronizing. Still, though, I do want to know precisely who is writing all of these messages and signing your name to them if you do not believe you have authority over your body. Knight of BAAWA 05:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i still dont understand why youre conflating three different senses of the word, one of which i dont even consider legitimatea (just to be clear, thats not counting your use of "authority over your body".) even wiktionary agrees with me. this is all irrelevent, tho, since anarchism is only opposed to authority in a certain sense of the word (or a certain kind of authority, if you must). as for "proper" argumentation and identification of fallacies, i dont think its possible to have any truly proper argumentation in a natlang like english, and i doubt my ability to identify fallacies is much worse than yours. in any case, i dispise gratuitous use of latinisms. Bob A 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are valid reasons not to consider Rothbard an anarchist, but:

• While this is long, it is not excessively long. We can tighten prose, but we need very good reasons to remove while sections.
• Wikipedia is built on strict neutrality. I may not consider Rothbard an anarchist - certainly not an orthodox one - but others do, and the article should "state facts, including facts about opinions ... but not the opinions themselves." It's easier to edit from inclusion to balance than from exclusion to balance. So for now we should err on the side of inclusion.
• Rothbard has influenced several undisputed anarchists and transmitted anarchist ideas from earlier anarchists to later ones. Of course so has Marx. I suggest that we should include Rothbard in the article, but not in the lists of anarchists, and include debates, space permitting; and apply the same standard to include others who can help place anarchism and socialism in context. Jacob Haller 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

References say he was an anarchists therefore he should be included in lists of anarchists. Sure, there may be a few people that dispute he was an anarchist. But there's a few people that dispute that many people are anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Kropotkin, and others. Operation Spooner 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, "In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursos of Anarchism, Godwin, Proudhon, and perhaps Hegel. None of these was in fact an Anarchist though Proudhon was first used the word in its moden sense. None of them engaged in Anarchist activity or struggle, indeed Proudhon engaged in parliamentary activity." Albert Metlzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against. So does this mean Proudhon should be eliminated from lists of anarchists? Operation Spooner 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

tucker also disputed that kropotkin was an anarchist. so? Bob A 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So you don't see any parallel here to what you're doing? You're disputing anarchocapitalism, just as Tucker disputed that Kropotkin was an anarchist. Yet both are accepted as anarchists. Knight of BAAWA 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i do, but i reject it. parallels like that prove nothing. Bob A 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. While wanting to maintain some civility here, I must point out your utter disregard for your own intellectual honesty. That you have a beef with capitalism is your own issue. If you cannot see past that, then I would suggest that you not edit any pages about anarchism. Please note that I said "suggest", and not "demand" or anything like that. It's simply in your best interest so that you will avoid POV and 3R problems. Please consider my suggestion. You can, of course, reject it--but then by rejecting it you're exercising authority over yourself, which you don't believe in. Knight of BAAWA 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

*laughs* right, whatever. actually, i do "see past" that i "have a beef" with capitalism. i see that most anarchists, even selfdescribed anarchists, have a beef with capitalism. those are the facts, and in so far as thus, i intend to correct wikipedia pages accordingly in the interest of minimising further ridicule of it. thanks anyway, tho. Bob A 05:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IOW: you're going to impose your POV on everyone. Shall I alert the admins now and have you permanently banned, since you're not going to accept their authority in the first place? Remember: they have power over you here. They have authority here. Knight of BAAWA 06:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

im not even going to respond to that. Bob A 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Those who say that certain people are not anarchists are simply trying to confine anarchists to fit in some tight box, and the claim that anyone who does not fit in that box is not an anarchists. If you define anarchism as one way, then certain people won't fit in that definition. If you define it another way, then they will fit. The truth is anarchism has no solidified or universally accepted definition. Operation Spooner 03:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

maybe not, but for the third time, rothbard isnt a marginal case. Bob A 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

this isnt about neutrality, this is about accuracy. wikipedia should say that rothbard is in anarchist in the sense of the word that "anarchocapicalists" use it, but the sense they use is a wildly nonstandard one. wikipedia should stick to the standard sense of terms, like not including spiders in the class of insects. or, if you want, you can remane the article to "antistatists in the united states", but that would be silly. Bob A 03:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is also anarchism under the definition of anarchism in the Anarchism article: "Anarchism is a group of political philosophies and attitudes which reject compulsory government[1][2] and support its elimination,[3] often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority.[4] Anarchism is "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."[5] The term "anarchism" derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons," "without rulers").[6]" Operation Spooner 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

firstly, the article doesnt say that anarchism is limited to opposition to government. secondly, antistate liberals dont even opose government, only the state, that is, monopoly government. the whole theory is built around having competing governments. Bob A 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not "about accuracy" but verifiability. Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" [10] So it doesn't matter whether it's true or not that Rothbard was an anarchist. Operation Spooner 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i was trying to refer to terminalogical accuracy, like in the example i gave. Bob A 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And "wildly nonstandard" definition according to whom? Knight of BAAWA 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

just about everyone at the time. Bob A 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee...you'll have to provide a little more than that, especially to avoid Argumentum ad numerum. And aren't you claiming that those people had some "authority" to make the determination about what the word means, and that everyone has to follow their decision? Knight of BAAWA 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

this is pretty much the same as the comment above to which i responded. Bob A 04:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And it still invokes Special pleading Knight of BAAWA 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ugh. ok, let me explain. if youre referring to the "authority" of a dictionary to define a word, i would say that thats a different sense of the word, like in "einstein was a respected authority in physics". if you mean the "authority" of society to define words, i wouldnt call that authority, but rather ability, or something like that. neither of those is special pleading. Bob A 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know what you're trying to get at, but you want ALL authority gone. Period. None existing. No common definitions of terms in an easy-to-access book such that people will accept the terms. No accepted spellings, similarly. No obeying rules for such things as chess or checkers, because obeying them is obeying an authority. The upshot is: you have to be consistent, and you're just not. Knight of BAAWA 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

if i have to state the obvious, anarchism isnt about opposing everything called "authority", only everything that a certain sense of the word applies to. Bob A 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You said it's about not wanting authority. I'm simply seeing if you're consistent, and if you understand that authority isn't what you narrowly define it as. Knight of BAAWA 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

definitions are narrow by definition. seriously, is it so hard to understand that the word has multiple sense? do have to link to the article on polysemy? Bob A 05:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, words can and do have multiple senses. However, when it's clear that one is being cherry-picked in order to further a very narrow agenda, I will question it. Knight of BAAWA 06:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

you mean like "anarcho"-capitalists do? Bob A 06:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But they don't, actually. It's like how some people want atheism to solely be the denial that there is any god, when in the proper wider sense it's simply not having the belief that there is a god or gods. The former is a subset of the latter, just as those anarchists who are against capitalism are a subset of anarchism proper. I do hope you understand. Knight of BAAWA 12:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

again, theres just no analogy. the fact is that a bunch of liberals want to hijack the term anarchism, and its quite offensive. Bob A 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, what you're doing is attempting to add more to the definition than is proper, and THAT is offensive. My analogies were dead-on correct. So please: don't attempt to impose your view upon a word that does not mean what you want it to mean. There is absolutely NOTHING within the etymological roots of the word "anarchism" to mean "against capitalism". Knight of BAAWA 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

excuse me? a bunch of authoritarian nuts start calling themselves anarchists and me pointing out that theyre not is offensive? theres nothing improper about my definition. also, arguing about which analogies are correct is pointless. if you dont think "anarchism" doesnt etymologically include opposition to capitalism, then you have a poor grasp of the greek language. Bob A 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It means "without rulers/chiefs". Now then: I'm done with you. POV-push all you want, but it will be reverted. It's as simple as that. Enjoy your rage against whatever it is you're raging against. Knight of BAAWA 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

and "anarcho"-capitalists arent opposed rulers/chiefs in the greek sense of the word. if you intend to revert my edits after i gave a reliable source without explanation, then youre merely what they would call a vandal (and what you would call a pov-pusher). Bob A 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Should atheists have to live with someone wanting to revert to atheism meaning "wicked" or "evil", as it used to mean? Knight of BAAWA 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

of course not. same for anarchists. your point? Bob A 05:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My point clearly is somewhere above your head. I don't think people here are going to get anywhere with you. Knight of BAAWA 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

then let me guess. your point was that i was using an archaic definition? in that case, i deny it; i was merely arguing that the "anarchocapitalist" definition of "anarchism" is totally nonstandard and not accepted by most anarchists, and merely using the fact that that sense didnt exist 50 (?) years ago as evidence of that. Bob A 05:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again: totally nonstandard according to whom? By whose authority is it nonstandard? We're right back where we began! Second verse, same as the first. Knight of BAAWA 06:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i already said: most anarchists, and also most people familiar with anarchism. i think chuck0 already went thru this. Bob A 06:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoted for truth

Actually, Wikipedia is not "about accuracy" but verifiability. Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" [9] So it doesn't matter whether it's true or not that Rothbard was an anarchist. Operation Spooner 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of editor's opinions on which factions they personally feel like excluding, it is a question of reliable sources. If you want to know the state of play on that count, please view the reference in the Anarchism article created to specifically address this concern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#_ref-ancapism_0 Skomorokh ^incite 09:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i think chuck0 already settled this, but heres one reliable source i can think of: [11] Bob A 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQ? How is that a reliable source? And if it were, that doesn't remove the fact that reliable sources say Rothbard is an anarchist. The criteria above is for "inclusion," not exclusion. Operation Spooner 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

it was written and peerreviewed by a large number of anarchists around the world. how is it not a reliable source? sources that call rothbard an anarchist are generally in the minority and not as reliable. i could probably find a bunch of sources that call creationism scientific, but it just isnt. Bob A 19:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources that say Rothbard are not an anarchist are few and far between, and come from a polemical pro-collectivism standpoint, like the Anarchist FAQ. There's voluminous sources saying he was an anarchist. Operation Spooner 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-comunist Albert Metlzer says in Anarchism: Arguments for and Against "In particular, we may cite three philosophical precursos of Anarchism, Godwin, Proudhon, and perhaps Hegel. None of these was in fact an Anarchist though Proudhon was first used the word in its moden sense. None of them engaged in Anarchist activity or struggle, indeed Proudhon engaged in parliamentary activity." (He also says that individualist anarchists are not true anarchists). Does that mean Proudhon shouldn't be listed as an anarchist? Operation Spooner 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget it; it looks like he's just here to POV-push. I mentioned something similar to him regarding Tucker disputing Kropotkin as an anarchist, and he just shrugged it off, saying that parallels prove nothing. I think we should just end this. Knight of BAAWA 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i already explained that this has nothing to do with pov, and even if it did, calling what im doing "pov-pushing" doesnt do anything other than insult me. Bob A 21:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

knight of baawa already brought that up above. Bob A 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

De Cleyre's "school"

While it is true that Voltairine de Cleyre identified herself, during an important part of her life, an "anarchist without anarchists," she was also, at other times, an ardent individualist anarchist, what we would now call a "social anarchist," and a proponent of the particular variety of "mutualism" promoted by Dyer D. Lum. We should be careful not to misrepresent the range of her affiliations at various points in her career. Libertatia 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this, Murray Bookchin's article claims he renounced anarchism - does he still merit inclusion? If so should we, per Libertatia, be careful not to misrepresent the range of his affiliations? Skomorokh ^incite 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism in Colonial times

Rothbard apparently did some research into individualist anarchism during the colonial period. He published an article about it in the Winter 1970 volume of Libertarian Analysis, and it can be viewed here. I don't see any sources listed in order to be able to fact-check for verifiability. However, I'm wondering what of the article--if anything--could be used as a source for a new section. Knight of BAAWA 19:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

rothbard an individualist anarchist

rothbard was not, and has never been generally considered to be an "individualist anarchist". except for perhaps a handful of people such as wendy mcelroy, no one, not even "anarcho"-capitalists, has ever called him an individualist anarchist. even rothbard himself denied being an individualist anarchist in his essay "the spooner-tucker doctrine: an economist's view" ([12]) ("i am, therefore, strongly tempted to call myself an "individualist anarchist," except for the fact that spooner and tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine i have certain differences.") im surprised im even having to explain this. Bob A 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

IOW: Rothbard would have liked to have taken the appellation but for it already haven been taken. So he *is* an individualist anarchist, just not of the type that Spooner and Tucker were. Further, as I pointed out on Talk:Anarchism, Rothbard continues "Politically, these differences are minor, and therefore the system I advocate is very close to theirs; but economically, the differences are substantial, and this means that my view of the consequences of putting our more or less common system into practice is very far from theirs." Knight of BAAWA 02:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Other anarchists, such as Warren, Tolstory, and Godwin chose not to call themselves anarchists as well, Tolstoy and Godwin explicitly rejected the term. But, references still say they were anarchists so they're included in Wikipedia articles as anarchists. As strange as it sounds, Rothbard isn't at liberty to decide whether he's an individualist anarchist, but to scholars, in accordance with their own definitions of individualist anarchism. Today individualist anarchism simply means an anarchist philosophy that is individualist. No one can deny that Rothbard's doctrines were individualist. They were extremely individualist. Therefore, his anarchism is of an individualist character, which is all that "individualist anarchism" means. People with vary diverse philosophies are under the umbrella of individualist anarchism, ranging from Godwin to Max Stirner, to Thoreau, to Rothbard, to David D. Friedman. Individualist anarchists are simply anarchists who are individualists. Individualist anarchism is not a specific doctrine but a category for a set of doctrines. Perhaps Tucker and Spooner had monopolized the term "individualist anarchism" at that time. But, that's not the case anymore and hasn't been for many years. Operation Spooner 03:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

im giving up on this article. i try to have a life, and fighting a war of attrition on english wikipedia just distracts from that too much. and by the way, i no longer believe that user knight of baawa is acting in good faith. Bob A 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Enjoy working on other articles. Knight of BAAWA 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Murray Rothbard.JPG

Image:Murray Rothbard.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet At Work

I've been informed that Operation Spooner is a sockpuppet for infamous user RJ11, who was banned by Wikipedia last year for trolling Wikipedia using a half dozen aliases. This sockpuppet has an obsession with Murray Rothbard and created numerous headaches last year with his disruption of this web page. I'm no longer an active Wikipedia editor, so people can take action in any way they see fit. It might be worthwhile to keep an eye on this user and report their behavior to the Wikipedia core group of editors. Chuck0 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm chalking this up to Chuckie's irrational hatred of anarchocapitalism. Go rage against reality, Chuck. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just relating what somebody pointed out to me. The behavior fits. I have no irrational hatred of something which is an obvious oxymoron. Any anarchist can point out that "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Chuck0 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's really nice, chuckie, but that game has been played before. You oxymoron anti-capitalist anarchists always lose, as any anarchist can point out that anarchy requires capitalism (see how I can mock you?). At any rate: you didn't even check out the claim, did you? You just blindly repeated it because of your irrational hatred of anarchocapitalism. So save your fingers and save face: don't repeat claims which you haven't verified and for which there exists 0 evidence. This page isn't even the place for it, and you know it. Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)